The Relationship Between Whiteness, Citizenship, Racial Categories and Shifting Racial Discourse

             Whiteness has been synonymous with citizenship (if not legally, then in popular thought) in European colonized countries, like the U.S., South Africa and Brazil, since their inception. In the United States full civil, political and social citizenship has largely been restricted to free white men, denying the rights and protections of citizenship to white women, both free and enslaved blacks, Native Americans and aliens (Glenn, 2002). Across the globe, the Union of South Africa was formed and “founded on the premise that Africans would be denied voting rights in all but the Cape Colony,” connecting whiteness and citizenship for generations to come(Goodman, 2004:146).  In this post I will explain how whiteness has been inextricably tied to citizenship, both formal and substantive, through racial categorization. I will also discuss how shifting racial discourse affects the way societies view race which in turn affects racial categorization, whiteness and access to citizenship.

            Just as whiteness has been formed in opposition to non-whites, citizenship has been created in opposition non-citizens—both are social constructions which are fluid and shift to protect the rights and privilege of those in power (Glenn, 2002; Dalmage, 2011). In European colonized countries like the United States, South Africa and Brazil, whites formed new colonizer governments which would establish rights for themselves over those of the indigenous people, and create a claim on land, resources and labor (Glenn, 2002). Although all three began as colonies of a monarchy, each eventually established themselves as independent nations, consisting of citizens rather than subjects (Glenn, 2002).  Citizenship means that you have “full membership in the community in which one lives,” providing certain rights for the citizen in exchange for certain duties (Glenn, 2002:19).

            According to T.H. Marshall, citizenship has three types of rights: civil, political and social (Glenn, 2002). Civil rights are “the rights necessary for individual freedom,” which include freedom of religion, speech and thought, as well as the right to justice, to own property and the form contracts (Glenn, 2002:19). Political rights are the rights necessary to participate in the governance of the community, this includes the right to vote or exercise political power (Glenn, 2002).  Finally, social citizenship or the ability to have one’s basic needs met, this includes the right to some degree of economic security, ability to participate in society and to “live the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society” (Glenn, 2002:19; Dalmage, 2011). Full citizenship is the ability to participate in all three of these rights. This makes social citizenship vital to being a full citizen because it is what allows individuals to turn formal rights into substantive rights—meaning without social citizenship, the ability to provide for yourself and your family and the ability to participate in social life, one is unable to exercise their other rights (Glenn, 2002).

            Substantive access to citizenship has often been curtailed by using racial categorization to control access to social rights either implicitly or explicitly. Racial categorization is more than just sorting individuals by shared phenotypes like skin color, hair texture or facial features; it is about creating systems of privilege and denial. Race is socially constructed, meaning that phenotype has no significance in itself, only what society attributes to it; therefore it is not fixed and can change according to the popular beliefs and discourse at the time. In the U.S. black Americans have explicitly been excluded from citizenship based on their race, as well as implicitly through Jim Crow and mass incarceration (Waquant, 2005; Alexander, 2010).        Although blacks were granted civil and political citizenship in 1870, after being deemed subhuman and incapable of citizenship during slavery, Jim Crow effectively barred them from social citizenship—many were unable to vote due to restrictive poll taxes, reading tests and violence (Glenn, 2002; Alexander, 2010). Today many African Americans are barred from full citizenship by state laws which limit the social rights of formerly incarcerated by supporting restrictive employment laws and rescinding the ability of those convicted of a felony to vote (Alexander, 2010). These restrictions are not explicitly based on race, but African Americans are disproportionately affected due to the denial of privilege based on race. The fluidity of racial categories can be seen in census categories (Nobles, 2004).

            Census categories themselves are a form of racial discourse (Nobles, 2004). The U.S. census enumerates by race, while the Brazilian census enumerates by color—both reflect political and popular ideas about race and the construction of difference (Nobles, 2004). Although their beliefs were grounded in the idea of white supremacy, both countries took different tactics to support it. Brazil promoted the idea that through intermarriage indigenous people, descendents of African slaves and European colonizers would meld into one white race—therefore color was more important to account for (Nobles, 2004). The U.S. took this approach when dealing with Native Americans, but when it came to other racial groups the prime tactic was exclusion (Nobles, 2004). The U.S. denied citizenship to non-whites, used miscegenation laws, exclusionary immigration policies,  and reconstructed ideas about familial lineage in order to exclude people of color from citizenship—because of this the identification of race was important (Pascoe,1996; Nagel, 2003; Nobles, 2004).

