Op-Ed
On Black Hipsters
Educate Your Guesses
September 6, 2007 - 12:00amFact of life: white kids don’t talk about race in a public forum. Sure, we spill our guts on the subject when we’re among friends, even friends of other races. On the rare occasion that white kids do opt to engage the issue in a newspaper column or among strangers, they tend to guard against criticism by taking a radical stance, concluding that white racism is the root of everything from the Iraq war to erectile dysfunction. But generally we have an absolute lack of sustained, interracial discourse on a subject that is as complex as it is unavoidable.
This lack of public conversation creates a situation that a conservative extremist would proscribe for approaching the issue of race. The conservative argument goes that racism is merely a factor of our own racial consciousness, and that if we ignore the entire issue of race, its harmful manifestations will simply dissipate. This is the case against racial considerations in congressional districting, and Chief Justice Roberts’ justification for the anti-affirmative action decision upheld by the Supreme Court this June. This school of thought is reminiscent of an understanding of racial injustice so elementary that it no longer explains the major vestiges of racism in today’s world. In truth, the dominant sources of racial inequality are structural, not a result of our tendency to categorize people by race so much as our unwillingness to recognize that our society actually is divided along racial cleavages.
Consider the racial gap in incarceration rates. As you may be aware, a black male born in the 1980’s has about a one in three chance of being convicted by a jury and spending time in prison, whereas a white male born in the same year has about a one in 20 chance of doing the same. Only a small degree (about 5 percent) of the disparity can be explained by racism in a conventional sense — that police are slightly more likely to stop a black man than a white one, and that a jury is slightly more likely to convict a black man than a white one under the same circumstances. The bulk of the racial gap in incarceration is only explained by the intricate processes of background, socialization and economics … that a black adolescent is more likely to have grown up in a neighborhood graced by high crime rates, to have gone to school in a decrepit district and to view the drug trade as a legitimate path to social mobility. None of what I’ve said so far should really be that controversial — the point is that the structural roots of racial inequality in today’s society will not be mitigated if we simply ignore race as a real political force.
The reason, then, that white kids don’t talk about race? It’s because they’re afraid they’ll mess up and say something that’s perceived to be racist. Moreover, because white kids aren’t used to talking about race in front of a mixed audience, they are indeed more likely to say something stupid on the subject. White kids don’t deserve all the blame for perpetuating this taboo though; the most benign comments on the subject are sometimes received with excessive combativeness, not so much because of their substance but because white kids are not perceived as having legitimacy engaging the issue. If the social disincentives of approaching “race” remain far stronger than the average white kid’s interest in the issue, why take the risk? Instead, white kids retreat into topics that are safe for them, like Cornell parties, cigarette smoking and sometimes international relations. Sorry — I’m sure I’ll write a column about Israel and Palestine at some point, but at the moment my chosen focus group is black hipsters. Better to risk saying something wrong than not talk about race at all.
As mentioned in my last column, D.C. is a city of black hipsters. This is rather enigmatic, as those who dress in straight-leg jeans, plaid shirts with snaps and for whom skateboarding has somehow become the preferred mode of transportation, tend to be overwhelmingly white in any other city. Although I don’t profess to be able to fully explain the forces governing all of this, I’ll suggest three possible causes:
-Racial relations seem to be less tense in D.C. than they are in cities like Chicago, Cleveland and New York. There appears to be far more interracial dating, less geographic segregation (in part only a function of the sporadic pattern gentrification takes) and more interracial discourse in general. This leads to more social and stylistic cross-germination, the end result being black hipsters.
-D.C. has virtually no indigenous white population. Not only does D.C. vie for “blackest city,” but the population of 25-29 year olds is nearly twice its population of 10-14 year olds. This is mainly because so many highly educated kids interested in electoral politics (read: white suburban kids) end up moving there after college. What this means is that D.C.’s white population is made of the type of person whose social life in undergrad revolved around campus politics and Zogby polls. As this population is decidedly not-urban and not-stylish, the image of hipster is no longer closely linked to whiteness in D.C. Hipsterism almost becomes a legitimate means for black kids to convey racial difference from the white community (like different black and Latino styles do in New York), and stores like American Apparel become legitimate places for black kids to buy clothes.
-Hipsters are never as poor as they would like to seem; I think it’s a safe guess that the economic spread within which virtually all hipsters fall ranges from middle to upper-middle class. Although D.C. has a very great number of poor black citizens, it also has a noticeably established black middle class. This may be because the black middle class is employed in or otherwise linked to the public sphere at higher rates than the white middle class, and so much of the public sphere is located in D.C. Additionally, for reasons of historical embeddedness and cultural significance, the black middle class is less likely to move out to the suburbs than the white middle class. The end result is a larger proportion of black middle class youth in D.C. than in other cities. Whereas the New York middle class is white and hipster (or Asian and hipster), the D.C. middle class is black and hipster.
Even though these issues are intimately connected to matters of race, class and socio-spatial segregation, it’s probably true that the specific topic of black hipsters isn’t all that central to the aforementioned structural racism that white kids need to start talking about. Consider it an icebreaker.
Tim Krueger is a senior in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at tkrueger@cornellsun.com. Educating Your Guesses appears alternate Thursdays.

this deserves a point-by-point refutation
Why do white kids not talk about race in public? Maybe because columns full of unattributed nonsense turn them off to the potential for ridicule.
Mr. Krueger's vantage point seems to be the very domains of hipsterdom he claims to know about, but they hardly represent the city of Washington as a whole.
"Racial relations seem to be less tense in D.C."
Have you ever been to D.C.? Racial relations may be less tense in hipster areas like Columbia Heights, U St. and Shaw, but that's only because there isn't much racial diversity there to speak of (anymore). Walk around at night in Anacostia or Benning Rd. and we'll see how "tense" things can get for a white kid like you.
"There appears to be far more interracial dating, less geographic segregation (in part only a function of the sporadic pattern gentrification takes) and more interracial discourse in general."
The District is notorious for its geographic segregation. Who's on the Metrobuses going south and east at night? Not you. As for dating, who's breaking the color barrier? Transients not originally from the city, or people from the suburbs who say they're from Washington.
"D.C. has virtually no indigenous white population."
Upper Northwest. Tenleytown. Cleveland Park. Friendship Heights. Georgetown.
"Although D.C. has a very great number of poor black citizens, it also has a noticeably established black middle class."
This is less and less true. Most middle-class black families who can afford it move to Prince George's County, Md., the most affluent black community in the nation and a suburb of Washington. Why? Because of the public schools.
"Additionally, for reasons of historical embeddedness and cultural significance, the black middle class is less likely to move out to the suburbs than the white middle class."
See above. Maybe you're just not looking at the right suburbs.
"Hipsterism almost becomes a legitimate means for black kids to convey racial difference from the white community (like different black and Latino styles do in New York), and stores like American Apparel become legitimate places for black kids to buy clothes."
This is the most interesting part of the column, because there's some real truth here. But it's embedded in a contradiction: hipsterdom transcends race. It's a phenomenon of upper-middle-class 20- 30-somethings of all backgrounds who share a certain ironic, self-conscious (and now cliched) worldview. It should be no surprise that there are black hipsters; The New York Times noticed this trend (probably several years too late) some months ago, and not in Washington.
The real change you're noticing is that in D.C., black culture is absorbing elements of mainstream culture. Skateboarding is a prime example, but so are SpongeBob SquarePants, brightly colored hipster clothes, iPods and superhero backpacks. What this means is that it's getting harder to clearly delineate "mainstream" and "black" culture. But that shouldn't be a surprise either, since both have been borrowing from each other and remixing various cultural strains for generations. Some of the trends above are also evident in Baltimore, where some of the qualities peculiar to Washington don't come into play.
And to go back to the beginning:
"The conservative argument goes that racism is merely a factor of our own racial consciousness, and that if we ignore the entire issue of race, its harmful manifestations will simply dissipate."
At a time when some of the most prominent liberal commentators who originally defended affirmative action against the backlash in the '90s are starting to have second thoughts (David Hollinger, with battle scars from Proposition 109; Stanley Fish; even Obama is making baby steps to change the focus from race to class) and even a racially motivated stabbing on Cornell's campus can't galvanize more than 5 students to show up to campus-organized meetings, I think it's fair to say that the old race-centered approach is on the way out.
The question to you: Without denying that racism exists or that structural problems persist, why continue to insist that Band-Aids like affirmative action are the solution, when their side effects include the fact that people white & black continue to be unable to address issues of race publicly and honestly?