The Changing Face of America

At last week’s annual conference of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People, a fundamental question loomed over the proceedings. In this era of efforts to eliminate affirmative action, of court challenges to minority voting districts and of urban schools that are nearly as segregated as they were before the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed segregation, is racial integration still the most important goal of the civil-rights organization? Indeed, what is the meaning of integration in the context of a declining black population and steadily rising numbers of Latinos and Asians?

As if acknowledging the sensitivity of the debate, Myrlie Evers-Williams, the chair of the NAACP, reportedly ad-libbed over prepared comments in her opening statement that strongly contended that the NAACP should recommit itself to school integration. But no matter what is decided at the conference, the genie has been let out of the bottle. Because lurking behind the debate over school busing and the benefits of school integration is a growing sentiment in black communities that racial integration may not be a worthy or desirable goal.

The meaning of racial integration is certainly being challenged by changing demographics. Currently, the U.S. population is 73.6% white, 12% black, 10.2% Latino and 3.3% Asian. However, by the year 2050, according to Census Bureau projections, America will be 52.8% white, 24.5% Latino, 13.6% black and 8.2% Asian. African Americans will be displaced by Latinos as the largest minority group if Latino and black birth rates remained unchanged.

Yet, despite these numbers, current as well as projected, too many political and community leaders appear to be in denial, still addressing issues of “race” from a strictly black-white perspective. President Bill Clinton’s seven-person advisory panel on race seems equally locked into such a black and white analysis of the nation’s racial difficulties, though panel member Angela Oh stressed last week during the board’s first meeting that multiracialism is where the country is headed “whether we like it or not.”

The demographic shifts in Los Angeles certainly bear out her point. Now 43.5% Latino, 35.1% white, 9.9% black and 11.4% Asian, Los Angeles County, by the year 2040, will be 69.1% Latino, 13.8% white, 6% black and 10.9% Asian. Cities like Washington, Houston and Miami are experiencing similar population changes as more and more Latinos and other immigrant groups put down roots. In Chicago, the increase in the Latino population matches the decrease in whites. Between 1970 and 1990, the number of Latinos grew by more than 116%. Today, Latinos make up 18% of Chicago’s population, blacks 36% and whites 42%.

In Los Angeles as well as in these other cities, African Americans will reluctantly--and grudgingly--give up their current political leverage and positions, elective and appointive, as their numbers dwindle relative to other racial groups. Today, two of the three sitting African American L.A. City Council members preside over districts that are majority Latino. Sometime early next century, they may have only one seat. Clearly, black political power and influence, particularly in U.S. cities, must be re-conceptualized in the context of an America that is far more diverse than white and black people. What then does racial integration mean in the context of an American population in flux?

Integration was once considered a truly radical idea. Civil rights leaders Martin Luther King Jr., Robert Moses, Ella Baker and A. Phillip Randolph all believed that it was possible to create a truly interracial democracy, a truly integrated society. Not a homogenized society, as critics of integration like to say, but a society that lays down the burden of race and treats all people as human beings, without regard to the color of their skin.

Today, however, that vision of an integrated society is tattered and torn, viewed by many black Americans as weak and undesirable. Last year, August Wilson, one of America’s most celebrated playwrights and a black man, told an audience at Princeton University that black playwrights need to create works exclusively for black audiences and denounced the casting of black actors in “white” plays. Then there was a recent TV news report on a suburban Chicago neighborhood, in which middle-class black families had “tipped” the racial balance. White homeowners were fleeing “integration” as fast as they could make a down payment on a new house and load up the moving van. The reasons they gave for fleeing, interviews showed, were embarrassingly similar to those heard in the 1960s--fear of crime, downward spiraling schools and decreasing property values. The local sheriff, the high school principal and local real estate businesses all said such reasons were unfounded.

The shifts in the racial mix of U.S. cities, with the percentage of African Americans falling, and growing black skepticism toward the value of integration undercut traditional notions of “integration” and “assimilation.” In the ‘60s, “integration” meant inclusion in an America largely defined by European Americans. Today, integration must mean inclusion, involvement and participation in a nation that has evolved far beyond the black-white paradigm.

While it is not the sole responsibility of black people to heal America’s racial dilemmas, they will have to make adjustments to accommodate the new urban demographics. Black Americans will have to participate in reviving political coalitions--and, when necessary, help form new ones--to ensure that their issues and interests remain on the nation’s political agenda. Black political leaders will need to represent not just a black political agenda, but a fresh, progressive brand of politics that is all-encompassing and places “identity interests” within the context of the overall civic good. For any of this to happen, more African Americans must stand up and reject those voices of bias and bigotry who describe Spanish-speaking or Asian immigrants as interlopers in “their” communities.

This will not come easily. Many African Americans fearful of falling off the political radar screen are leaning toward, if not embracing, separatism as a way to protect and build upon African American gains. Dr. King and other civil rights leaders early recognized the folly of this approach, because “all humanity is tied together in a single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality.” Equally important, after more than 300 years of the American experience, black people can stand and claim, without reservation, their “Americanness.” Separatism argues the unthinkable--that black people should turn their backs to the contributions they have made to the American nation.

The voices of separatism can be heard in the background of the current school-integration debate within the NAACP, especially when references are made to “their schools” and “our schools.” The failure of busing as a way to integrate schools and improve minorities’ academic performance has bolstered such talk. Too often integration is a one-way transit of black and brown kids to schools far from their neighborhoods.

The attraction of separatism will only diminish when people are able to see that their common interests flow from sharing power, space and resources. Further balkanization is not a solution, no matter how ineffective our current policies are. Leadership must assert that the ghettoization of any people--white, black, or brown--does not contribute to the social health of the nation.

As the most racially and ethnically diverse city in the nation, Los Angeles can show the way. It is the place where new models of racial rapprochement will most likely be crafted. This may be L.A.’s responsibility to the rest of the country, since the future of other cities is Los Angeles today. Schools will have a special role to play in the construction of these new models. Top be sure, the push for greater economic opportunity and tougher enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in housing must continue. But it is the schools that must bear the greatest burden in preparing children for the realities of an incredibly complex and racially diverse society. What’s needed is a multiracial vision, forged at the grass-roots level, wedded to a political agenda of social change that makes all people feel as if they are a stakeholder in their communities’ future.

Politicians have a role in all this. L.A.’s changing face has already sparked racialized turf battles. As Latinos and Asians grow in political strength and influence, sometimes at the expense of blacks, prospects for uglier and more divisive fights are ever greater. To avoid such a destructive outcome, politicians must recognize that the people they represent are brown and black and white and yellow families who want a better education for their children, safer streets and good jobs. Realizing those goals means building alliances that subordinate racial or ethnic agendas for the common good.

Integration as a strategy to end white supremacy in the economic, political and social life of the nation is no longer critical to efforts aimed at making sense of the largely urbanized and increasingly multiracial realities of America. The NAACP’s internal debate over integration has raised the tough questions and forced us to begin to look with clear eyes at what works and what doesn’t.

But what comes next? While civil rights forces may be at a crossroads, maybe America stands there, too. The old paradigms need to be challenged. Our old ideas about “race” need remaking. Now’s a chance for exciting breakthroughs--if we are bold enough to reach for the ring.