Despite a California law that prohibits sex and skin color preferences in public hiring and admissions, socialist bureaucrats in the Los Angeles Unified School District (read about it here) believe they’re exempt. There is precedent for that belief.
Once upon a time the United States government was in the business of codifying separation of the races in the public sphere. While people of the same race tend to self-segregate socially, it is odious and immoral for the government of a free society to force it.
Then something revolutionary happened. Black American taxpayers decided, en masse, they’d no longer put up with degrading laws that regulated where they could and could not go in a supposedly free country. So they rebelled and refused to shuck and jive. Whether whites were ready or not, life as they knew it changed in a dramatic way. Blacks were granted first class citizenship guaranteed by the greatest document ever created, the U.S. Constitution.
Then something very wrong happened. White, guilt-ridden socialists were appalled that blacks weren’t advancing at the expected pace. After all, during segregation, black teachers taught black children, black businesses served black customers, and the sudden removal of legal barriers required a period of adjustment, but that period was taking too long.
Lacking integrity and the will to live up to the ideals of democracy, they did the only thing they knew how to do: create more skin color-based laws, this time to favor blacks.
America began to make government-sanctioned skin color distinctions in public hiring and admissions, even going so far as to force parents to send their children to schools miles and miles away to achieve a “racial balance.” When shocked white, guilt-ridden socialists discovered that blacks were failing employment tests in disproportionate numbers, they determined that the tests must be racist. Tests were eliminated in some cases, and standards were dropped in most cases. The same happened with college admissions.
The way to help the victimized Negro, whites surmised, was to make life easier for him, the poor thing.
The government permitted discrimination against other races to accommodate the put-upon black race. Giving much and expecting little, the entitlement system was allowed to grow to monstrous proportions. It became normal. Consequently, a new generation of blacks, to which the blog hostess belongs, was born to expect such humiliating, condescending treatment from the government.
Today, despite the illegality and unconstitutionality, skin color-based preferences abound. Too many people benefit from the rigged system, and appealing to fairness, morality, and constitutionality seems, for lack of a better word, futile. The Pacific Legal Foundation is making a valiant effort to fight racial discrimination, but a victory will be only symbolic.
Jump, Jim Crow. We’re waiting to be entertained.
(Hat tip: Discriminations)
Previous posts:
- Irony and Unconstitutionality of Brown v. Board of Education.
- Repeating History
- The Immorality of Race Preferences
- Quotas
- Rise Above ‘Racism’
- ‘Good’ Discrimination
- Nebraska Considers Coerced Integration
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 42 comments }
The “Civics as it is, not as liberals dream it” textbook should use this essay as the introduction for the chapter on the 14th amendment.
La Shawn:
Great link to “Jump Jim Crow”.
History does repeat itself.
KKK was ruthless at keeping Republicans out of South.
Today, Black Democrats are ruthless at trashing all things Republicans. Is this reincarnation?”
The LAUSD has bigger problems than racial quotas. Remember, Crenshaw High got its accreditation revoked. Now this—-
FROM OCTOBER 19, 2005 LOS ANGELES TIMES:
“CALIFORNIA STUDENTS’ MATH, READING SCORES AMONG THE LOWEST: –By Emma Vaughn, Times Staff Writer
“Despite slight gains in math scores, California elementary and middle school students still rank among the lowest nationally in reading and math, according to test results released today.
With 40% below basic proficiency, California eighth-graders’ reading scores were the third lowest in the nation after Hawaii and the District of Columbia.
“”No matter how you look at this data, California is at the bottom,”" said Russlyn Ali, executive director of Education Trust-West. “”There is something systematically wrong with the way we approach educating all students in this state.”"—-From the Los Angeles Times
Thanks for the advice, Gretchen/Jackie/Liz or whatever alias you’re using these days (Sheena, Danielle, etc.).
– Admin
Frank Zavisca said “KKK was ruthless at keeping Republicans out of South.
Today, Black Democrats are ruthless at trashing all things Republicans. Is this reincarnation?â€
I think it’s stretching the point to make the comparison between Black Dems of today and the KKK. Between 1889 and 1918, a total of 2,522 black Americans were lynched, 50 of them women. These people were hanged, burned alive, or hacked to death.
I watched Lashawn on C-span a few days ago and even though I am an independent, I couldn’t help finally admitting that she and the panel of Black republicans she sat with had a point. I decided to stop fighting because the reality is overwhelming. I had always been against her views but that day, I just felt sick about the reality I was hearing. Even I am a witness to the annoying jokes of black people on welfare driving Cadillac, Lexus, or Mercedes or black people just constantly getting those student loan balance checks and never graduating. I heard that day on c-span the abortion statistics and believe me it made me sick.
As a high school teacher, I know that no kid has ever been denied entrance into a library. When I suggest to black kids that they go to the library they always look at me as if I have gone mad. The kids in my school are rather ready to buy a $300.00 pair of sneakers than to pay $1.00 from their house to the library and back. I even wonder how they get the money too!
I am tired of watching all the kids either trying to be rappers or basketball players and believe me a lot of them haven’t even got the skills, just like the bad singers in American Idol. They can’t read or write and they don’t want to have anything to do with mathematics but somehow expect to sign a contract?
