Sunday, August 09, 2026

White Parents Who Tell Their Kids That Race Doesn’t Matter are Ignoring the Long Shadow of Racism

August 7, 2026

Black man drinking at a “colored” water station, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1939. Photo: Russell Lee / Adam Cuerden. Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs. Public domain.

“Look around.”

“Pay attention.”

“Be mindful of where you are and who you are with.”

“Check in. With us. With yourself.”

For parents of Black children, these four statements represent routine guidance they give, part of “the talk,” a well-worn ritual of racial socialization that shapes how Black children and adults learn what it means to live and get by in a white-dominated society.

The recent death of 18-year-old Nolan Wells has brought the importance of the talk to the forefront of public discussion. Wells, who was Black, was on a boat trip along the Mississippi Gulf Coast with a group of white friends when he disappeared on July 4. Wells’ mother reported him missing later that evening, and a park ranger found his body on July 6.

Mississippi’s history of racist violence casts a long shadow and has fueled intense online speculation about what happened to Wells. So far, investigations are ongoing and the nature and cause of Wells’ death remain undetermined.

Alongside this speculation are reminders to parents of Black children about the importance of the talk.

“There is a unique burden that comes with raising Black children,” wrote blogger Maui Bigelow. “We spend years preparing them for situations we pray they never encounter.”

Yet, for all the discussion now about the importance of “the talk” in Black families, the research I and others have done shows that there is no analagous discussion in white families about race. In fact, research finds that white parents have few, if any, direct conversations about race and racism with their children.

When white parents do talk with their children about race and racism, research finds those parents often minimize and ignore the role of racism in daily life, or discuss it in vague and superficial terms.

Making sense of white racial status

I’m a sociologist of race and racism. For the past five years I’ve been studying white people to understand how they make sense of their white racial status. My research focuses on white people living in the U.S. South because that region, more than any other, is responsible for creating and sustaining Americans’ shared ideas about race and its significance, including what it means to be white.

My team of graduate student researchers and I have interviewed well over 100 white Southerners between 18 and 88 years old, the majority of whom live in Mississippi. With a median age of 42 years old, about a third of those we spoke with were raising children of their own. Another third had children who were grown and living on their own.

In our interviews we asked these white Southerners to tell us whether and how they talked about race with their children, including what it means to be white. We also asked everyone we spoke with whether and how their own parents talked with them about race and what it means to be white.

About 30% of those we spoke with said they never talked about race, either with their parents or with their own children. Gail, 56, said she “never wanted to make it a thing” for her six children. And 41-year-old Michael said that he and his wife don’t talk to their kids about race because his parents did not talk with him about it when he was a child. “Race is just a descriptor,” Michael told us.

Jayne, 63, also said she never talked about race with her parents or her own children. But as we talked more, it became apparent that Jayne’s parents did talk with her about race.

Jayne recalled her mother being “scared of Black men” because of a lynching that took place in her hometown when her mom was a child. “She heard stories about what this Black man had supposedly done,” Jayne told us. “It left her with that fear.” Jayne knows this story because her mother told it to her, putting the same fear in Jayne that was put into her.

Race-neutral language obscures reality

Jayne’s recollection of what her mother taught her was similar to the explicit racism received and taught by about 10% of those we spoke with.

Seventy-one-year-old Shirley didn’t remember her own parents talking with her about race. When it came to her own children, though, Shirley taught them “to always be polite and treat people well.” But when it comes to marriage and family, she told them to “stay with your own.”

Antonio, 87, raised three children. He taught them that “they don’t need to go anywhere or do anything with Black kids, just to stay with the whites.”

The largest share of those we spoke with – about 44% – recalled conversations with their parents or their own children where racism was minimized in favor of language that encouraged seeing people as “just people,” and not as members of racial groups.

Lyle, 68, taught his children that “we’re all God’s children, there’s nothing special about us.” Fifty-year-old Leanna teaches her children that everyone is created “equal in dignity” and that race doesn’t matter. And 45-year-old Ned tells his children, “We’re all humans. And just because I come from a different place, or have a different skin tone … we’re all different in some way. You’re unique.”

On the surface, this race-neutral language appears nonjudgmental and even ideal. Yet Americans live in a social world in which racism remains powerfully stitched to the daily fabric of their lives, structuring where people live, the schools they attend, the places they work and the people with whom they interact.

In this context, I and others argue that race-neutral language obscures the reality of racism and works directly against efforts to meaningfully address concrete racial inequalities.