            If one takes the U.S. census as an example it is possible to see how popular ideas about race have been reflected in the census, which in turn affect government policy (Noble, 2004).  There were eighteen changes to the twenty censuses that occurred between 1790 and 2000 (Noble, 2004). One example is  how polygenists lobbied congress for, and received, the inclusion of the term “mulatto” in the 1850 census in order to support their claim that the offspring of two different races, black and white, would be infertile (Nobles, 2004; Dalmage, 2011). This both reflected one “scientific” approach to race at the time and had an influence on the way race was discussed in society. According to the “one-drop rule” which had dominated popular thought prior, and deemed anyone with “one-drop” of “black blood” black, the term “mulatto” differentiated between levels of blackness.

            Racial discourse is not only restricted to the census. It is also seen within policy. After the Civil Rights Amendment was passed in 1964 racial discourse began to move away from overt racism and the census was needed to identify whether historical inequalities were being addressed in a meaningful way through the group rights won by activists (Dalmage, 2011). As the U.S. moved into the 70s and 80s, neoliberalism began to take hold of policy, including a movement away from group rights and towards individual rights and racial discourse began to shift to colorblind ideology. Colorblind ideology states that society is beyond race and to have truly fair society we must omit race from our policies, including efforts to address historical inequality (Dalmage, 2011). Now right wing activists are asking if we even need to enumerate race in the census. Colorblind ideology works to defend white privilege by limiting citizenship through the family ethic and the idea of the deserving poor (Glenn, 2002; Dalmage, 2011).

            Colorblind ideology is informed by the neoliberal idea of personal responsibility. Everyone is responsible for their own lives and choices and no attention is paid to the circumstances under which you were born. The historical lack of access to citizenship and privilege blacks have had is discounted and instead there is a focus on “bad choices.”  Common arguments for larger amounts of black poverty are connected to ideas about the family ethic, what “good citizens” strive for: women who are chase and bound to the private sphere (home) and men who are breadwinners and bound to public space. Many African Americans do not fit into this ethic because due to the historical inequalities women have been forced to leave the home to work and men are often incarcerated, ironically often times for participating in the underground economy to provide for their families (Dalmage, 2011). Meanwhile white ethnics are used as a defense of neoliberal ideas and the family ethic. They are held up as people who have been discriminated against and through “hard work” have raised themselves up by their bootstraps and accomplished what blacks could not (Guglielmo, 2003; Maly, etal., 2010).  Of course, the fact that they were not denied citizenship for near 200 years is neatly forgotten.

            It is not difficult to see the myriad of ways that whiteness has been tied to citizenship. People of color have been explicitly denied citizenship based on their race and commonly held popular and scientifically held beliefs that they were inferior to whites. They have also been denied citizenship implicitly through racist policies like Jim Crow and the Rockafeller drug laws which have targeted African Americans, as well as through miscegenation laws and exclusionary immigration policies (Pascoe, 1996; Nagel, 2003; Alexander, 2010). One only has to look at current policy, like Arizona’s S.B. 1070, which allows police officers to ask anyone who looks illegal for their U.S. identification. If not in law, in popular thought to be American is to be white.
 REFERENCES

Alexander, Michelle. 2010. The New Jim Crow. New York: The New Press.

Dalmage, Heather. 2011. Lecture Notes, Global Whiteness, Roosevelt University. February 2011- March 2011.

Glenn, Evelyn Nakano. 2002. Unequal Freedom: How Race and Gender Shaped American Citizenship and Labor.

Guglielmo, Thomas. 2003. White on Arrial: Italians, Race, Color and Power in Chicago, 1890-1849. New York: Oxford University Press.

Hale, Grace. 1998. Making Whiteness. NY. Vintage Books

Maly, Michael, Heather Dalmage and Nancy Michaels. 2010. “The End of an Idyllic World: Race Memory, and the Construction of White Powerlessness.”

Nagel, Joane. 2003. Race, Ethnicity and Sexuality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nobels, Melissa. 2004. “Racial Categorization and Censuses.” In Census and Identity: The Politics of Race, Ethnicity and Language in National Censuses. Edited by David I. Kertzer and Dominique Arel.  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pascoe, Peggy. 1996. “iscegenation Law, Court Cases, and Ideologies of “Race” in Twentieth-Century America.”  The Journal of American History.83(1):44-69.