What I am trying to say is that the affirmative action thing and color preference programs are not working. America needs an estimated 450,000 more nurses before the year 2018. Based on the performance of black people in affirmative action; I wonder how many black sisters/brothers will make it there. We need another 90,000-250,000 Pharmacist at the same time and right now I am taking Pharmacy classes and I am the only black guy in the class. I didn’t use affirmative action and what was more surprising is that I asked myself, “Where are all the black people right now in this class that I am sitting in?” I thought the class would be filled to the bursting with them because of affirmative action. They don’t use it so much in the first place.
It is more horrible when you think of the fact that we are in an era in which black people more rights and freedom than ever before. I am tired of seeing so many black old girls in the singles programs in the church. On the other hand, the black men are just out of it. I taught for a short time in the prisons and believe me I was so disgusted. It looked like a black recreation club.
That school district in LA, is one of the emerging realities that we can no more condemn, because even if they had programs for color preference how many black people would take advantage of it and finally graduate from a four year college?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Kevin reports: Between 1889 and 1918, a total of 2,522 black Americans were lynched, 50 of them women. These people were hanged, burned alive, or hacked to death.
Could you cite the source for this?
The blogoshpere is under legitimate attack for spreading unsubstantiated data and it would be to your benefit to document your source(s).
La Shawn,
thanks for making me think about something. For a long time I’ve marvelled at the fact that before desegregation Blacks had great neighborhoods in general, great nightclubs, great stores, and were so successful in what they did that Whites began to come into the neighborhoods, especially for the quality entertainment. Then, after desegregation, things fell apart and I couldn’t figure out why.
Time.
Time.
If it hadn’t been for the insertion of the overly (falsely?) compassionate individuals all too ready to alleviate their guilt or feel like they’d done something substantial by bypassing the things that make men into men and women into women, time would have allowed the black american community to rebuild itself even better than before.
Teach a man to fish and he can feed his family, evtertain his friends, discover new species, study the environment, start his own television show and more. Give him fish after fish and watch as the fire that gives his soul its manhood slowly dims away.
On the positive side, it only takes a spark to start a forest fire.
Kevin #5,
So do the “2,522 black Americans were lynched, 50 of them women” compare to the 13 plus million Black babies that were aborted at the hands of our own Black mothers and applauded by Black Dems (and white dems alike)?? just wondering
La Shawn –
Pardon my nerdiness, but I think this sentence, “Too many people benefit from the rigged system,…” would be more effective if you used the words ‘are intoxicated by’ rather than ‘benefit from.’ Benefit implies goodness or positive progress, and as you’ve outlined (many times), there’s nothing good about a rigged system.
Keep preachin’ it.
Kevin:
If you read the Jump Jim Crow link, you would see the comment about the KKK trying to keep the Republicans (party favoring Blacks at the time) out of the South.
Today, Dems have captured Blacks, and quite ruthlessly trashed anything conservative, including Republicans:
1 Actively encouraged, and sympathized, with city-burning of the 60’s.
2 Demanded more and more forced labor on the part of taxpayers to pay for “government programs for the poor” – which has not worked.
3 Routinely shamelessly trash Black Republicans, like Clarence Thomas and Condelleza Rice.
Here is definition of ruthless from MS Bookshelf 2000:
ruth·less
ruth·less (r?th?lis) adjective
Having no compassion or pity; merciless: ruthless cruelty; ruthless opportunism.
— ruth?less·ly adverb
— ruth?less·ness noun
Definition does not imply physical violence.
Further advice:
Read the text of La Shawn’s links.
Read the Dictionary.
The comments referenced above regarding the number of Blacks killed due to lynchings originally came from The Tuskegee Institute and are referenced by Yale.
The author didn’t make those numbers up, and they are very easily verifiable. It’s part of our American History, no less significant than Washington crossing the Delaware.
The reference to Black women aborting their babies and comparing this unfortunate reality to the lynching of Black people is misplaced, to say the least. Abortions are not limited to race. Lynchings, in large measure, were. The motivation behind each of these distinct actions also differs greatly. Lynchings served several purposes:
• To eradicate Blacks accused of crimes against the white community.
• To maintain a degree of leverage and social order over the Black population through terrorism.
• To neutralize or eliminate black competitors for economic, political, or social rewards.
• To serve as a symbolic manifestation of the unity of white supremacy.
I don’t believe the motivation for abortion is the same. Lastly, the original reporter (Kevin) underestimated the numbers killed. Many more lynchings are suspected because they were never reported beyond the community involved. The number only account for what was reported.
Affirmative action has its faults, as rightly pointed out in the article as well as (some) of the comments provided here. What’s significantly absent from the analysis is the misguided assumption that Blacks and Whites operate on an even playing field. This country is based upon white affirmative action. Historically, institutionally, economically, and in many other ways. This is the catalyst, the “root” from which affirmative action initiatives were born, regardless of there ineffectiveness. Simply eliminating them without some reasonable or feasible alternative may or may not do harm, but it certainly wouldn’t do any good.
Frank
Being “trashed” is not the same as being killed just for being Black. If you had a choice (and those that were lynched did not) would you rather be trashed for your beliefs or be killed for the color of your skin? I stand by my point which is black Dems should not be compared to the KKK who lynched people. Further, there is ample “ruthlessness” on all sides to go around, that market in my opinion has not been cornered by either political party.
