The Absurdity (and Consistency) of White Denial
What does it say about white folks' historic commitment to equal opportunity--and which Taranto would have us believe has only been rendered inoperative because of affirmative action--that in 1963, three-fourths of white Americans told Newsweek, "The Negro is moving too fast" in his demands for equality (14)? Or that in October 1964, nearly two-thirds of whites said that the Civil Rights Act should be enforced gradually, with an emphasis on persuading employers not to discriminate, as opposed to forcing compliance with equal opportunity requirements (15)?
What does it say about whites' tenuous grip on mental health that in mid-August 1969, forty-four percent of whites told a Newsweek/Gallup National Opinion Survey that blacks had a better chance than they did to get a good paying job--two times as many as said they would have a worse chance? Or that forty-two percent said blacks had a better chance for a good education than whites, while only seventeen percent said they would have a worse opportunity for a good education, and eighty percent saying blacks would have an equal or better chance? In that same survey, seventy percent said blacks could have improved conditions in the "slums" if they had wanted to, and were more than twice as likely to blame blacks themselves, as opposed to discrimination, for high unemployment in the black community (16).
In other words, even when racism was, by virtually all accounts (looking backward in time), institutionalized, white folks were convinced there was no real problem. Indeed, even forty years ago, whites were more likely to think that blacks had better opportunities, than to believe the opposite (and obviously accurate) thing: namely, that whites were advantaged in every realm of American life.
Writerfella here --
ReplyDeleteTwo words: "reverse discrimination." Rather than admit to the original racial inequalites or even that the same types and degrees of inequalities still exist fifty years later, it now is said that whites now are the victims. This kind of myopic racism finds its best expression in the outcry that, somehow, Native Americans possess more rights because of 'special entitlements' than does anyone else (read: Caucasians) in the US of A. Never mind that the 'entitlements' derive from historical treaties that various tribes were forced to sign at gunpoint, having such 'entitlements' means that the rest of Americans are less free, therefore. The most syllogical thing about 'reverse discrimination' is that the term was invented without the inventors' having to admit to the discrimination necessary to cause any 'reverse discrimination.' And the worst kind of 'evolved discrimination' comes from those who believe there is less such racism and bias in the 21st Century because of civil rights legislation now in place. If that were true, governments could prevent war by making them illegal. But we all know that neither legality nor illegality kept the US out of Iraq...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
Re "the worst kind of 'evolved discrimination' comes from those who believe there is less such racism and bias in the 21st Century because of civil rights legislation now in place": No, the worst kind of racism and discrimination comes from white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and their ilk. Only an idiot would think that believing there's less racism is akin to being racist, much less being the "worst kind" of racist. Too bad you marred your otherwise fine reply with this inane comment.
ReplyDeleteWriterfella here --
ReplyDeleteYou have done that of which you accuse writerfella, by saying that racism and bias somehow mostly come from supremists, Neo-Nazis, and their ilk (no doubt meaning militias, survivalists, other ultra-rightwingers and anti-government types), when it walks the streets of every city and the halls of every church and school, and every other venue in this nation that is controlled by 'the dominant culture.' Again, the mirrors in which such dominants cannot see their own faces...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
What I wrote was clear: "The worst kind of racism and discrimination comes from white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and their ilk." That says nothing about where lesser kinds of racism and discrimination come from. Quit wasting our time with your misstatements of my statements.
ReplyDeleteI'm betting I've written about 10 times as much on racism and discrimination as you have. Maybe 100 times as much. When you've written as much as I have, then you can lecture me on the subject(s). Until then, I'll do the lecturing, thanks.
Writerfella here --
ReplyDeleteThat is as illogical as writerfella ostensibly saying, 'When you have written 10 times as much science fiction as has writerfella, maybe 100 times as much, then you can lecture me on the subject of science fiction.' It would be as illogical and meaningless as your statements, Rob, using Damon Knight's Mirror Principle of Demonstration. If the reverse of anything does not hold true, the obverse is false, as well...
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
I said you could lecture me when you're written as much as I have on the subject. I didn't say you needed to write 100 times as much as I have.
ReplyDeleteYou might want to take a refresher course in logic, since you don't seem to know what "reverse" means. The reverse of A => B is B => A. You didn't say the reverse of what I said, so Knight's principle doesn't apply.
Let's note that you dropped the subject of how you mischaracterized what I wrote. To repeat: "The worst kind of racism and discrimination comes from white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and their ilk." When you have something intelligent to say on that point, please do.
Writerfella here --
ReplyDelete"Maybe 100 times as much." Somehow, did that statement in your response lose its collective meaning? writerfella thinks not, or he would have responded differingly. You lose sir, by your own words..
All Best
Russ Bates
'writerfella'
I have little idea what you're trying to say with your "did that statement in your response lose its collective meaning?" Since it's vague, try again.
ReplyDeleteSince you didn't address my claim, I'll merely repeat it:
You might want to take a refresher course in logic, since you don't seem to know what "reverse" means. The reverse of A => B is B => A. You didn't say the reverse of what I said, so Knight's principle doesn't apply.
FYI, the reverse of my original statement would be something like:
"If you lecture me on the subject(s), then you must've written as much as I have on them."
Get it now, or do I have to explain the reverse, converse, inverse, and contrapositive to you further? Since I was a math major in college (BA, cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa) and you weren't, I can do it. Just say the word.