Waquant, Loïc. 2005. “Deadly Symbiosis.” Boston Review.

Zaal, Frederick Noel. 2008. “The Ambivalence of Authority and Secret Lives of Tears: Transracial Child Placements and the Historical Developments of South African Law.” Journal of Southern African Studies. 18(2):372-404.

Avoiding the Monoculture through Homeschooling?

I recently read the Newsweek article "Why Urban Educated Parents are Returning to DIY Education" at The Daily Beast. It grabbed my attention because my husband and I have been been discussing it as an option for when we have children. Since neither of us were enamored with our own school experiences and we both hold graduate degrees in differing fields, we feel it is a viable option for our family. Linda Perlstein's piece—an interesting read—reiterated some of the concerns I have heard about homeschooling such as the possible social and psychological effects on children and parents.

The concern I have heard voiced most often about homeschooling is that the social skills of these children may be retarded. Frankly, my social skills were retarded by attending public school (a very good one, in fact). Through peer bullying I learned that expressing dissenting opinions and unusual interests would result in name calling and isolation. Through in-class shaming by teachers I learned that saying, "I don't know," is a fault, and that asking for help is a weakness. I was constantly afraid of speaking up because I might be made fun of, or told I was wrong, or called stupid. What I learned in school was that if you wanted  to be left alone, you had to seem like everyone else.

The sociologist in me says that this is simply part of socialization, implicitly and explicitly giving students tools to navigate the larger society. I certainly learned what was acceptable and what was deviant. I suppose if I wanted to take a traditional route in life, the tools I learned in school would serve me well, but as I attempt to carve my own path I find it difficult to put those tools down. After all, when all you have is a hammer everything starts to look like a nail.

I am not a fan of monoculture and what our public, and many private, schools are producing is a monoculture. Teachers are handed a test booklet and a overfilled classroom and told to make it work. Children and teens who do not learn the same way as the majority of the student body get left behind and told it is their default; while special, sensitive or curious students get beaten down. They have become factories, mass producing bodies for the service sector and managerial positions.A monoculture is great for standardization and mechanization, but what about innovation?

Homeschooling can allow for innovation. As a parent you can follow your child's curiosity wherever it may lead. Parents can tailor lessons to a child's learning style and inspire them to become their own teachers-- a feat most of us do not master until college or graduate school. I think one of the greatest gifts I could give my child is to deprive them of in-school socialization. Innovators are not afraid to ask questions, offer opinions or be wrong. Failure becomes a learning tool, not an ascribed status.

There seemed to be two primary psychological concerns for homeschooled children mentioned in the article. The first comes from Psychologist Wendy Mogel, who "wonders how kids who spend so much time within a deliberately crafted community will learn to work with people from backgrounds nothing like theirs." I would ask the same question about school students from the racially segregated suburbs (and yes I am also aware that many large cities are just as racially segregated--I live in one). We, unfortunately, do not live in a society which embraces diversity on a large scale, most schools give it the same lip-service corporations do, all talk and no real change or action. If you want your children to be able to interact with people from varied backgrounds, then make an effort. Commit to meeting with as many people as possible and to be candid and honest with question about race, religion and culture, regardless of whether your child is homeschooled. 


The second concern is that parents may spend "too much" time with their children. This, I take some issue with. I have never heard and adult say, "I just wish my parents did not spend as much time with me when I was a kid." Having recently lost my father, I know that memories are precious and the opportunity to create more for my children if a great gift. Yes, I agree that controlling your child's life through scheduling and demands for perfection can be crippling to a child, but that is just as large a concern in families who chose traditional education. I think that part of homeschooling is getting to know your child and their desires, interests and needs--not foisting yours upon them.


Finally, the effects on the parent. First of all I do not think everyone is cut out for homeschooling and there is nothing wrong with that. If it is not something you are interested in or suited to, than do not attempt it. I do think that for those of us who may choose to home school it is a disservice to assume it will lead to an unfulfilled life. I think that these arguments come down to a difference in perception. Happiness is not a fixed point, is very personal and looks different for everyone. If becoming a CEO for a Fortune 500 company makes you happy than good luck with that. It would make me miserable. I may find that teaching my children and writing blog posts make me happy. When we project our own very personal idea of happiness onto others, no one wins. 


All in all, I do not know if homeschooling is the route our family will take. We are no where near making that decision. Life changes quickly, and with it so do our desires and abilities. More than anything else I think children need to be taught how to be be happy and define success for themselves--that is one commitment I can put in stone.

"System D" and the Lack of Sociological Discourse in Popular Media.

Business Insider (BI) published the article "Forget China, 'System D' Is the World's Second Largest Economy", on the worldwide black market, or secondary economy, now dubbed "System D". I am always surprised (although I know I should not be) at how these stories never seem to address the "why" of the secondary economy. The article, and infographic below, frames the discussion through lost tax revenues and "black market entrepreneurs" who have higher profit margins than those in the legitimate economy.

What stories like this fail to look at is why the secondary economy exists. Yes, there are those who are driven by the prospect of high profit margins and are willing to take on the risk associated with large scale black market operations in order to obtain them, but I have no doubt that the majority (of people, not money) do not fall into this category. I think the larger issue is that those who work in the secondary economy  do so to support themselves and their families, because for one reason or another they are not able to within the primary economy. They may be barred by poverty, lack of education, lack of resources, former incarceration, racism, sexism, religious oppression or just plain prejudice.

When we look at countries with the largest black markets (see Shadow Economies all Over the World: New Estimates from 162 Countries from 1991-2007 an updated version of the IMF paper linked to in the article), we see corrupt and poor governments, with even poorer populations. We also see a concentration of brown and black peoples in most of these countries--which historically means countries and peoples who have been mined for resources and left to fend for themselves with alien cultures foist upon them.

If we look at the U.S. and who participates in the secondary economy we see, again, largely black and brown bodies who are barred from participation in the primary economy. We can look at several sociological papers and books written by Waquant, Pitts, Wilson.... and so on which point out that participation in the secondary economy is not usually by choice. Institutional racism has concentrated blacks and other minorities in certain geographic areas and then systematically denied those areas public services such as access to public transit, competitive schools, road repairs, etc. The private sector abandoned these areas as well, despite a real demand in the market for services. These things work in concert to bar involvement in the primary economy and, as if this is not enough, when caught participating in the secondary economy  these individuals are incarcerated. Incarceration, besides the abuse and emotional toll, means that one is further barred from participation in the workforce. It is no wonder the mass incarceration is considered the New Jim Crow.

As I read the comments on the BI article many point to high taxes and the "welfare state" as a reason for the secondary economy, I would have to argue the opposite. It because these governments do not provide basic services to these communities that secondary economy flourishes. The smallest secondary economies exist in countries with higher tax rates. Although I do not have the numbers to back myself up here, I am also willing to bet that the secondary economy in those countries, the U.S. included, are peopled by those segments of the population which fall through the cracks and are not provided their basic needs.

At the end of the day I suppose I am just thankful for my sociological education, that I can supplement popular media claims with sociological research and look at the "why." I just wish that as a society we tried to take a more holistic view of our problems and culture. Hopefully we will get there.

Microsoft’s “Avoid Ghetto” App: Racism Built into Technology- RACISM REVIEW

This is a great post at Racism Review by Dr. Jessie Daniels about the new "Avoid Ghetto" Microsoft GPS app.   She says it all and much better than I could.

Microsoft’s “Avoid Ghetto” App: Racism Built into Technology

By Jessie

Microsoft has developed and filed a patent for a new “Avoid Ghetto” GPS app. The app connects to your smartphone (or dashboard GPS) and let’s you know when you’re getting close to a neighborhood with high rates of (street) crime.

A story about this dreadful new technology appeared in this piece by Ross Kenneth Urken, who talked to a CUNY colleague of mine, Sarah E. Chinn, author of Technology and the Logic of American Racism. Chinn observes:

“It’s pretty appalling. Of course, an application like this defines crime pretty narrowly, since all crimes happen in all kinds of neighborhoods. I can’t imagine that there aren’t perpetrators of domestic violence, petty and insignificant drug possession, fraud, theft, and rape in every area.”

Of course, Sarah’s absolutely right about this. (Strangely, The Root mentions her book, uses the same quote, but totally mangles attribution.)

Here’s the way this app is supposed to work, according to the white-fearful-of-crime-imagination (again from Urken):

On the other hand, consider how this app could potentially help wayward drivers in some cities. In Detroit, for example, the city has a central downtown from General Motors headquarters up Woodward Avenue to Ford Field and Comerica Park where comparatively little crime happens. But just a few blocks outside that area, and a driver can find himself amidst streets of abandoned buildings and street-gang territory.

Although this is speculation, I’m sure this is just what the app developers had envisioned when they created this bit of software.  It’s all very Bonfire of the Vanities, really.  Why if Sherman McCoy had this app, he’d have never gotten into all that trouble in the Bronx. But that’s just it, the app doesn’t track the kind of crimes that are really damaging to society as a whole, say, like bank fraud or subprime mortgage scams by “Masters of the Universe” like McCoy.  No, in this app, crime only happens one way: between dangerous street thugs (read: black and brown people) and drivers (read: white people).

( photo credit: dblstripe )

Urken goes on to downplay the racial implications of the “Avoid Ghetto” app, by turning to Roger C. Lanctot, a senior analyst at someplace called “Strategy Analytics,” who views the “Avoid Ghetto” app as potentially useful.  Lanctot asserts that “drivers” should have a right to know when they are passing “high-risk” areas. Here’s what Lanctot had to say:

“We’ve all had that experience when you take the wrong exit and go, ‘Oh shoot,’ because you end up in a neighborhood you shouldn’t be in. Should you look down at the GPS and have a red flag with an exclamation point, ‘Get out!’? I hate to say it because of the racial implication element, but what father wouldn’t want such a capability for their daughter. I’ve seen plenty of dads having their daughters call them every half-hour: ‘Where are you?’ ‘Where are you?’ They would have more piece of mind if they knew their daughters had an app to avoid driving through bad areas.” [emphasis added]

This quote is an interesting rupture in the usually ‘colorblind’ discussions about technology, yet the element of race is so clear, Lanctot wants to distance himself from the implications of what he’s saying.  It some ways it’s also a revealing moment about the white fear of crime (part of the white racial frame) and the construction of so-called ‘bad’ neighborhoods as always black or Latino. The reality is that “high risk” neighborhoods are most dangerous to those who are living in them (that is, predominantly black and brown people), not the white people who are driving through them.                                                 

Why is it always Working Mom v. Stay at Home Mom?

Photo Credit: www.deadline.com

On Anderson today there was a segment inspired by a recent article that claims working mothers are happier than stay-at-home mothers (read the BBC story here). The description of the show reads:

Anderson is joined by a panel of moms who discuss the controversial new study that says moms with jobs outside the home are healthier and happier, and debate the issue of who is actually happier. Also, Anderson speaks with a mom who works outside the home who shares her extreme point of view, claiming that moms who stay at home are “lazy.” (Read more and see clips here)

I think that shows which frame the discussion of motherhood and work outside the home in the manner of working mothers versus at-home mothers do a disservice to both. In watching the segment it quickly became apparent that it was preying upon the insecurities of both populations--working mothers are bad mothers and stay-at-home mothers are lazy and unfulfilled. It only serves to further segment the female population, rather than focusing on the real issues surround work and motherhood.

• First, women are supposed to do it all. "You can have the career, family and time for yourself--and it's easy!" It sells magazines, but the truth is no one is perfect and at one time or another all of these areas will feel as though they are lacking. 
• Second, generations of women have fought for equality, which means a choice. To simply label one choice socially unfavorable is to discount their struggle. For many single and low-income mothers there is no choice in the matter. Work or your family starves. Likewise, many low-income families find that the cost of childcare is greater than their second salary, usually the mother's salary, and she is forced to stay home. 
• Third, there is a larger issue concerning the value of work in the home. Study after study show that women--regardless of their employment status--do the majority of work in the home. These are services that have real value, as anyone with an au pair, nanny, housekeeper, laundry service and/or personal assistant can attest. Why are they discounted simply because they are performed by a household member? If, in a "typical" (read stereotypical) husband/father in a relationship is only expected to have one job, why should the wife/mother be held to a different standard?

The is fact that the workplace is not built for women, in fact it is not even built for men who want to be more involved with the upbringing of their children. It is based on an old patriarchal system which does not work for most households. What we need to do instead of placing blame and accusations is fight for real change to the larger institutions. We need to learn to appreciate work done in the home, regardless of who does it--be it a stay-at-home mother, father or caregiver. We need to push for family flex time for all members of the family, in straight and same-sex households so that we do not have to choose between income and family. Foremost we need to remember why we work to begin with, for sustenance, personal fulfillment and to find happiness, regardless of where it lies.

