Just three years after the passage of the federal income tax, Congress enacted the federal estate tax. Instrumental in its passage were Sen. Furnifold Simmons (D-NC) and Rep. Claude Kitchin (D-NC). Both had represented the Second Congressional District, known as the Black Second. Both orchestrated the infamous 1898 election that effectively ended Black voting in North Carolina for sixty years. One cannot ignore this connection.

Amidst the Great Depression, Congress reprised the federal gift tax and stiffened the estate tax in a desperate search for tax revenues. Over the next forty years, the two taxes functioned relatively effectively at taxing intergenerational wealth transfers, raising revenue, and limiting the concentration of wealth. Although loopholes remained unchecked, the top tax rate stayed at 70 percent for decades.

Over the past half century, one that accords with the post-Civil Rights period, Congress has continually and relentless dismantled the wealth transfer tax system. Since 1976, real household wealth has tripled while the rate of filers, real taxable estates, and real collected taxes have all declined.

This dismantling will assure that more of the wealth received from the past will get transferred to advantage mostly Whites in the future, thereby cementing White supremacy.

Sometime in 2021, the US economy became capable of making every American household a millionaire if wealth is spread equally. Of course, it is not. Indeed, it is one of the most unequally divided economies in the world. Whereas the typical Black household earns 60 percent of what Whites make, Blacks typically hold less than 10 percent of the wealth of Whites.

The tight link between wealth and race that is exhibited in the current racial wealth gap is simply the reflection of our nation’s history. From the earliest beginnings through constitutional protections of chattel slavery, disparate land policies, support of legalized segregation, and redlining, federal policies have created and cemented the link between wealth and race.

For many reasons, White Americans fail to acknowledge the yawning gulf that is the modern racial wealth gap. This failure along with the innate power that personal wealth brings creates a system that meets the requirements of Wilkerson’s caste system as well as offering a case study in stratification economics.

Six tax expenditures can trace their existence to the enactment of the federal income tax. Swept into office after nearly a half century of Republican control, Democrats moved quickly to enact a tax on incomes. Tasked to write a draft law, Rep. Cordell Hull (D-TN) wrote a fifteen-page bill that experienced modest resistance and was largely adopted. Simultaneously, the Wilson Administration was moving to segregate the federal bureaucracy as lynchings and Confederate monument building reached their apex across the country.

While all the tax expenditures clearly favored the wealthy, almost all were enacted for other equally persuasive reasons. Life insurance benefits and charitable giving were given preferential treatment as they would limit demands on public services. Preferences given to state and local bond income as well as state and local tax payments were made in deference to constitutional concerns.

Over time, these tax expenditures have taken on increased value and generated powerful allies. Attempts to close the estate step up in basis exclusion and later the exclusion on capital gains were quickly rescinded.

Most of the changes over the past half century of supposed racial reconciliation has been to make these expenditures more valuable to wealthy, mostly White households.

The ultimate cause of the American Civil War was White supremacy, not simply slavery. That prejudice brought on war and also affected the treatment of prisoners of war and the consequences of Southern surrender. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation and the incorporation of Blacks into the Union army infuriated the Confederates and doomed the traditional practices of the cartels. When Black troops were recruited, Confederates refused to exchange captured Black soldiers, deeming them to be escaped slaves. The North responded by ending exchange and parole altogether. Now prisoners on both sides endured long-term confinement in prisoner of war camps, a practice that became the rule in Western warfare. The surrender of the Confederacy came through the surrender of its individual armies because the state was inoperative. But, although the conventional war ended in 1865, the fighting did not cease. Surrender transformed the conventional conflict into White supremacist terrorism and insurgency during Reconstruction, 1865–77. Ultimately, the will of the federal government and the Northern population tired of trying to establish racial equality in the South, and the occupation of the South ended. In an important sense, the South ultimately won by preserving White supremacy in its government, society, and culture.