No, Renee
I don’t think the killing of black babies by black mothers is right; just as I don’t think the KKK killing of blacks was right. I can find no justification for either case. Whether it’s one life or millions of lives, I hold that human life is the creation of God and each and everyone is equally precious in His sight – no matter if we’re talking about an unborn child or those who’ve been historically marginalized members of our society.
“The reference to Black women aborting their babies and comparing this unfortunate reality to the lynching of Black people is misplaced, to say the least.”
Misplaced, how so?
Abortion serves many of the same purposes you mentioned for lynching (matter of fact abortion can be considered the new form of Black lynchings and as an added bonus…you get the support of blacks in the “lynchilgs”)with the below added:
1. Selfishness
2. Greed
You can dress it up and use the black and white analogy of the putpose of lynching til the cows come home but it won’t fly.
“You can dress it up and use the black and white analogy of the putpose of lynching til the cows come home but it won’t fly. ”
I expected disagreement, and that’s cool. I just wish it made sense. I laid out the differences plain as day. I guess my point by point had to be ignored, rather than referenced and disputed, in order to maintain the argument. (That part does make sense to me.)
Abortion is sad, and so is lynching. Comparing the two is both mispalced, and serves no discernable purpose. The reasons for lynching have already been outlined above. The reasons for abortion are as follows:
25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.
Not to mention the fact that over 60% of all abortions that take place within the US are done by caucasion women.
Once again, what does abortion have to do with lynchings? Why the comparison? And on who’s part does the selfishness and greed come into play? The would be mothers who make the choice to abort or the would be slave masters that make the choice to lynch? (The Blacks and a few others that were lynched didn’t have a choice.)
If I’m missing something here, I’d be happy to be shown the light.
For Steve and Kevin: (My following comment is a benign observation and not meant to provoke.)
The lynching numbers are inferior by any measurement. They may be extremely low or extremely high, because they are only a best guess estimate and the methodology for collecting them is admittedly flawed.
The “Yale” study is far from definitive and lacks the academic footnote referencing to test its assertions. Furthermore, it’s reliance on Gunnar Myrdal embeds it with the problems related to his more recently discovered research anomalies. The contradictions in it place it as a weak source.
Anytime I encounter a breakdown with percentage by percentage categories, I want to see the statistics and how the cohort was chosen and weighted.
Suppose you saw a percentage by percentage ranking that “definitively” labeled “the Black community”? (23% read the Bible; 22.1% brush their teeth too vigorously; 20.2% were traumatized by the Smurfs as children, etc.)
Academia is replete with fools and researchers who create a study to make their points. Since academia is overwhelmingly liberal, their reports tend to support socially liberal beliefs.The greatest caveat of them all is that just being in print does not make it so.
Arguments are rarely strengthened by flailing away with dubious numbers as a weapon of righteous armor.
Not to infringe on the comment debate here -
I thoroughly enjoyed your article. As a white woman, I’ve always been noncommittal about affirmative action, mostly because I got sick of hearing other white people whine about it. But your article made me think twice.
For Heliotrope:
Believe it or not, I agree with what I think is the basis of your statements above: unverifiable statistics lie, or at least manipulate and/or bend the truth.
That’s cool, and I agree.
The real truth hear isn’t really the numbers anyway. The numbers were meant to illustrate this point: Blacks suffered from terrorism from those – however many – that did perform lynchings. Numbers are pretty much irrelevant at that point. I hope we can agree that the vast majority of Blacks during the time of lynching feared for their lives. Kinda like all of America was afraid (at least for a little while) after 9/11.
Be it 100 lynchings, or 1000 lynchings, I can only imagine that the fear of being lynched prevailed throughout the Black community at that time.
What does all this have to do with the topic at hand?
It serves as an outline or frame of reference for the origin (in full or in part) of affirmative action. This (historical) point was absent from the discussion. If affirmative action was done away with tomorrow, the results would not be full equality of all. The US wasn’t built that way.
Steve, although you don’t agree with most of what I blog, your dissent is the kind I wish I’d see more often: non-offensive, non-personal (refraining from attacking the blog hostess), and reasonable. I’ve always known that reasonable people can disagree, although that doesn’t mean all disagreement is reasonable. What led you to my blog, I don’t know, but if they’re more like you out there, I wish they’d comment instead of the kind of dissenters I usually get.
Regarding your comment about “full equality for all” and America not being built that way, you get the point but stop too short. Humanity is not built that way. There will never be “full equality” even if every human being on the planet started out with exactly the same resources and opportunities. As I’ve written many times on this blog, people are not made equally. Each of us is created in God’s image and are equally accountable before Him, but that’s about it. Some people are more talented and skilled; some are motivated and others are not. Some do the very best with what they have and manage to spin gold from straw. Others take their gold and turn it into manure. We’re talking about human traits, not black ones or white ones. “Equality for all” is simply an impossible dream conjured by people who may have had the best of intentions but sadly lacked insight into human behavior and history.
La Shawn, believe it or not, i appreciate your kind words. I am truly surprised at your response to my posts – I expected to be berated and deleted.
What led me to your blog? Surfing the web, and researching various blogs in preparation for my own. There was an article about you on another blog, and i thought to myself “How could somebody with such a beautiful smile be talked about so badly?”
