The following exerpts a conversation that I had with an individual on the matters of race. I have changed it to make myself look better and have added wisdom. Of course this isn't fair, but it at least gives all the abstract reasoning found in this area a personal flavor. I have reason to believe my opponent in this debate is not and will not be motivated enough to author a web page. Which gets to the root of the problem of anti-racist activism.
Q: 25 years ago, Martin Luther king said that justice was color-blind. Now with the CCRI (a version of it was : defeated in Washington state legislature last week), : people are now saying that color-blind favors whites, will deny jobs on the basis of race, and is white-supremacist. Colleges and cities now say your salary or budge will be partly determined by your diversity, : and a guy in DC (Asian American) just got fired because : he refused to hire on the basis of race. :So what is it? Is affirmative action color blind? Or is color-blindness racist now? And when did it change?
A: affirmative action is not color blind just as the declaration of independence was not monarchy blind.
Q: The comparison is inappropriate because we are not seeking to eliminate color or a particular color from our society.
A: it is entirely appropriate. in order to combat racism, one must identify that which is racist. one must identify the type and quality of offense in order to present a just remedy.
Q: Exactly, we are combating racism, not race. The constitution was combating monarchy, not government.
Yes, but you can't simply paint everyone of a given color with the same brush. The guilt of some does not imply the guilt of all. Likewise, the victimization of one does not imply the victimization of all.
MB: simply speaking, white supremacy assigns value to Europeans on the basis of color and nothing else. as well it devalues the African on the same basis. To ignore that basis is to be unable to tell what is purposefully racist from anything else.
Q: Do we only oppose white supremacy, or all racism?
A: that's a question for your political agenda.
Q:Even if we do only oppose white supremacy, not all whites are white supremacists, nor are all blacks victims of white supremacists.
A: color blindness is basically equal to a non-racial position. A non-racial view of things is inappropriate to America because America's history and present is racist. to be color blind in America is like moving into a neighborhood full of ex-convicts and being crime blind.
Q:Your arguments make sense for defending anti-discrimination laws. However, they say nothing of laws which require a company or school to actively discriminate in order to somehow correct past discrimination.
A: you suggest that affirmative action is racist and a wrong equal to the injustice which it seeks to address. perhaps because you are not willing to say 'institutional racism' or 'white supremacy' and admit their workings in America.
Q: I'm unwilling to treat people as groups rather than as individuals. Is IS wrong to punish one person for the crimes of others, regardless of whether those others share his race. Similarly, it does no good to compensate one individual for something he has not been the victim of, even if all of the victims are of the same race. Simply put, one should not be judged by his race, but according to his own merits and experiences.
A: One must identify that which is racist. one must identify the type and quality of offense in order to present a just remedy.
Q: Yes, but you can't simply paint everyone of a given color with the same brush. The guilt of some does not imply the guilt of all. Likewise, the victimization of one does not imply the victimization of all.
A:one needn't count victims, nor beneficiaries in order to make a sound judgment against an unprincipled fact. But one can count supporters Vs naysayers of such judgments. White Americans have only their politics to separate themselves from being 'the man'. Yet that anti-racist politics is lacking. The overwhelming majority of African Americans most definitely have their politics on matters of race, if not to a person. Guilt and victimization trips do not clarify the politics.
>Do we only oppose white supremacy, or all racism? African Americans in the overwhelming majority fight white supremacy. it is in their self interest to do so. 'whites', if they have any self-interested anti-racist agenda it is less anti-white supremacist than it is a rather soft-pedalled non-racial view or JDL style politics. there are standouts like Kunstler and Morris Dees. neither seek political office.
>Even if we do only oppose white supremacy, not all whites are white supremacists, nor are all blacks victims of white supremacists.