On August 22, 2017, Judge Tashima issued a blistering ruling finding that state representatives created the law and banned MAS based upon racial animus and partisan political gain in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Mexican American students in TUSD. There was a massive local and national uproar, celebrating the end of this racist law. Though different Tucson factions claimed shared victory due to the ruling, persistent community divisions remained. This chapter details the post-ruling celebrations, the continued community divisions, a summary of where the key actors in this drama ended up, the current state of MAS in TUSD, and the national Ethnic Studies renaissance that the Tucson struggle spawned. Of equal importance, this chapter details how the lessons of the MAS controversy can help inform the work of those challenging Critical Race Theory bans throughout the country.

White extremism has been a rising trend in North American and European countries over the past two decades. Despite the systemically engrained privileged status of people who identify as white in US society, one of the causes of white extremism is a perceived threat of being sidelined/disadvantaged by individuals with non-white identities. For example, the mainstreaming of the great replacement theory among right-wing media outlets and politicians demonstrates this perception. We examine this perception, and white extremism rhetoric and radicalization broadly, within the context of social exclusion at both the individual and systemic levels. We further embed this analysis within theories and research focused on concepts of “the self,” social identity, and related psychological needs usually impacted by social exclusion. We recommend researchers and practitioners interested in extremism and radicalization to intentionally consider self-related theories and constructs going forward.

Analyzing major and lesser-known utopian and dystopian literature from 1945-present, we define white supremacy as both a regime of exploitation and violence by people of European descent upon others deemed to be outside of whiteness and a process of centering whiteness. We look at the relationship between white supremacy and American culture from the period through two main trends. The first asserts white supremacy in either a default form assuming the centrality of whiteness or an explicit form that calls for white supremacist revolution. Texts here range from Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 to Heinlein’s Farnham’s Freehold to McCarthy’s The Road to the notorious Turner Diaries. The second trend directly challenges white supremacy, including some notable texts such as Butler’s Parable series to a flood of post-Black Lives Matter works such as Ruff’s Lovecraft Country to Coates’s Between the World and Me to short works by adrienne maree brown and others.

Black youth who attend school in non-Black spaces do not always feel welcomed or comfortable, and they regularly experience everyday racism that is interpersonal and institutional. Young Black changemakers use multiple strategies to resist racism. Resistance involved creating safe spaces in schools they could claim as their own, holding administrators accountable, and raising awareness of Black culture and experiences. Black youth noted the importance of authentic allies in non-Black spaces, and also shared the burdens that arise from the emotional labor of being in non-Black spaces and engaging in racial justice work.

This chapter critiques Western and scientific philanthropy scholarly understanding of the nonprofit sector. It argues that this narrow analysis of nonprofits limits our understanding of Muslim prosocial behaviors that are less dominant in the academic literature. By examining the tenets and roots of Muslim prosocial action, we see how this specific view of social good has been limited in the broader conversation, which in turn has limited our understanding of the nonprofit sector across the world. The chapter also explores Muslim prosocial action by examining its theological and cultural sources to create a broader conception of giving behavior within an Islamic context, and discusses the challenges associated with strict adherence to the Western definition of the nonprofit sector for scholars who want to include Muslim perspectives and charitable acts. Ultimately, it suggests a framework that nonprofit-sector scholars can use to move beyond Western-centric definitions of prosocial action to include other cultural and faith perspectives. This approach treats Muslim prosocial action as a practice-oriented religious tradition.

Chapter 10 engages the global and historical attributes of lynching and situates the practice within a North American environment of anti-Black terror. This chapter links national lawmakers who advocated for White supremacy to the increase and severity of violence against Black individuals (and others), surveying how violence and the construction of race served to create and uphold relationships of power and economy in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s. It centers on Congressional discussions in the Reconstruction era and the brutal death of Lee Walker, a Black man, at the hands of a White mob in 1893. The creation of a new racial order, one that harkened to earlier forms of racial intimidation, was intricately connected to work. Violence ensured that the linkages between low-status labor, poverty, and skin color remained unbroken.