So, here I am.
By the way, and for the record, for what it’s worth, I’m neither Democrat, nor Republican. I can’t really call myself consevative or liberal – it depends on the issue. As a matter of fact, i don’t really subscribe to any political party. I guess its safe to say that my own personal “politics” is Black history and it’s significance to life today. That would most likely be the perspective from which i would comment most often.
Once again, thank you for your kind words. It’s a pleasant surprise. I promise not to disrupt your blog too often, but I will be reading.
…regarding your comments about humanity for all, crazy as it sounds, I agree with you – to a point.
Everything you said is 100% correct (in my opinion), but (and there’s always a but, huh?) …your supposition (of which I agree) is based upon a framework that this society will recognize all positive advancement, and it will reward equally and accordingly. Also, all those that are lacking will suffer from their inadequacies equally.
That’s where my “the US isn’t built that way” comment comes in.
The institutional and systemic racism that is part of this country’s fabric shouldn’t be an excuse not to try. But ignoring it doesn’t reduce it’s significance, nor does it make it go away. How many in positions of power (regardless of political affiliation) earned the right to be there? How many hard knocks did someone have to overcome to get ahead – or just survive? And were all/most/some of these “hard knocks” self inflicted or external?
Once again, I do not totally disagree with your regarding the ineffectiveness of affirmative action. But it’s denouncement doesn’t fix the problem at hand either.
I expected to be berated and deleted.
This is what my harshest and, quite honestly, unfair and hostile critics want to instill in the minds of readers: that I tolerate NO disagreement on this site. But anyone who’s read my blog for a long time (been blogging since November 2003) know there is plenty of dissent on it, but what the unscrupulous and disingenuous are dying to do is tear me down instead of the arguments I make. Some black liberals, for instance, cannot help themselves. They do not like “La Shawn,” don’t want her out there, and will waste no words to be as nasty as they can be.
I always knew that stubborn streak that got me in trouble as a kid would serve me well one day.
Heliotrope, the following text is excerpted from Mark Gao’s book Lynchings in America,
“Statistics compiled by the N.A.A.C.P. in 1921 tell the gruesome toll of murder committed in the name of justice. Between the years 1889 through 1918, at least 3,224 people were lynched in America. Of that number 2,522 were black. The figures vary depending on the source. The Cleveland Gazette reported in 1903 that “There were 3,233 lynchings, in one form or another, in this country in the twenty-one years ending January 1, 1903†(May 16, 1903). The Tuskegee Institute chronicled over 4,000 lynchings during a similar period. In any account though, African Americans suffered the brunt of mob violence. The driving force for this unprecedented level of mob violence was mostly racism.”
We have three, I believe, credible historical accountings of lynching statistics here. You may question the numbers because as the author states they vary. It is however more difficult to question the fact that the numbers reflect something more to the point. The numbers are evidence of extreme violence that was routinely carried out against people based primarily on the color of their skin. The reason for my responding in the first place was to state unequivocally that lynching in no way, shape, or form resembles what is going on in the current Democrats vs Republican political harangue. For the sake of those that loss their lives by lynching and as a testimony to the ideal of justice for all, I argue this should be kept in its proper perspective. “Strange fruit” indeed.
LaShawn,
I’ve long felt blacks would be more upwardly mobile if we could convince a few to move to areas where there aren’t traditionally strong black communities. For example, I live in Phoenix, an almost exclusively white community that offers a diverse economy and a high quality of living at a very reasonable cost. So many people who live here are from some place else, distinguishing an authentic local culture is nearly impossible. It’s not very diverse here, but I don’t see any reason why it can’t be.
I’m not a sociologist with numbers on file, but my amateur observation is there are eight or nine or 10 American metropolitans where blacks feel comfortable in a home-grown culture, but these areas also seem to coincide with some of the most expensive places to live, as well, and where job growth might not be as strong. It seems to me breaking out into other cities might actually be of greater financial benefit to them.
Am I all wet?
The discussion about lynching and abortion is interesting, but I think the more important point for discussion is the proper role of affirmative action in American society. Since its creation, affirmative action has been decried by former segregationist (and others) as a misguided government policy. Initially, those objections were designed to preserve the status quo, and not as genuine critiques. The legal attacks against affirmative action began almost immediately after its inception and were launched in the same calculated way the N.A.A.C.P. set about through court challenges to erode the separate-but-equal doctrine created by the Plessy decision. To a great extent, the attacks against affirmative action have been just as successful as the attacks against the separate-but-equal doctrine.
There can be no dispute that affirmative action has been positive in some respects and negative in others. Minority-owned businesses have benefited greatly from government contracting, which traditionally goes to the lowest, best bid. Before affirmative action many minority-owned businesses had no chance of obtaining those contracts, which in most instances were based solely on cronyism. The negative aspect of affirmative action is that many white and black conservatives, as well as some others, speak of it as the worst thing since segregation (besides Roe of course). But the unknown, and I think unanswerable, question is what would have happened without affirmative action?
Would black doctors, lawyers, educators, business men and women, and intellectuals have remained in black communities? Many of the people who are among those ranks simply have chosen to live elsewhere, which is their right. However, their absence in those communities have left a generation without next-door role models that previously existed, and who provided a bases of hope to children who often could not find it through the media, school books, or from their own parents. The reason so many children want to be rappers and professional athletes is because many of those persons are visible, whereas black professionals are not.
