Constants are Changing

I'd like to begin with an apology: this becomes heavily political. It's sort of hard to avoid politics when discussing anything written by bell hooks (sic). I'm really not trying to bait anyone.
Bell hooks, an activist in every sense of the word, set out to accomplish a great deal when writing Where We Stand: Class Matters. She talks of class being the underlying issue, more prevalent than racism, more important than sexism, more life-changing than religion. To wit; "Ultimately, more than any previous movement for social justice, the struggle to end poverty could easily become the civil rights issue with the broadest appeal -- uniting groups that have never before taken a stand together...." (120) This quote closes out chapter 11, titled "White Poverty: The Politics of Invisibility," an impassioned rant against the idea that hate and poverty is monopolized by any race. Racism, while far from eradicated, now creates far less a stigma than class.
Do you agree? Is racism less important than class in society today? For my part, I'd have to say that it is. This book was written in 2000 -- how much has changed since then? Consider the angst and rage against the Bush administration's TARP fund, or the Obama administration's rescuing of what amounts to the entire American auto industry. When I spoke with people regarding these actions as they were happening, the anger was directed at the idea that the banks were too big to fail, or in other words, too important to fail. The government was guaranteeing their continued existence in spite of the free-market principles upon which this country was founded. They were more important to America than Americans.
Hooks is not so old a woman; at 57, she lived through the 60s and 70s and the vast cultural changes that took place, but not the Great Depression, which shaped an entire generation's view on the world and personal liberty. The economic recession in which we now find ourselves is creating new challenges to ideology, and highlighting class in a way that hasn't been seen since the Depression. Yet, at the very least, America had an enemy to focus on during those horrible years. Barring a major terrorist attack in the coming years, or a seemingly impossible return to our former economic glory, America is seeing class highlighted in a way it has never experienced, and will continue to see that trend play out as the Obama presidency and its aftermath unfold.
Hooks seems to agree. In chapter 5, "The Politics of Greed," she says, "Indeed, as a nation where the culture of narcissism reigns supreme, where I, me and mine are all that matters, greed becomes the order of the day. While the sixties and seventies can be characterized as a time in the nation when there was a widespread sense of bounty that could be shared precisely because excess was frowned upon, the eighties and nineties are the years where fear of scarcity increased even as a culture of hedonistic excess began to fully emerge."
Harsh criticism, to be sure. She even goes on to address the cocaine and crack booms of the eighties as a measure of keeping the poor poor and the rich rich. This is a debate that we've had in modern culture innumerable times -- people begin to believe that the only way to move up in class is to start selling drugs. A young, poor black man sees no opportunities in what has been touted as the "real world" of American society, and looks elsewhere for ideas.
I can't say one way or another whether this is truly the case; I didn't live through the progressive decades, although I did make it through the late eighties and early nineties. Certainly there is no question that conservatism and individualistic ideas have pervaded for some time, and several events in American politics bear this idea out -- the perceived failure of the Carter administration, the election of Ronald Reagan, the fall of Soviet Communism, the Republican Revolution of 1994. One could argue that the backlash against President Obama's policies is a sign of this. Yet one could argue just as convincingly that the sixties and seventies were equally individualistic. Young people sought out a different lifestyle, one that helped them to feel whole or at peace, so to speak. Is the argument that greed is what drives recent and current political trends applicable?

To be honest, I didn't think I was going to enjoy reading this book. Hooks has a reputation that marks her as a bit... well, obnoxious. For God's sake, she uses lower-case letters in her name on purpose, just to make a point! Why do that? I still don't understand that bit. It's like the Miss versus Ms. argument -- just let it go!
But I have to admit, however, that I came away from this book with what I hesitate to call a different perspective, but certainly one that is more developed. Her tie-ins with race and class and sexism augmented some of the opinions that I held beforehand, and I frequently found myself in agreement with her opinions, and engrossed by her anecdotes.
Was it the same for you?