A: All Americans live in a society profoundly shaped by white supremacy which is mostly cultural and sometimes political. In the post-civil rights era, white supremacy persists though it has no legal basis. if the (white) political majority can distance itself from all forms of white supremacy, then success is at hand. yet the intellectual and cultural agenda of multiculturalism suffers against white, conservative political backlash. the willingness of a (now majority) political faction to do battle against an intellectual and cultural program (which is fundamentally anti-racist and not colorblind) demonstrates the inability of America to set a mainstream anti-racist political agenda. in fact, it recruits from a pool of 'angry white males'. a successful, reactionary political move antithetical to fighting racism. not all whites are white supremacists, but their elected political leaders attack the best anti-racist strategies designed to combat white supremacy. So what's that?
A: Color blindness is basically equal to a non-racial position. a non-racial view of things is inappropriate to America because America's history and present is racist. To be color blind in America is like moving into a neighborhood full of ex-convicts and being crime blind.
Q: :Your arguments make sense for defending anti-discrimination laws. However, they say nothing of laws which require a company or school to actively discriminate in order to somehow correct past discrimination.
Q: You speak of the "white majority" as though it were a uniform blob of like-minded people. It isn't.
A: You suggest that affirmative action is racist and a wrong equal to the injustice which it seeks to address. perhaps because you are not willing to say 'institutional racism' or 'white supremacy' and admit their workings in america. There is a significant difference between racial discrimination and racist exclusion.
Q: I'm unwilling to treat people as groups rather than as individuals. Is IS wrong to punish one person for the crimes of others, regardless of whether those others share his race. Similarly, it does no good to compensate one individual for something he has not been the victim of, even if all of the victims are of the same race. >Simply put, one should not be judged by his race, but according to his own merits and experiences. i judge citizens by their politics because i beleive in democracy. you should as well, citizen. the fact that you and so many others look at this at a personal level only demonstrates the lack of sound anti-racist political thinking in the elected majority.
A:one must identify that which is racist. one must identify the type and quality of offense in order to present a just remedy.
Q:Yes, but you can't simply paint everyone of a given color with the same brush. The guilt of some does not imply the guilt of all. Likewise, the victimization of one does not imply the victimization of all.
A: One needn't count victims, nor beneficiaries in order to make a sound judgement against an unprincipled fact. but one can count supporters vs naysayers of such judgements. white americans have only their politics to separate themselves from being 'the man'. yet that anti-racist politics is lacking. the overwhelming majority of african americans most definitely have their politics on matters of race, if not to a person. guilt and victimization trips do not clarify the politics.
Q:So you're saying that white Americans should be punished because of their politics?? All white Americans or just the one's who vote for candidates you don't like. Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, but I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of the above paragraph.
Q: Do we only oppose white supremacy, or all racism?
A:that's a question for your political agenda. african americans in the overwhelming majority fight white supremacy. it is in their self interest to do so. 'whites', if they have any self-interested anti-racist agenda it is less anti-white supremacist than it is a rather soft-pedalled non-racial view or jdl style politics. there are standouts like kunstler and morris dees. neither seek political office.
Let me rephrase that: Do YOU only oppose white supremacy, or all racism? >>Even if we do only oppose white supremacy, not all whites are white supremacists, nor are all blacks victims of white supremacists. >
all americans live in a society profoundly shaped by white supremacy which mostly cultural but sometimes political. in the post-civil rights era, white supremacy persists though it has no legal basis. if the (white) political majority can distance itself from all forms of white supremacy, then success is at hand. yet the intellectual and cultural agenda of multiculturalism suffers against white, conservative political backlash.
Stick to the topic. We were discussing race and racism, not culture and multiculturalism. >
the willingness of a (now majority) political faction to do battle against an intellectual and cultural program (which is fundamentally anti-racist and not colorblind) demonstrates the inability of america to set a mainstream anti-racist political agenda. in fact, it recruits from a pool of 'angry white males'. a successful, reactionary political move antithetical to fighting racism. >not all whites are white supremacists, but their elected political leaders attack the best anti-racist strategies designed to combat white supremacy. so what's that? Well, whose political leaders are you talking about? Not all whites have the same political leaders. Why do you insist on referring to whites as though they were a unified homogeneous mass? That in itself smacks of racism, or at least racial stereotyping.^p
A: Color blindness is basically equal to a non-racial position. a non-racial view of things is inappropriate to america because america's history and present is racist. To be color blind in america is like moving into a neighborhood full of ex-convicts and being crime blind.