Would black-owned businesses have continued to serve the black community? Before affirmative action,necessity dictated blacks creating the business infrastructure to serve its own community. After affirmative action, individuals who would have otherwise probably started businesses in black communities went to work for white-owned and operated companies. The effect of which was to leave communities without strong black businesses that would have greatly enhanced the economic vitality of those communities by employing local residents and providing a stronger tax base.
Unfortunately, affirmative action will never do what is was intended to do — level the playing field. Our capitalist system is built on competition, which has winners and losers and is inherently in contrast to the notion of true equality. I believe that affirmative action will soon be eliminated because as time passes the justification (remedy vestiges of racial discrimination)for it wanes.
However, if black intellectuals and professionals, whether liberal, conservative or in-between, would commit to rebuilding the economic infrastructure of black communities, I believe we could create the type of communities affirmative action has yet to achieve.
I support Pacific Legal Foundation.
Antonio wrote, “Our capitalist system is built on competition, which has winners and losers and is inherently in contrast to the notion of true equality.”
Capitalism is the people choosing who gets what resources.
Socialism is the government choosing who gets what resources.
Yes. In socialism all outcomes would be chosen by the state and in capitalism the outcomes are chosen by the people (by people spending money here and not there and by people hiring this person instead of that person). Because we are a nation of laws we all understand that there should be equal opportunity. That DOES NOT mean equal outcome. If someone squanders their opportunity and doesn’t take their publicly given education seriously then they will not move ahead. It is not the right of anyone in this nation for others to provide them a house. People need to rebuild their own community through education, picking up a broom, hammer, nails, paint. I work on my house every other day it seems. I redid the tile, paint, landscaping, etc. Everyone in MY neighborhood has improved their home since I moved into it in 1997. A couple times a neighbor has done something like concrete and we all walk over there and help. A couple times we have helped with fences. We’ve all taken the OPPORTUNITY to educate ourselves and work in our best interest without EXPECTING others to give to us.
The government and charities are there and an average american gives nearly half of their money to city, county, state and federal governments and charities. A large portion of this money goes towards entitlements. Why? Because not only are we a nation with the economic system of capitalism but we are a compassionate nation of laws and rights and we provide safety nets that are treated not as safety nets but hammocks for able-bodied people. There are people who need the safety nets that are elderly or non-able bodied but these safety nets are diluted by able-bodied VICTIMS.
Steve: My comments were not meant to challenge your statistics, but to suggest that giving “firm” numbers where none can exist weakens your case. It gives your “opponent” an opening to cause you to defend the indefensible.
My original questioning was not to undermine your point, but to create this conversation. Black lynchings are a terrible part of our American family album and nearly all of us would wish that chapter away if we had the power.
I do not see how lynchings relate to Affirmative Action or its continuation in the future except as some strange form of reparation.
The 14th Amendment guarantees all citizens the due process of the law and equality under the law. Affirmative Action permits a special classification which leads to both de jure and de facto preference when applying the due process of the law which, in turn, compromises equality under the law.
All wishful thinking and manufactured positive outcome aside, how can we be a nation of equality and a nation of laws while we permit Affirmative Action?
We can’t Heliotrope.
My daughters attending a public school and any other daughters need to be treated without preferences and/or discrimination. They should be judged on their merit and should not be discriminated against or given preferential treatment to based on their skin color.
From this day forward. Period.
Baklava
I am not touting the virtues of socialism. My point is that capitalism fosters an “us” versus “them” mentality that is antithetical to the concept of leveling the playing field. Capitalism works best when there is competition in the marketplace, at least that is what conservatives have been saying for years. So in each sector or industry, there will be winners (companies that garner profitable market share) and losers (companies that are unable to gain a profitable market share). Capitalism is the best system going, but its not beyond reproach. I do think, however, that capitalism could be the engine of change in many black communities.
The black community, in general, spends a considerable amount of money, much of which is never recycled in their communities. If that changed by the creation of businesses that employed local residents and provided quality goods and services to those residents, then those communities would fair much better. The need for social programs would decrease because you would likely have more people working and making wages that brought them above the poverty line. Education funding would improve because the tax base would increase. Just a thought.
You mention that “we understand that there should be equal opportunity.” But what does that mean? Is there really such a concept as equal opportunity? Does it mean that a new company that wants to compete with Wal-Mart should enjoy the same vendor discounts as Wal-Mart. Does it mean that a kid who attends a public school that has uncertified teachers, dilapidated infrastructure, and outdated books is receiving opportunity equal to his or her counterparts in better public or private schools. Does it mean that a minority applicant who interviews for a job already promised to the son of a potential business partner of the employer is enjoying equal opportunity with respect to employment. The answer is no. Equal opportunity is a phrase that is high-minded but lacks substance. While there may be the rare occasion when an opportunity is equal, in many instances there is no equality of opportunity. This occurs for many different reasons, none of which are terribly important to this discussion.
The point is that we all should recognize that some people have not enjoyed the same opportunities as others and that, instead of espousing the ofttimes hollow concept of “equal opportunity, we should champion the concept of helping people realize their God-given potential and assisting them to take advantage of the “opportunities” that have been voluntarily or involuntarily bestowed upon them.