The Rosie Show

Photo Credit: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com

A few months ago I found myself flipping through channels, and I landed on the OWN show "Rosie." I did not even know we had the channel. I have always been a fan of Rosie O'Donnell, not just for her talent, but also for her GBLT activism and breast cancer awareness work, so I decided to watch. Apparently, I was watching a rerun. She mentioned that she had received a lot of fan feedback asking, "Why so much gay stuff?" She then showed a short clip of all the mentions of the word gay (a few jokes, mentions of her S.O. and some audience/guest banter) and basically said, sorry, but I am just living my life. I watched the rest of the show and could not get the "feedback" out of my head.

"Why so much gay stuff?" I think a better question is: "Why so much straight stuff?"

Our society is built for heterosexuals (forgive me for the lack of intersectionalism in this post). When a straight woman discusses her upcoming plans for her wedding in Illinois, which does not allow gay marriage, is she told to knock it off with the straight stuff? When a man discusses an argument he had with his wife is he asked to tone down his heterosexuality?

Most Americans consider heterosexuality to be normal and, therefore, any other sexuality becomes "othered"--meaning that it is seen as abnormal. It is a sign of the privilege associated with heterosexuality. I can discuss my life with my husband without being told I am shoving my "lifestyle" down anyone's throat; yet replace the word husband with partner or wife and I am suddenly pushy and overly focused on sexuality.

The "gay stuff" questioned by O'Donnell's fans is just her life--discussing her significant other or sharing a common experience with another person. These are simple things that heterosexuals often discuss and take for granted, but that many in the GLBTQ community are unable to share with others out of fear of rejection, alienation and possibly violence. Everyone deserves the right to live their life without that kind of fear.

One often hears people state that having so many openly gay celebrities on television or in movies is a sign of how far our society has come, but the question "why so much gay stuff" is a sign of how far we have left to go. When will have reached equality? I think it is when everyone can go about their daily lives without being labeled an activist or extremist for doing so.

"It's okay to be gay."

Rich Lifestyles of the GOP's Starve-the-Poor Presidential Candidates | News & Politics | AlterNet

A look at four GOP candidates' lifestyles and actions contrasted with their statements and positions on "entitlement" programs like welfare, social security and medicare. This does really drive home the importance of economic capital in maintaining and creating wealth, not to mention the myth of meritocracy (a post about which is forthcoming). 

I do wish that they had looked at some of the key democrats as well, unfortunately we find hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. We cannot forget that some of the biggest hits to social welfare programs in the past decades have come under the democrats.

" 

Rich Lifestyles of the GOP's Starve-the-Poor Presidential Candidates- ALTERNET

September 1, 2011    AlterNet / By Rania Khalek

With the campaign season for Republican presidential primaries in full bloom, the candidates are falling all over each other in a fierce competition to tout their conservative bona fides. Even as housing foreclosures reach all-time highs, and unemployment in some states climbs into the double digits, Republican presidential contenders remain insistent in their demands for reducing government assistance to those suffering under the weight of economic disaster. So, let's have a look at how the candidates themselves are faring on this dismal economic landscape.

1) Rick Perry

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the GOP's presidential frontrunner, according to the latestGallup poll, is hardly an elitist. Born into a farming family of modest means in rural Haskell County, Perry continued farming cotton and raising cattle even after he was elected to the state legislature in the mid-1980s, according to theTexas Tribune, yielding him and his wife a combined income of just $45,000 -- a pittance compared to his current $150,000 annual salary as governor (not to mention the millions he's earned on the side in real estate).

You would think that a past of manual labor would have instilled in Perry a sense of solidarity with the working class, but it's just the opposite. Although Perry wasn't born into wealth, he might as well have been, given the ease with which he became accustomed to a life of privilege, which is currently being funded by the taxpaying residents of Texas.

Based on Perry's tax records, the Texas Tribune's Jay Root reveals that "Perry's biggest income gains have come from buying and selling land" during his 30 years in public office. "Since the early 1990s, when Perry began serving as a statewide elected official, the transactions have helped him earn about $2 million in pre-tax profits," according to Root.

Even with all that money, Perry finds it appropriate to use taxpayer funds to pay for his extravagant and temporary mansion, while he and his family await renovations and repairs to the governor's mansion. (An unknown arsonist practically destroyed the residence in 2008.)                                                                                            "

Read the rest of the article here