Q:Your arguments make sense for defending anti-discrimination laws. However, they say nothing of laws which require a company or school to actively ddddiscriminate in order to somehow correct past discrimination.
A:you suggest that affirmative action is racist and a wrong equal to the injustice which it seeks to address. perhaps because you are not willing to say 'institutional racism' or 'white supremacy' and admit their workings in america.
Q: I'm unwilling to treat people as groups rather than as individuals. Is IS wrong to punish one person for the crimes of others, regardless of whether those others share his race. Similarly, it does no good to compensate one individual for something he has not been the victim of, even if all of the victims are of the same race. Simply put, one should not be judged by his race, but according to his own merits and experiences.
A: i judge citizens by their politics because i beleive in democracy.
Q: Do you do this when you're deciding who you should hire to work at your company or wash your car??? Affirmative action programs are not aimed at election methods, but hiring and firing methods.
A: you should as well, citizen. the fact that you and so many others look at this at a personal level only demonstrates the lack of sound anti-racist political thinking in the elected majority.
Q: Yes, I'm a citizen. And one of my rights as a citizen is to be treated the a same as all other citizens by my government and its laws, regardless of the race of those citizens. The 14th amendment guarantees my right as a citizen to be treated in a color blind manner by the government. It sounds a bit strange to hear someone telling me that by viewing others as individuals rather than as merely members of a particular race, I am promoting racism.
one needn't count victims, nor beneficiaries in order to make a sound judgement against an unprincipled fact. but one can count supporters vs naysayers of such judgements. white americans have only their politics to separate themselves from being 'the man'. yet that anti-racist politics is lacking. the overwhelming majority of african americans most definitely have their politics on matters of race, if not to a person. guilt and victimization trips do not clarify the politics.
Q: So you're saying that white Americans should be punished because of their politics?? All white Americans or just the one's who vote for candidates you don't like. Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, but I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of the above paragraph.
A: Yes, white Americans all over will be punished when America's politics are sufficient to motivate blacks to 'revolt', but jimmy carter will not be - because he took a principled stand. They shouldn't be punished, but it is white political intransigence, not black which leaves white supremacy unchallenged. 'revolt' is not so much the case with affirmative action so much as it is the unwillingness of some whites to accept their responsibility as citizen to obey the letter and spirit of a law which seeks social justice. Of course the 'angry white males' consider the law unjust, and perverters of affirmative action flaunt the law. Despite the letter of the law, the politics which support legislative and policy work. What do white folks say to the white man who accepts affirmative action in principle? Where does he stand politically? When did he announce his presidential candidacy? As long as there remain reasonable political solutions, this 'revolt' is part and parcel of the democratic process. The problem is that the solutions are not comprehensive and no party, nor popular candidate wants to do any better. Those who try are considered race baiters.
Q:simply speaking, white supremacy assigns vvvvvalue to europeans on the basis of color and nothing else. as well it devalues the african on the same basis. to ignore that basis is to be unable to tell what is purposefully racist from anything else.^p
Q:Do we only oppose white supremacy, or all racism?
A: that's a question for your political agenda. african americans in the overwhelming majority fight white supremacy. it is in their self interest to do so. 'whites', if they have any self-interested anti-racist agenda it is less anti-white supremacist than it is a rather soft-pedalled non-racial view or jdl style politics. there are standouts like kunstler and morris dees. neither seek political office. >
Q: Let me rephrase that: Do YOU only oppose white supremacy, or all racism?
MB: I am anti-racist in principle trying to stimulate anti-racist politics in the context of american politics. that means all racism is principly repugnant to me, but as a cop, i can bust jaywalkers or i can solve murder mysteries. besides white supremacy and anti-semitism stand many ugly little red herrings.
Q:Even if we do only oppose white supremacy, not all whites are white supremacists, nor are all blacks victims of white supremacists.