I agree, the government’s entitlement system is just Jim Crow II. Its intent is still to limit Blacks and other minorities.
However, it definitely does not disenfranchise Whites.
And remember, this is only one of the entitlement systems.
There is also the “wealthy White” entitlement program, another “rigged system”. Bush is one of the recipients of this one!
My comments were not meant to challenge your statistics, but to suggest that giving “firm†numbers where none can exist weakens your case. It gives your “opponent†an opening to cause you to defend the indefensible.
Heliotrope: Understood. In this particular case, the numbers were secondary. No one can (or should) question the prevalence of lynchings in America.
All wishful thinking and manufactured positive outcome aside, how can we be a nation of equality and a nation of laws while we permit Affirmative Action?
Heliotrope: You question the relevance of lynchings and how they relate to Affirmative Action. Lynchings serve as an example of the mindset, intention, and social / political reality that this country was founded on. Lynchings may have gone away, but the intentions behind the actions have not. My question to you: How can we be a nation of equality and a nation of laws when there are, in fact, two Americas?
One of wealth and privilege for Whites, and something quite different and lacking for so called “minorities”? Affirmative action’s existence or legitimacy is only one small part of the problem.
“No man can point to any law in the US by which slavery was originally established. Men first make slaves and then make laws.” – Frederick Douglass
Steve,
Affirmative action effictively discriminates against me, a white middle class male, with NO ties to slavery (my family MAY have owned them 150 years ago, I assure I did not…)…does two wrongs make a right, especially since the ones you would like to punish are DEAD by over a century (most likely).
Affirmative action needs to go.
Dan
Dan,
The affirmative action that you assert has caused you to be discriminated against pales in comparison to the institutional, economic, social, legal, and overall systemic white affirmative action that serves as the basis for how this country was founded and currently operates. You do not have to be a slave owner (now or in the past) to enjoy these priviledges any more than I – as Black man – must be a slave to suffer from society’s inequities. Please note: this isn’t about playing some stupid race card or screaming “victimhood” here. This is American history – past and present (recent). Describing the current state of societal affairs isn’t the same as making excuses for failure. I’m not going there.
The issue is far deeper than whether or not Affirmative Action stays or goes. Either way, you as a white male, are all set. Who cares about AA? Your a white male, and this is YOUR world. Enjoy it!
To refute my statements (as I expect they will be) means to deny the existence of white priveledge.
If you think Affirmative Action is so effective that is has the ability to displace or otherwise influence economic and other resources from white america, then you over estimate it’s power. This is on a broader scale.
On a more personal, individual scale: If you are not receiving your fair share, you either really are but don’t recognize it, or you haven’t gotten up out of your chair and gone to take full advantage. Pull yourself up from your bootstraps young man! Don’t let something as silly as Affirmative Action determine your furture. This is America! Be all you can be.
This is your world (for now). Enjoy it. Don’t let something as silly as Affirmative Action for little ole’ minorities keep you from getting what’s yours – rightfully so or otherwise.
Steve asks: My question to you: How can we be a nation of equality and a nation of laws when there are, in fact, two Americas? One of wealth and privilege for Whites, and something quite different and lacking for so called “minorities�
I do not believe in the “two Americas” at all. Anyone who applies his talent, keeps a positive attitude and enjoys a strong work ethic can move ahead in the America of today. (And please don’t capitalize “whites.” It is almost a Freudean slip to do so.)
Deng Zao Peng looked at China in early 1980’s and decided to release private ownership into the society. He explained it thus: “I don’t care if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.”
I don’t care who does my heart surgery, so long as he/she is among the best. I want a quality brake job on my car. I don’t care who does it or who runs or owns the place.
So far as the “old boy” network among the very rich is concerned, it has always been around and always will be. If you can’t lick it, then join it. Washington, DC has had an elite black society for 150 years with its own black old boy network. It is the natural outcome of wealth and success. You may recall that when Clinton wanted to get Monica out of his life he called Vernon Jordon who arranged for the President of Revlon to get her an interview. Nothing is ever going to change that type of influence. But few of us are affected by it until we are trying to get the job the boss’s son is after.
You seem to have such a positive attitude, it seems a shame to get hung up on the negative. Life is a series of construction jobs as we all build personal by-passes around road blocks.
Run, do not walk to ShrinkWrapped’s comments in post #36.
Dear La Shawn,
I come to this discussion late but the topic is of great interest to me. I grew up at a time when black newspapers still kept a running account of the number of lynchings yearly. That may not count for yourself or others as legitimate as they were not reported in the white press but the black press has performed a role in the black community no other institution has vested interested in performing, then or now.
Neither political party has demonstrated an investment in the best interests of the black community. The major difference I have seen over the decades however has been the the attempt by the Democratic Party to broaden the beneficiaries of its efforts. I am unaware of your age but I witnessed the desertion of the Democratic Party by the racists who refused to accept blacks on an equal standing. Those deserters were welcomed with open arms by the Republican Party. That is part of the background for Senate Majority Leader Lott’s comments which caused his temporary demise. It wasn’t that his comments were untrue. His error was in saying his sentiments out loud. The Republican Party remains a safe haven for politicians who have less than the best interests of the black community in mind. The only reasonable, realistic strategy for blacks, is to spearhead a political movement, without the baggage of the “two parties”, which champions the best interests of Hispanics, poor and middle class whites, as well as their own.
These issues have been rehashed ad nauseum on this blog. This post is a good place to start: http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2005/07/06/thoughts/. Check the comments, too.
- Admin
Good stuff ya’ll
Ciao
To Heliotrope (re: #35):
I do not believe in the “two Americas†at all. Anyone who applies his talent, keeps a positive attitude and enjoys a strong work ethic can move ahead in the America of today. (And please don’t capitalize “whites.†It is almost a Freudean slip to do so.)
It figures that you do not believe in a two Americas. And that’s fine – your individual and/or personal experiences do not support such a thing, nor does (I presume) your study of histrory support such an ideal. This isn’t unexpected.
Applying talent, keeping a positive attitude and strong work ethic are all admirable qualities. The difference between you and me is that you believe poeple will excel if these qualities are adhered to, I am hopeful people will ecell by adhering to these qualities in spite of America’s shortcommings.
Our experiences, observations, and understanding of history differ. It stands to reason our belief (or lack there of) in a two America will differ as well. I (very likely) can’t change your mind regarding the concept, any more than you can convince me that Blacks and White operate on an even playing field, regardless of talent or motivation. History is filled with Black achievers who have succeeded in spite of America, not because of it.
By the way, there is no hidden meaning or agenda regarding my use of “whites” or “Whites”. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Deng Zao Peng looked at China in early 1980’s and decided to release private ownership into the society. He explained it thus: “I don’t care if the cat is black or white as long as it catches mice.â€
I don’t care who does my heart surgery, so long as he/she is among the best. I want a quality brake job on my car. I don’t care who does it or who runs or owns the place.
Good for you. Too bad the rest of the world, or the majority of those in power – any kind of power – within these United States doesn’t feel the same. Individual belief in equality or examples of individual successes do not reflect the larger social realities of the majority. To equate the two is tantamount to operating with blinders.
So far as the “old boy†network among the very rich is concerned, it has always been around and always will be. If you can’t lick it, then join it.
Join it? Ha! You (or rather, I) don’t “join” the old boy’s network. I don’t qualify – I gotta be an “old boy” first!
Washington, DC has had an elite black society for 150 years with its own black old boy network. It is the natural outcome of wealth and success.
Social societies and organizations with real power aren’t necessirly the same thing. A bunch of rich Black folks is only as powerful as who they must answer to or report to to secure that wealth. Real “old-boys” either answer to no one, or answer to other old boy’s (which is the same thing really). That’s the definition of their power. You are comparing apples and oranges.
You may recall that when Clinton wanted to get Monica out of his life he called Vernon Jordon who arranged for the President of Revlon to get her an interview.
Jordan’s power, however hard he worked to get his position and as deserving as he may have been, is dependent upon the his place within the given organization. He is a soldier within that given power structure, nothing more. His perceived power is contingent upon the the beliefs and agendas of who he reports to.
Nothing is ever going to change that type of influence.
Let Jordan say or do anything which conflicts with the ideals of who provided that perceoved power he enjoys, or who he reports to, and we will see just how truly powerful he – and others like him – really are. The “power” you reference in this instance is a myth – it’s not real power, just a high paying job.
But few of us are affected by it until we are trying to get the job the boss’s son is after.
I’m not quite sure what this partcular statement means, but I will submit that the “boss’s son” extends far beyond blood and direct family ties.
You seem to have such a positive attitude, it seems a shame to get hung up on the negative. Life is a series of construction jobs as we all build personal by-passes around road blocks.
The “negative” as you refer to it isn’t something as simple as a depressing attitude or an imaginary perception of reality. It’s the system under which I (and you) operate. You don’t agree of course, becuase your experiences and mine differ. And that’s fine. I’m quite sure nothing I could say will refute your suppositions. I’m probably relegated to some “whiney liberal negro” status in the minds of many of the readers of this blog, who choose to actually read my long-winded posts.
And that’s cool too. This is an interesting excercise for me.
To La Shawn: thanks for this discussion. I like the spirit of it. This is also my first comment on your site.
To Steve: I’m a 40 year old white man from Dallas, TX who grew up in a middle class family. I have chosen to live in lower class neighborhoods for maybe 6 years of my life and have been in the developing world the past 10. I say that to give some background.
As a social worker for the elderly, I observed the following characteristics in most of the majority black neighborhoods I worked in. A huge majority of the elderly were delightful, well read, dignified, clung to high moral values and had good marriages. I noticed that their children in their 40s and 50s tended to be hard working but many of the families were not together any more and they tended to be less committed to their churches but still active. Then their children the teens and 20 year olds were involved in almost all of the problems we read about all of the time.
I frequently asked my elderly friends what they thought happened and most of them pointed to the fall in the Christian commitment in their communities.
I bring this up because observation seems to go against the argument that more “material” help and more opportunities are what is needed. Those who faced the worst oppression and had the least opportunities turned out to be valuable contributors to society. Those with the most opportunities or the least amount of “racial” barriers were destroying what once was there.
