How Philanthropy Plays a Role in Economic Systems that Harm People of Color, and What It Can Do to Help Heal and Repair

THE SECOND BLOG ENTRY IN OUR SERIES ON RACIAL CAPITALISM

Racial Capitalism is a system of policies and practices that places unequal value on the humanity of workers, especially by race and ethnicity.

This series examines how three NWAF program officers are learning about and supporting alternatives to racial capitalism so that Native Americans, communities of color, immigrants, refugees, and people in rural areas can thrive on their own terms.

We acknowledge that philanthropy exists within America’s history of racial capitalism.

As part of the Foundation’s commitment to advancing economic justice through its grantmaking, we’ve been examining our organization’s history. Kevin Walker, our president and CEO, discussed the Foundation’s origin story in a blog post last year.

A central element is the connection between the Foundation and the construction of a railroad in the late 19th century linking the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul to the emerging West Coast cities of Seattle and Portland, crossing the Northwest area.

The railroad had far-reaching impact for many people and in different ways. James J. Hill, who built the fortune that eventually seeded the Northwest Area Foundation’s endowment, actively lobbied federal officials to pass laws in the 1880s that broke up tribal land. This legislation opened up settlement by non-Native people and transportation for timber and mining industries and for farming and ranching. Many white settlers gained profits, land, and opportunity.

The extraction of natural resources by these industries harmed the environment and generations of Native communities. There was also significant impact on low-income Asians and other immigrants who helped build the railroad through extremely difficult and dangerous conditions.

We recognize that our Foundation has work to do to address this history. The Foundation’s commitment to prioritize 40 percent of grantmaking dollars to Native communities is a step in the right direction, as is the level of its combined giving to Native- and community of color-led groups, which stands above 80 percent. And there is more to be done.

This is how philanthropy upholds racial capitalism.

As mentioned in our earlier blog, the three of us recently participated in the Racial Capitalism Community of Practice, which was convened by Funders for a Just Economy. We participated in a cohort of foundation staff from across the country. The term racial capitalism describes how America’s economy thrives on exploitation through a set of policies and practices that places unequal value on the humanity of workers, especially by race and ethnicity.

In this cohort, we examined how the field of philanthropy emerged from racial capitalism. A great example of this is the origin of our own Foundation, as described above. We unpacked, as well, how philanthropy plays a role in upholding racial capitalism.

This role is especially apparent in how philanthropy makes decisions on grants. Too often these decisions are controlled by the people whose wealth funds foundations at the expense of Native Americans and communities of color.

This has played out historically in numerous ways.

For instance, at a critical moment during the civil rights era, the NAACP was influenced by a prominent funder to shift away from combating racial violence and instead focus on promoting education. Donors to Cesar Chavez and the farmworkers movement in California tried to use their funding to put an end to tactics that confronted the economic structures of agriculture, such as strikes and boycotts. These two incidents have been described in detail by several sources, including a Chronicle of Philanthropy story and also in The Self-Help Myth.

The practice of predetermining goals and directing how communities work toward them continues today. We’ve seen it through our own grantmaking experience.

The Foundation’s grantmaking used to focus on wealth building for many years. However, we heard loud and clear from our grantees that dominant notions of wealth building are not the same for everyone. Native grantees have told us repeatedly that wealth building in their community isn’t about amassing money or assets, but about strength in one’s culture and identity and connectedness to community.

In another example, the Foundation supported cohorts of African American-led organizations to explore how to increase the economic well-being of their community members. The Foundation expected this effort to lead to financial education and skills programs delivered through their organizations in culturally appropriate ways. Instead, the organizations developed responses that addressed communities’ holistic sense of well-being and the systemic barriers to economic prosperity posed by harmful policies and practices within the economy.

An important lesson we’ve learned is that culturally responsive support for grants is critical. Numerous times, we have used consultants who offer expertise and guidance on issues, but who don’t have cultural context or lived experience. These endeavors have not been received well by communities or proven effective.

The prevailing belief that funders and mainstream experts know best is a topic we discussed in our cohort on racial capitalism. Implicit in this belief is often an unacknowledged distrust of community leaders of color.

We made changes in our grantmaking approach and practices because of what we learned. Letting go of control is an ongoing journey for us, but grantees are cheering us on.

“You’re on quite a journey,” a grantee recently said about one of our new values: Grantees Come First. “Continue to let go and let community lead you. I have been told many times I need a coach. I think philanthropy needs a coach, and that coach is community.”

There’s a need for acknowledgement of racism and for healing and repair.

It is painful to acknowledge and reckon with the history of philanthropy, and that, as program officers, we may be unintentionally furthering racial capitalism. But we know that acknowledging and taking responsibility of past harm is the first step in healing.

And acknowledgement isn’t enough. We’ll continue to act. The Foundation has committed to advancing justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion. Foundation staff has spent time on intercultural development and learning about ways to dismantle white supremacy. And we’ve refreshed our organization’s values and updated our funding approach to center justice.

The new funding approach provides more general operating grants that give grantee organizations more control and flexibility in how to use the funds. It’s they who make decisions about spending, instead of the Foundation’s board or staff. It’s a small, but important, step toward balancing the power dynamics between foundations and nonprofits.

Our refreshed grantmaking approach also includes elements of self-determination and power, healing, and systems change. Grantee organizations have told us that these are critical conditions for advancing justice.

As program officers, we will continue to listen to and learn from people on the ground to understand the context of their lives and work. We will do that with humility, heart, and transparency. We’ll try to make sure resources are as flexible as possible and support grantees’ vision for disruptive change.

This is the second in a three-part series on racial capitalism.

Each post describes how participating in the cohort has impacted our thinking, as program officers, and our work.

Our first post explored how gaining more clarity about the interconnectedness of racism and capitalism has deepened our collective commitment to advance justice through the organizations we fund.

Our final post will shine a spotlight on some of these incredible organizations and how they’re advancing justice.

For further info, contact any of this blog’s authors:

Read the first blog in this series:

Learn more about our new grantmaking approach:

Read Kevin Walker’s blog post: