one of my favorite opinion pieces:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html
Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege
America still owes a debt to its black citizens, but government programs to help all 'people of color' are unfair. They should end.
By JAMES WEBB

Quote :

" The NAACP believes the tea party is racist. The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations. Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future. I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white. In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived. How so? View Full Image webb Martin Kozlowski webb webb Lyndon Johnson's initial program for affirmative action was based on the 13th Amendment and on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which authorized the federal government to take actions in order to eliminate "the badges of slavery." Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath. The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup. Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years. Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy. The clearest example of today's misguided policies comes from examining the history of the American South. The old South was a three-tiered society, with blacks and hard-put whites both dominated by white elites who manipulated racial tensions in order to retain power. At the height of slavery, in 1860, less than 5% of whites in the South owned slaves. The eminent black historian John Hope Franklin wrote that "fully three-fourths of the white people in the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery." The Civil War devastated the South, in human and economic terms. And from post-Civil War Reconstruction to the beginning of World War II, the region was a ravaged place, affecting black and white alike. In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt created a national commission to study what he termed "the long and ironic history of the despoiling of this truly American section." At that time, most industries in the South were owned by companies outside the region. Of the South's 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were white (a mirror of the population, which was 71% white). The illiteracy rate was five times that of the North-Central states and more than twice that of New England and the Middle Atlantic (despite the waves of European immigrants then flowing to those regions). The total endowments of all the colleges and universities in the South were less than the endowments of Harvard and Yale alone. The average schoolchild in the South had $25 a year spent on his or her education, compared to $141 for children in New York. Generations of such deficiencies do not disappear overnight, and they affect the momentum of a culture. In 1974, a National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study of white ethnic groups showed that white Baptists nationwide averaged only 10.7 years of education, a level almost identical to blacks' average of 10.6 years, and well below that of most other white groups. A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%. Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts. Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end. Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes. Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away. Mr. Webb, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Virginia. "

12/4/2010 5:46:56 PM

^^I'm part of the public. I'm being forced to subsidize racism. Are you getting it yet?

There's also another factor at work, although it's much harder to quantify. If any lesser qualified minority has ever been chosen for a job/school/scholarship over another, more qualified non-minority candidate, the latter person was wronged, and was punished for injustices that he had no part in. Has that ever happened to me? It's impossible to know. It's not like they send you a letter saying, "Sorry, but at this time we have decided to go with someone having less experience and lower test scores. However, this person had substantially darker skin than you, which will help us meet our diversity quota."

[Edited on December 4, 2010 at 7:42 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2010 7:42:06 PM

A strong argument exists that blacks - and only blacks (not whites, or mexicans, or any other group) - have had an advantage since the 1960s. Other minorities benefit as well, but there's no real social movement for their cause. I explain how they benefit in my next paragraph.

Blacks in America make up a small portion of the overall population. This is why their platform has expanded to include all minorities. Have the numbers of all non-whites combined surpassed the number of whites in America? By some accounts, yes. If not, it won't be long. Do you think they'll want these programs to continue once the non-white population outnumbers the white population?

No, they'll splint it off back to individual races. They'll keep it that way forever. Even if blacks came to be 80% of the population, they'd still claim that slavery was such an injustice that they should be able to freely discriminate and oppress white people forever. The end result if these programs are allowed to continue is that someday, probably not in our lifetime but someday, non-whites will enslave whites. Surely you can read through the propaganda rhetoric to see the underlying racist message.

Young people have this tendency to support minority issues because they're romanticized as being a struggle to overcome injustice. As I'm sure many of you have already witnessed, even the most open-minded and liberal individual becomes a racist as soon as they are passed over for a promotion that is given to a less-qualified black person. Many of you will become racists when this happens to you.

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 3:12 AM. Reason : stand up and be counted, show the world that you're a man..]

12/5/2010 3:10:50 AM

do you seriously think that at some point in the future black people will enslave whites in this country or was that hyperbole?

12/5/2010 3:27:31 AM

Quote :

"If any lesser qualified minority has ever been chosen for a job/school/scholarship over another, more qualified non-minority candidate, the latter person was wronged, and was punished for injustices that he had no part in."

This.

12/5/2010 10:42:24 AM

There are plenty of white small business owners out there that aren't subject to affirmative action laws who do nothing but hire other white people.

Yes, black small business owners do the same damn thing, but there are tons more white owners due to inherited advantages.

Republicans always say that small business owners make up the majority of the jobs in the US, right? So guess what? Advantage: white people.

12/5/2010 10:43:09 AM

Quote :

""If any lesser qualified minority has ever been chosen for a job/school/scholarship over another, more qualified non-minority candidate, the latter person was wronged, and was punished for injustices that he had no part in.""

Exactly


Oops its about right and wrong policy, imo. I think it is wrong to legislate discrimination, period. And to say there are more white business owners due to white "advantage", get real. There is more due to probability.

Cultural differences and generational poverty also play a huge role in that as well, but to discount the population percentage entirely is just wrong. imo

12/5/2010 11:05:52 AM

^^
(Yes, there are some true racists, that may deny it, and hide behind something similar to what I'm about to say, and I am neither talking about them nor defending their despicable racist decisions.)

Small business employers tend to hire within their family/friends/church/culture, because it's who they know, who lives nearby, who they feel safe with. That's not a problem. If it were, liberals would be demanding racial homogenization of families/churches/cultures just as much as they do for educational/occupational/etc opportunities.

Whether he meant to or not, he^^ is suggesting that instances of small business employers hiring only those people that happen to have the same skin color, happens mostly because of actual racism. This is quite simply a false suggestion.

Of course, if an employer had a stated policy of only hiring one race, that would create (as democratic society deems,) an unreasonable risk of harm to the liberty of individuals of other races... and should be illegal.

You "white guilt" liberals will pervert your view of almost anything in order to defend your support for the inalienably racist policy of affirmative action. Anything for politics, I guess.

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 11:17 AM. Reason : ]

12/5/2010 11:14:54 AM

Quote :

"to discount the population percentage entirely is just wrong."

Yes, there are more whites than blacks. Thanks for pointing that out.

I was saying that white people have an advantage due to "cultural differences and generational poverty" that "play a huge role".

Quote :

"Whether he meant to or not, he^^ is suggesting that instances of small business employers hiring only those people that happen to have the same skin color, happens mostly because of actual racism."

I don't know or care why it happens, but it does, as you admit. Therefore, white people have the advantage.


[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 11:19 AM. Reason : .]

12/5/2010 11:16:50 AM

^
Let me just quote you on that, so if you grow up and read this later, you'll be like:

Quote :

"I don't know or care why* [instances of small business employers hiring only those people that happen to have the same skin color] happens, but it does, as you admit. Therefore, white people have the advantage."

*my suggestion of why:

Quote :

"Small business employers tend to hire within their family/friends/church/culture, because it's who they know, who lives nearby, who they feel safe with. That's not a problem. If it were, liberals would be demanding racial homogenization of families/churches/cultures just as much as they do for educational/occupational/etc opportunities"

You basically just said that things that happen without any racism involved, contribute to racism.

(Holy , batman!)

By your "logic", we should racially homogenize families, churches, neighborhoods, cultures, etc, because until they're racially homogeneous, whites will have an supposed advantage.

Quote :

"as you admit"

There you go again, suggesting that instances of small business employers hiring only those people that happen to have the same skin color, happens mostly (or entirely,) because of actual racism, (or contributes to it.) Get a clue.

(Why even bother arguing with someone so blatantly incorrect and illogical?)

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 11:44 AM. Reason : ]

12/5/2010 11:41:01 AM

Quote :

"I was saying that white people have an advantage due to "cultural differences and generational poverty" that "play a huge role"."

what about the small business loans that are only available to african american businesses? or how about minority owned businesses getting an advantage when bidding on government contracts?

12/5/2010 11:56:35 AM

Listen. You petulant little dick. Did I ever say it was racism? No.

I said it happens. You said it happens. So we agree that white people have the advantage.

^ They are ways to tip the scales back a little bit, like affirmative action.

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 12:02 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2010 12:00:47 PM

I really don't think you're trolling -- I think you're just that dumb.

Quote :

"They are ways to tip the scales back a little bit, like affirmative action."

Sure, but it's racist.
The government should not be doing racist things -- for one, it's a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Now, if individuals or other private sources want to engage in "positive discrimination", they are free to do so...
...and I support that. I tend to favor atheists, women, and native Americans. Yet, I vehemently reject the idea of the government doing that. (and it should really not be hard to understand why.)