A: All americans live in a society profoundly shaped by white supremacy which mostly cultural but sometimes political. In the post-civil rights era, white supremacy persists though it has no legal basis. if the (white) political majority can distance itself from all forms of white ssupremacy,
Q: You speak of the "white majority" as though it were a uniform blob of like-minded people. It isn't.
A: The political majority are those who set the tone and direction of American politics. Are those people not white? And does not that racial identity effect their position on issues concerning race? i say the overwhelming majority of christian white americans have no credible anti-racist praxis. they were forced to accomodate a grass roots political movement and since 1980 they have been lashing back on every political front. >>then success is at hand. yet the intellectual and cultural agenda of multiculturalism suffers against white, conservative political backlash.
Q:Stick to the topic. We were discussing race and racism, not culture and multiculturalism.
A: We are talking about what motivates citizens' values and the priority they put on addressing social problems through the political process. For blacks who experience first hand or have an intimate understanding of how racism negatively affects their prospects for success, one motivation is clear - self-interest. For whites who don't have that perspective, it takes some doing to get them on a proper political path. Most white citizens are more interested in assuaging personal guilt than creating authentic and effective anti-racist politcs precisely because of the issue of self-interest.
The willingness of a (now majority) political faction to do battle against an intellectual and cultural program (which is fundamentally anti-racist and not colorblind) demonstrates the inability of america to set a mainstream anti-racist political agenda. in fact, it recruits from a pool of 'angry white males'. a successful, reactionary political move antithetical to fighting racism.
Not all whites are white supremacists, but their elected political leaders attack the best anti-racist strategies designed to combat white supremacy. so what's that?
Q: Well, whose political leaders are you talking about? Not all whites have the same political leaders. Why do you insist on referring to whites as though they were a unified homogeneous mass? That in itself smacks of racism, or at least racial stereotyping.
see my last paragraph..
Q:you suggest that affirmative action is racist and a wrong equal to the injustice which it seeks to address. perhaps because you are not willing ttto^pQ:>say 'institutional racism' or 'white supremacy' and admit their workings iiin^pQ:>america.^p
Q:I'm unwilling to treat people as groups rather than as individuals. Is IS wrong to punish one person for the crimes of others, regardless of whether those others share his race. Similarly, it does no good to compensate one individual for something he has not been the victim of, even if all of the victims are of the same race.
Q:Simply put, one should not be judged by his race, but according to his own merits and experiences.
A: i judge citizens by their politics because i beleive in democracy.
Do you do this when you're deciding who you should hire to work at your company or wash your car??? Affirmative action programs are not aimed at election methods, but hiring and firing methods.
Q:one needn't count victims, nor beneficiaries in order to make a sound judgement against an unprincipled fact. but one can count supporters vs naysayers of such judgements. white americans have only their politics to separate themselves from being 'the man'. yet that anti-racist politics is lacking. the overwhelming majority of african americans most definitely have their politics on matters of race, if not to a person. guilt and victimization trips do not clarify the politics. >>So you're saying that white Americans should be punished because of their politics?? All white Americans or just the one's who vote for candidates you don't like. Forgive me if I'm misinterpreting you, but I'm having trouble seeing the relevance of the above paragraph. >
yes, white americans all over will be punished when america's politics are sufficient to motivate blacks to 'revolt',
White Americans are not the only Americans responsible for America's politics. Others can vote too. And white Americans don't vote as a block so they don't form a voting majority. >but jimmy carter will not be - >because he took a principled stand. they shouldn't be punished, but it is white political intransigence, not black which leaves white supremacy unchallenged.
You blame white Americans for American politics supposedly being pro-racist, and you say Jimmy Carter took a principled stand? An awful lot of whites voted for that guy - twice! >
'revolt' is not so much the case with affirmative action so much as it is the unwillingness of some whites to accept their responsibility as citizen to obey the letter and spirit of a law which seeks social justice.