My opinion is it is all in the mindset of people. If you think you “deserve” something you tend to not work as hard for it. I do development work in Afghanistan and I find this place plagued with “dependency” people demanding our organizations help when they aren’t doing anything themselves. I only work in communities I see already trying to do something for themselves but don’t have the resources. Our work in those places can have a large impact. Where people aren’t trying to help themselves our work only makes things worse, because we confirm that they don’t really need to do it themselves. In villages that “demand” I do “this or that”, I try to help them understand that they themselves have to be the main problem solvers. If the situation really needs changing what are they willing to do? These are development principles that apply universally.
In my opinion much of America is in need of a serious paradigm shift. Why do my friends’ kids succeed in school? Their parents start reading to them when they are infants. The schools are good because the community demands it and kids come already taught to value education. These traits have nothing to do with race, some correlation with “class” because of time but everything to do with values. The term “family values” is politically almost a joke, but in my mind the family is where the “inequality of opportunity” takes place.
Do you want to know how to raise a terrorist? Let your child hear you describing the death of Jews and Americans as glorious. Do you want to know how to raise a racist? Then sit around with your friends and downgrade other races or religions. Do you want to know how to increase teen pregnancies? Let your children watch so much TV that they think everyone should have sex before they are 14 and virgins are despicable. Do you want your child to be successful in the life? Teach them hard work, education and integrity through your own life and your words.
This isn’t fool proof. Some people with great parents disgrace themselves, while some from horrible homes become great. But I believe the principle is absolutely true.
So my comment on this whole debate is that we are discussing the wrong subject. I would phrase the conversation for discussion to be: “What values are necessary for a successful life/society and how can we help create these environments in poor/underprivileged areas?”
Steve I guess I’m asking how you would view the above statements and comments.
Run, do not walk to ShrinkWrapped’s comments in post #36.
Comment by Heliotrope — 10.21.05 @ 2:52 pm
Lawd. All that analysis to explain Black people’s insistence on dependency and 2nd class citizenship. And it’s all conveniently the “liberal’s” fault.
All “we” have to do is get over our feelings of entitlement and inadequacy, and “we” will be just fine. These feelings of psycho – devaluation are generational and are passed down from father to son, perpetuating the problem.
And all that analysis is topped off with this:
A growing black middle class suggests there is nothing inherent in our black American countrymen that precludes their investment in the American experience.
I submit to you that there is no growing Black middle class. The current economic problems in this country are destoying the middle class – regardless of color.
Shrinkwrap’s article ends with this:
Ultimately, however, the black population of our country will never be able to succeed until they realize that they are unconsciously buying into an unstated meme saying that they are unable to compete; as long as they believe they cannot compete, they will never be able to compete.
All this confirms and reassures to everyone that Affirmative Action is evil. The proverbial “White Man” is blameless of course.
The whole thing is just too convenient. It suggests / implies / gives the impression that racism in this country is either gone, self inflicted, or otherwise inconsequential. “We” are our own worst enemy.
Wow.
At this point, any attempt I (or anyone else) makes to disagree with Shrinkwrap’s assessment further examplifies his assessment. “See, that’s what I mean – that poor Negro is screaming victimization and whining again.”
All I can say is that there are a number of psychologists / psychiatrists with their own data and alaysis that refutes much of Shrinkwrap’s findings. I guess it boiles down to what you want to believe and sticking with those that beleieve it with you – on either side of the fence.
One lesson I’ve learned from my little visit to La Shawn’s blog – the depth of our divition is far deeper than I imagined initially.
Well, Steve, both sides are here to present evidence for their position. The one thing I like to see on LBC is people discussing issues and citing sources. Yes, people are pretty much set in their positions, but does the evidence bear it out? This doesn’t have to be a “he said, she said” scenario. Either something is true or it isn’t. I hope during your “little visit” you’ve learned that people can disagree and hold views different from yours, and be civil with each other. – Admin
Well, Steve, both sides are here to present evidence for their position. The one thing I like to see on LBC is people discussing issues and citing sources. Yes, people are pretty much set in their positions, but does the evidence bear it out? This doesn’t have to be a “he said, she said†scenario. Either something is true or it isn’t. I hope during your “little visit†you’ve learned that people can disagree and hold views different from yours, and be civil with each other. – Admin
Being civil hasn’t been my issue. I hope my own civility while visting your blog bears that out.
“Evidence” is relative. I’ve found a couple of positions that have been held in two of the topics I’ve participated to be “evidenced” with some truth (not all, but just enough to support a given viewpoint), personal experience, some specualtion, and a little assumption. Sources that are cited (that oppose a given view) are challenged and denounced – a seemingly never ending activity that spirals most discussions into oblivion. That just may be the definition if “spin”.
Sometimes I wish life really were a little simpler. “either it’s true or it isn’t” would be far more meaningful and absolute. There would be no need for topics of discussion or debate if it was that easy – or they would be resolved satisfactorily by all when discussed.
Truth is relative. As are my little vists.
Truth is absolute and can be determined, despite what moral relativists claim. The point of “debating” is to get to the truth. No one said it was “that easy,” and I certainly didn’t imply it, either. – Admin
The law is a blunt instrument, properly used to batter people over the head where they would discriminate. But to use this same blunt instrument to force people to discriminate?
I understand guilt over the sins of one’s fathers, or of one’s younger self. But the answer is more charity than the passage of laws enforcing differential treatment throughout the land.
Comments on this entry are closed.