Functionally speaking, race-neutral lessons have the same effect as the more explicit racism taught by a smaller share of white parents to their children.

When white parents tell their children that race does not matter, they are implying that racism does not exist. And so their children may fail to understand how their own life chances are shaped by the same racist forces that limit opportunities for others who are not white. Importantly, they may fail to understand the role they can play in challenging racism within their own lives.

The talk for white children

Would things have been different if Wells’ friends were well versed in Mississippi’s history of racial violence, including violent backlash toward integration? Or if they had considered the concerns many Black parents have of their children navigating all-white spaces? We don’t know the answer, or whether their parents did talk to them about this history.

To be clear, this is not to claim that Wells’ death was the result of racial violence, but rather to acknowledge that the minute Wells stepped onto a boat as the only Black person in his group of friends, the underlying racial context was established. Based on my research and the research of others, that context was also likely misunderstood or not understood at all by his white friends.

Having “the talk” with white children entails talking plainly with them about what it means to be white. This includes explaining to them why they grow up in mostly white neighborhoods, attend mostly white schools and have few nonwhite friends.

Having this kind of plain talk with white children can better equip those children to recognize white-dominated spaces, the challenges Black children face while navigating them, and what white children and adults can do to help.The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

James M. Thomas is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Mississippi.

U.S. Teen Unemployment



 August 7, 2026

Photo by Amir Hosseini

The unemployment rate of U.S. teens (ages 16-19) was 14.6 percent in June 2026, compared with a jobless rate of 4.2 percent for the national labor force, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.  The U.S. labor force participation rate for teens was 35.4 percent, or about 5.2 million workers, in June 2026.

The U.S. labor force participation rate for teens was 41.2 percent, or about 6.1 million workers, in June 2025. What accounts for this decrease in teen employment?

Are employers introducing Artificial Intelligence such as ChatGPT into the labor market and increasing the automation of the labor process? Given that teens are new entrants into the paid labor force, e.g., the last hired and first fired, if employers can save money automating entry-level work, they will.

Like automation of the cashier occupation in the retail industry, employers can and do compel customers to use their unpaid labor on self-serve devices that replace human employees. Using the uncompensated labor of customers versus paying employees, especially entry-level teens, to serve shoppers is a cost-savings for employers.

On the other hand, remote work also impacts employers’ hiring and firing decisions. The pandemic ushered in the growth of remote work as an employment option, one that allows employers to in part shift their costs, e.g., paying for office space, onto employees who work from home.

The U.S. labor force of 169.4 million had a participation rate of 61.5 percent in June 2026. The lower labor force participation rate for teens of 31.5 percent, roughly half, is due no doubt to this younger age group attending high school, compulsory across the U.S. until age 18, though some states set the requirement at ages 16 and 17.

Meanwhile, official employment figures exclude rather than include categories of workers. Who are these uncounted workers?

To count as unemployed requires that one actively seek employment. Job seekers, teens and older, who stop looking for employment after losing it fall out of the officially unemployed category.

Incarcerated individuals held in jails and jails are also uncounted in the BLS monthly employment situation report. The U.S. is the world leader in locking up its population, with racial minorities overrepresented.

“In 2019, Black Americans represented 14 percent of the total U.S. population, 33 percent of the total prison population, and 46 percent of the prison population who had already served at least 10 years,” according to the Sentencing Project. Minority overrepresentation in jails and prisons correlates with unemployment data.

Black workers for example are jobless at roughly twice the rate of white workers. The Black unemployment rate was 6.6 percent in June 2026 versus 3.6 percent for white workers.

In the meantime, expanding employment for U.S. teens is not on the radar screen of the two-party duopoly. Call that a middle finger salute to teens.

Instead, the U.S. political duopoly is focused, laser-like, on sucking up donor dollars from corporations and the wealthy. The Citizens United decision strengthened that giant sucking sound.

Movement politics can weaken that sound.

Seth Sandronsky is a Sacramento journalist and member of the freelancers unit of the Pacific Media Workers Guild. Email sethsandronsky@gmail.com

Is It (Still) Un-American to Care?


 August 7, 2026

Image by Rod Long.

I initially wrote this piece in 2024 during the student uprisings that took place around the United States. The content was focused on Gaza and the people who made up the movement for Palestine in the belly of the beast. I’ve rewritten some of it and replaced Gaza with Cuba. The arguments needed no editing at all.