The letter and spirit of the law, as contained in the 14th amendment, demand equal treatment of citizens by the government regardless of their race - i.e. colorblindness. Many Americans, however, that affirmative action forces them to violate the letter of that law. >of >course the 'angry white males' consider the law unjust, and perverters of affirmative action flaunt the law. despite the letter of the law, the politics which support legislative and policy work. >what do white folks say to the white man who accepts affirmative action in principle? where does he stand politically? when did he announce his presidential candidacy?
Well, you mentioned Jimmy Carter. Many people voted for him - twice. There are many Senators who have long supported affirmative action and are continually re-elected with a majority of their constituents being white. >as long as their remain reasonable political solutions, this 'revolt' is part and parcel of the democratic process. the problem is that the solutions are not comprehensive and no party, nor popular candidate wants to do any better. those who try are considered race baiters. Your argument seems to be that affirmative action is justified because the white majority is racist. And the white majority is racist because it doesn't embrace affirmative action. It sounds very circular to me.^pQ:>simply speaking, white supremacy assigns vvvvvvalue to europeans on the basis of color and nothing else. as well it devalues the african on the same basis. to ignore that basis is to be unable to tell what is purposefully racist from anything else.^pQ:>Do we only oppose white supremacy, or all racism?^pQ:that's a question for your political agenda. african americans in the overwhelming majority fight white supremacy. it is in their self interest to do so. 'whites', if they have any self-interested anti-racist agenda it is less anti-white supremacist than it is a rather soft-pedalled non-racial view or jdl style politics. there are standouts like kunstler and morris dees. neither seek political office. >>Let me rephrase that: Do YOU only oppose white supremacy, or all racism? >i am anti-racist in principle trying to stimulate anti-racist politics in the context of american politics. that means all racism is principly repugnant to me, but as a cop, i can bust jaywalkers or i can solve murder mysteries. besides white supremacy and anti-semitism stand many ugly little red herrings. But do you go around shooting innocent people in your attempt to solve the murder mysteries? Do you instruct your officers to shoot people who look like they might be murderers? When you find a murderer, do you punish only him or do you punish his whole family on the suspicion that they might be murderers too? Do you protect people's rights or simply go around shooting people who look suspicious?^pQ:>Even if we do only oppose white supremacy, not all whites are white supremacists, nor are all blacks victims of white supremacists.
A:all americans live in a society profoundly shaped by white supremacy which mostly cultural but sometimes political. in the post-civil rights era, white supremacy persists though it has no legal basis. if the (white) political majority can distance itself from all forms of white sssupremacy, >>You speak of the "white majority" as though it were a uniform blob of like-minded people. It isn't. >
A: the political majority are those who set the tone and direction of american politics. are those people not white? Those who set the tone and direction of American politics are not "the political majority". A small minority of the population gets to set the tone and direction of politics. That majority must keep in mind their constituents desires when they do so, of course. And how much attention they pay to those constituents is determined by how likely those constituents are to vote and how much money and power those constituents have to contribute to politics. In short, you have vastly oversimplified things. While most of the power in politics does come from whites, that power is not unified in any way. Thus, there is no "white majority" that sets the tone and direction of American politics. A "majority" of some sort sets the tone, but that majority always includes substantial numbers of people of all races, not just whites. And that majority never includes all whites.
A: and does not that racial identity effect their position on issues concerning race? i say the overwhelming majority of christian white americans have no credible anti-racist praxis.