This chapter recovers the voices of marginalised US communities – Native, Jewish, and African Americans – bringing out of oblivion their Tercentenary contributions. It asks whether underprivileged racial and ethnic groups accepted the alleged superiority of the ‘Anglo-Saxon’ cultural heritage, and whether, by appropriating Shakespeare, they attempted to become part of that heritage or to challenge its exclusivity. It demonstrates that 1916 America was torn between competing impulses of assimilation and diversity. The white majority held out ostensibly universal cultural standards to which all should aspire, while believing that they were unattainable to some groups. The minorities faced the irreconcilable demands of trying to conform to these standards at the cost of renouncing their distinct identity, while sensing that white supremacists would never accept them as equal no matter what they did. The Tercentenary celebrations registered these tensions and allowed the members of American minorities to produce hybrid Shakespearean appropriations, which accommodated a far-reaching critique of dominant ideology. They helped them to express their distinctive identities, while highlighting the entrenched inequality that they endured.

Socrates identified hubris as the principal obstacle to wisdom and knew that most people will not listen to reason until they are taken down a few notches. Martin Luther King similarly knew that Southern white leaders would not negotiate in good faith until their racial hubris was challenged. Socratic questioning created a personal crisis, that is, a teachable moment, for those subjected to it; King’s protests created a political crisis and a teachable moment in those Southern towns subjected to it. Martin Luther King is well known for his stirring denunciations of American racism, militarism, and poverty; King is less well known for his denunciations of the complacency of the Christian church in America, both Black and white. Yet King’s prophetic witness led to his persecution by political leaders as well as his excommunication from his own Black Baptist Church convention. Americans like to think of their country as the promised land, but for many of its Black citizens, the American experience has been more like bondage in Egypt than freedom in Canaan. In King’s prophetic vision, America will be redeemed by the suffering of its Black citizens, especially in the South. Like Moses, King hoped to liberate his people from bondage; and like Jesus, King would liberate his people not by conquest but by redemptive suffering.

1 Introduction

 1.1 Defining Cyber Racism

 1.2 New Terms in Research on Cyber Racism

2 Themes in the Early Research on Cyber Racism

3 Where We Are Now in the Field of Cyber Racism – Current Themes

 3.1 Cyber Racism as Intragroup Communication

  3.1.1 Online White Supremacist Communities

 3.2 Cyber Racism as Intergroup Communication

  3.2.1 How Do Opposing Camps (Racists and Anti-Racists) Engage with Each Other in Online Debates?

  3.2.2 Effects of Cyber Racism as Intergroup Communication: Ideological Polarisation

 3.3 Experiences of Cyber Racism: Research from the Perspective of the Targets

4 Newly Emerging Themes: Racist Narratives about COVID 19

5 The State: Governments and the Regulation of Cyber Racism

6 Future Directions and Conclusion

This volume, part of the Feminist Judgment Series, shows how feminist legal theory along with critical race theory and intersectional modes of critique might transform immigration law. Here, a diverse collection of scholars and lawyers bring critical feminist, race and intersectional insights to Supreme Court opinions that deal with the source of the power to regulate immigration, state and local regulation of immigration, citizenship law, racial discrimination, employment law, access to public education, the rights of criminal defendants, the detention of noncitizens, and more. Feminist reasoning values the perspectives of outsiders, exposes the deep-rooted bias in the legal opinions of courts, and illuminates the effects of ostensibly neutral policies that create and maintain oppression and hierarchy. One by one, the chapters in this book reimagine the norms that drive immigration policies and practices. In place of discrimination and subordination, the authors here demand welcome and equality. Where current law omits the voice and stories of noncitizens, the authors here center their lives and experiences. Collectively, they reveal how a feminist vision of immigration law could center a commitment to equality and justice and foster a country where diverse newcomers readily flourish with dignity.