In March, a delegation traveled to Cuba to bring medical aid to Cubans who were suffering under the fuel blockade imposed on them by the United States of America. In recent months, people and organizations who took part, including my own organization, have been targeted by the Trump Administration via investigations, subpoenas, and threatening reports such as Marco Rubio’s 100-page report “The Capital of 21st Century Communism”. In this report, people who bring aid to Cuba or merely speak out against the unilateral policy of starvation that the U.S. implements upon Cuba are accused of being foreign agents and linked to terrorism.  People in the comment section of our videos echo the smears because if the accusation is coming from someone powerful like Marco Rubio, it must be true.

I’ve seen them suggest that CODEPINK and other organizers are acting on behalf of someone other than ourselves and perhaps paid to do so. And Rubio has even gone on record saying that the people he is targeting might even be “unpaid” agents of Cuba, which just sounds like he might be going after people for simply having their own opinions that are different from his.

Cuba has dealt with rolling blackouts, fuel, food, and medicine shortages as well as a looming threat of U.S. invasion or attacks as threatened by the Trump Administration. People are not getting the medicine they need or the nutrition, which can and will lead to a slow genocide in Cuba if the U.S. starvation policy stays intact. That is what people are so against: the deliberate slow starvation of eleven million human beings, just ninety miles away from our own border. This recent escalation comes after sixty years of aggressive U.S. policy towards Cuba that has punished its people for pursuing an economic and political system that strays from the U.S. model of capitalist exploitation. Cuba, once existing as a playground for the wealthy elite of the U.S., is now a representation that not only can a small country overthrow U.S.-backed puppets like Batista, but also pursue socialism.

The accusations of being foreign agents or affiliated with terrorist groups aren’t new or innovative accusations levied against anti-war activists. This narrative has been used since there were wars and people against them. So there are a few questions to be asked: is it so un-American for regular people (not policy makers) to care about the disastrous loss of human life? Who is levying these accusations that some malign foreign entity pays (or doesn’t pay) Americans who care about death and destruction to do so? And lastly, how do we, in the greatest interest of preventing future wars, stop reproducing this accusation so much that it becomes the dominant narrative about anti-war activists?

Is it so un-American to care about the loss of human life?

There have been massive resistance movements to every single war, and whether politicians like it or not, many of the people who have participated have been Americans. If it’s un-American to disagree with our government, then we might as well pack it all up and call it a day on this whole democracy schtick. The accusation of being foreign agents or terrorist sympathizers denies the basic trajectory of social life at this present moment. In the United States, our neighbors are truly from all over the world, and humans are social animals. If we are, enjoyably, living our lives, then we will meet our neighbors, we will become their friends, and we will care deeply for them. Friends introduce each other to other friends, and we learn to care for people who live in places we have never been. Some forces seek to squash that diversity and others use it merely symbolically without accepting the fact that it might challenge who our country does or does not bomb. But both forces use the “foreign agent” accusation to destroy the lives of activists and squash movements into the curb until they have no teeth anymore. It has happened over and over again.

If we move ahead with the idea that it is not inherently un-American to care about massacres or blockades, what we are left with is that the accusation is a tool to get everyone to shut the hell up about what the pigs in power are doing to our families and friends far, far away from here. Or in some cases,  right here at home when some of the most powerful people in the Trump Administration launch First Amendment chilling investigations into regular people to attempt to stop them from talking about the massacres our country facilitates.

So, I don’t think it’s inherently un-American to care about suffering. It is just an American expectation to get threatened by the State Department for giving a fuck. And the inverse is true: it’s also quintessentially American to remain apathetic to the massacres and not utter a word about them and be awarded some temporary comfort. For example, the quiet may have no subpoena in the mail this week or next. If you fall into the latter category, congratulations on your unthreatening inboxes, but I have some bad news for you: one day our country might do something that will anger you. Or, god forbid, your children become adults who decide to care. Then you or your children will become vulnerable to the same accusation and subsequent treatment, including repression, arrest, and murder (like we’ve seen in the cases of Alex Pretti and Renée Good). Unless we stop reproducing this narrative about protestors at this very critical moment, disagreeing with the government will continue to get you investigated, thrown in jail, or your life ruined by red scare tactics the U.S. government continues to rinse and repeat.

Who is levying these accusations that some malign foreign entity pays Americans who care about death and destruction to do so?