Quote :

"So we agree that white people have the advantage"

No we don't. An advantage how?
You're the one saying that a non-racist and passive demographic atmosphere leftover from a history that most people aren't responsible for, is a problem. It's not a problem. Actual intentional racism is a problem.

You seriously need to stop posting a go read a freshman-level logic textbook.

Do understand passive and active? intent? what I mean by atmosphere?

(never mind, I don't care what you think. You've already demonstrated how stupid you are. And you likely drink so much Democratic kool-aid, that no actual logic will convince you otherwise....)

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 12:19 PM. Reason : ]

12/5/2010 12:18:09 PM

Quote :

"if individuals or other private sources want to engage in "positive discrimination", they are free to do so... ...and I support that."

And I don't.

Quote :

"a non-racist and passive demographic atmosphere leftover from a history that most people aren't responsible for"

AKA, white people have an advantage.

The rest of your post is inflammatory and unnecessary. And pretty funny.

Ok, I'll post more, b/c I really want you to understand. Whether or not it's racist, or active, or leftover from history, or whether anyone is to blame for it, or whatever, the advantage is there. You are arguing all kinds of irrelevant shit, and your anger over it is really awe-inspiring.

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 12:28 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2010 12:23:14 PM

For the record:

OopsPowSrprs doesn't understand passive vs. active.

and

OopsPowSrprs thinks the government should engage in "positive" discrimination, but private citizens shouldn't.
(Better cancel my check to the Native American Heritage Association.... )

^
You. are. an. idiot.

12/5/2010 12:30:02 PM

And indy agrees that white people have an inherited advantage, which was the whole point of my original post.

Quote :

"(Better cancel my check to the Native American Heritage Association...."

And he likes to change the topic from employment practices.

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

12/5/2010 12:37:34 PM

Quote :

"So we agree that white people have the advantage."

no, from my post above:

Quote :

"Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy."

Quote :

"A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%."

Quote :

"Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts. "

12/5/2010 12:38:03 PM

Quote :

"And indy agrees that white people have an inherited advantage"

Uh, no I do not. But thanks for putting words in my mouth.


"a non-racist and passive demographic atmosphere leftover from a history that most people aren't responsible for"

!=

"advantage"

12/5/2010 12:41:04 PM

Quote :

"And indy agrees that white people have an inherited advantage, which was the whole point of my original post."

Some white people might have inherited advantages. If you're the third coke baby getting shit out by a white trailer park queen, how much does that "inherited advantage" help? You're not going to get ahead. How about the black people out there that were not born here, received a stellar education in some other country, and now live here?

What you need to understand, and I don't think you're quite there yet, is that skin color is a very artificial way of determining who gets ahead and who doesn't. When Martin Luther King, Jr. said that we should be judged by the content of our character, rather than the color of our skin, I don't think that was an endorsement of affirmative action.

If you really want to pick winners and losers like this, it can't be done by skin color. I may not agree with doing this, but you'd be better off having affirmative action for something like socioeconomic status. One of the smartest guys I knew in Political Science was mixed race of some sort, but he sounded and acted completely American. Despite that, and a wealthy upbringing, he got a shit ton of scholarships based on his minority status. He knew, and admitted many times, that it was bullshit, but he still benefited from it greatly. Those kinds of policies are extremely offensive to anyone thinking clearly.

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 1:00 PM. Reason : ]

12/5/2010 12:54:56 PM

Quote :

"You'd be better off having affirmative action for something like socioeconomic status."

I agree. We should have this too. I'd even agree to scale back some of the race-based AA policies as a substitute, since race isn't discriminated against as much as it used to be back when the original AA policies were first enacted.

12/5/2010 1:35:04 PM

What's next?

Affirmative action for atheists? for polygamists?

(If [governmental] affirmative action wasn't 100% wrong, I'd support that...)

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 1:45 PM. Reason : ]

12/5/2010 1:44:55 PM

on average, short people make less money than tall people. do they need help?

[Edited on December 5, 2010 at 3:11 PM. Reason : thats not really a serious post]

12/5/2010 2:48:29 PM

Quote :

"There are plenty of white small business owners out there that aren't subject to affirmative action laws who do nothing but hire other white people. Yes, black small business owners do the same damn thing, but there are tons more white owners due to inherited advantages. "

Yep, but guess who gets preference in gov't contracts? Advantage: minorities.

12/5/2010 4:58:10 PM