The short answer is the American elite. The politicians and rich have a vested interest in keeping us at war and attempting to drive communist countries like Cuba into the gutter. The US is the largest weapons dealer in the world, and the companies that make the weapons are the biggest donors to many of our politicians. Politicians are bought and sold by the war profiteers, but also by private equity that sees investment opportunities in Cuba. The ruling class has done a great job of making war a profitable industry for themselves. So they built up militarized domestic surveillance to protect the war industry from dissent. If the accusation of being foreign agents scared people into silence about what our country was doing to Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on, why wouldn’t this repression tactic work for what’s happening in Cuba? Besides the fact that the tactic has worked in the past, there’s also a part of it that might be a telling projection: that because the elite need to get paid for their morals and opinions, maybe everyone else does too.

So, their tactic of accusing people of being terrorists or foreign agents works at repressing the masses. They’ve learned this over and over again. Can we say the same, that we’ve learned the same lesson over and over again? It appears that we cannot. But we have the opportunity to do things differently right now.

How do we, in the greatest interest of preventing future wars, stop reproducing this accusation so much that it becomes how we all view anti-war activists?

The longer we go without challenging this narrative, the longer it gets passed down to the war resisters after us. We don’t remember the U.S. wars on Vietnam or Iraq kindly. So why do we still write off the people who resisted those wars? Maybe a lot of the Vietnam War protestors were communists, but they were also right when it mattered. It doesn’t matter if you disagree with the war in Vietnam now. Over two million Vietnamese people were killed by our government. It is long over. It only matters if you’re right when it’s actually happening or before it happens, not when the blood is already dried on the pavement.

And as it so happens, being a communist might be the most American thing you can do as more and more people feel like everyone around them somehow got the short end of the stick. Who has the long end of the stick? We’ve never met them.

Americans happen to have their own opinions, and many of us are not paid to have them. You can tell that is a fact by how few of us have healthcare. If the peace movement was such a well-funded foreign apparatus, we would never have a war ever again. We would never have blockades and embargoes that starve people to death. The war industry is far better funded than those of us in opposition to it.

Some of us can shake these accusations off. Two years ago, we all saw a photo of a young Palestinian girl with her face falling apart and her father trying to press her back together. We decided her life was worth more than any job or future opportunity we could ever lose from saying something. Her life was worth more than any threat I could ever receive – but the stakes don’t need to be so high for us to stand up for what’s right if we collectively decide right now that they don’t need to be. We can get it right when it comes to Cuba before it’s too late. Power is reproduced in every single one of us. The accusations stick every time we don’t refute them on behalf of others. The accusations work every time it isn’t shot down or called out. So we must.

I am proud to be the national co-director of CODEPINK. I am called a foreign agent or terrorist sympathizer every time I post about a child being murdered in Gaza. Or that I don’t agree with a policy of collective punishment in Cuba. Or when I dare suggest that the United States shouldn’t be stoking a war with China. The US and China both have nukes. I don’t have to be paid off by a foreign government to have the opinion that a confrontation between two nuclear powers would be a disaster.

Right now, CODEPINK, along with other organizations are the subject of a smear campaign to discredit our work towards peace. We were accused of being funded by a deep and large web of interests that led back to the Chinese Communist Party, and now we are accused of being agents of the Cuban government. I am sorry to our haters and clickbait journalists, but that is just completely untrue. It is a disrespect to the fearless leadership of women in North America who don’t like blockades being imposed in our name and to our thousands of donors who make our work possible. Now, as the Trump Administration escalates its hybrid war on Cuba and people are standing up for what they believe in, the same accusation is coming down on each and every one of us who happens to care about the eleven million Cubans who will go into this fall and winter without electricity, or without the medicines they need to survive. If you ever disagree with the war machine, the titles of “foreign agent” or “terrorist sympathizer” will be waiting for you at your doorstep. It’s really just a matter of time. If we want history to stop repeating itself, if we want to stop the senseless slaughter carried out by our government, we have to stop falling for the same tricks.

When the American elite make the inevitable pivot, and start telling you what country to hate: see through it. And when they start pointing fingers at people who think we shouldn’t go to war — ask if their accusations are actually admissions about their own integrity. You are not bought to care about Cuban life; your comrades aren’t either.

This moment, and every moment of resistance that comes after we are gone, requires us to learn this lesson and fast. The movement and the people sympathetic to it must stand up for themselves and reject the notion that it is fundamentally un-American to care about people or despise massacres.