Q: But what of those who do? You seem to advocate punishing those who don't, but how will you separate them? As for a credible anti-racist praxis, I strongly favor leveling our k-12 school system so that people have a fair chance at an education no matter where they live. I believe that it is those who believe in affirmative action who have no credible anti-racist praxis, because they seek only to hide the symptoms, without bothering to cure the disease. >they were forced to accomodate a grass roots political movement and since 1980 they have been lashing back on every political front.^pQ:then success is at hand. yet the intellectual and cultural agenda of multiculturalism suffers against white, conservative political bbbacklash. >>Stick to the topic. We were discussing race and racism, not culture and multiculturalism. >we are talking about what motivates citizens' values and the priority they put on addressing social problems through the political process. You seem to be alluding to a lot of things without having a basis for any of it. In doing so you jump from topic to topic without completely covering any of the bases. "We" are not talking about what motivates citizens' values and the priority they put on addressing social problems through the polical process, "you" are. _I_ am still talking about whether or not affirmative action is a racist social program and whether or not government should be colorblind. >for blacks >who experience first hand or have an intimate understanding of how racism negatively affects their prospects for success, one motivation is clear - self-interst. for whites who don't have that perspective, it takes some doing to get them on a proper political path. It sounds like you're saying that the "proper political path" is whatever is in the self-interest of blacks. Please, your arguments are circular and baseless, or at least based on things that are subjects of controversy. How about this - state some things that we can all agree on, and then based on those build up your argument. First, say something that is so obvious that no one can disagree. Then show how that implies that government should discriminate based on race. >most white citizens are more >interested in assuaging personal guilt than creating authentic and effective anti-racist politcs precisely because of the issue of self-interest.^pQ:the willingness of a (now majority) political faction to do battle against an intellectual and cultural program (which is fundamentally anti-racist and not colorblind) demonstrates the inability of america to set a mainstream anti-racist political agenda. in fact, it recruits from a pool of 'angry white males'. a successful, reactionary political move antithetical to fighting racism.^pQ:not all whites are white supremacists, but their elected political leaders attack the best anti-racist strategies designed to combat white supremacy. so what's that?
Q: Well, whose political leaders are you talking about? Not all whites have the same political leaders. Why do you insist on referring to whites as though they were a unified homogeneous mass? That in itself smacks of racism, or at least racial stereotyping.
>see my last paragraph...
I did. I still consider it racist.
A: you suggest that affirmative action is racist and a wrong equal to the injustice which it seeks to address. perhaps because you are not willing tttto^pQ:>>say 'institutional racism' or 'white supremacy' and admit their workings iiiin^pQ:>>america.^pQ:>
Q: I'm unwilling to treat people as groups rather than as individuals. Is IS wrong to punish one person for the crimes of others, regardless of whether those others share his race. Similarly, it does no good to compensate one individual for something he has not been the victim of, even if all of the victims are of the same race.^pQ:>Simply put, one should not be judged by his race, but according to his own merits and experiences.^pQ:i judge citizens by their politics because i beleive in democracy.
Q: Do you do this when you're deciding who you should hire to work at your company or wash your car??? Affirmative action programs are not aimed at election methods, but hiring and firing methods.
A: i agree with the aims of affirmative action. that is a political statement. i follow the methods suggested by law. Please elaborate. It is difficult to follow you when you only allude.
Q:What methods suggested by law?
A: >there is a price to pay, but i >accepted that price by agreeing in principle.
Q:What price? Agreeing in principle to what?
A: if somebody does not accept >the price and/or wishes to abolish affirmative action, then they are a political enemy. what could be clearer?
A:People who don't agree with you on affirmative action are your political enemies. Finally you say something directly.
A: a color blind person might not wish to see that it is white people who are seeking the abolition of affirmative Are you saying that there are no non-white people seeking the abolition of affirmative action? The one thing that is becoming clear is that you do not view people as individuals, only as members of a particular race. That is the very heart of racism. >
action but an american anti-racist sees it clearly, as do the overwhelming majority of 'racial minorities'. this is an old standoff. what is so chickenshit is 'angry white male' victimology. they argue sideways against affirmative action with the most shallow identity politics imaginable. if mainstream politicians were not trying so desparately to court this reaction, it would be laughable. Victimology started is one of the many bitter fruits of affirmative action. Everyone is out to prove they're a victim. You're certainly trying awfully hard. >>you^pQ:should as well, citizen. the fact that you and so many others look at this at a personal level only demonstrates the lack of sound anti-racist political thinking in the elected majority. >>Yes, I'm a citizen. And one of my rights as a citizen is to be treated the a same as all other citizens by my government and its laws, regardless of the race of those citizens. The 14th amendment guarantees my right as a citizen to be treated in a color blind manner by the government. >>It sounds a bit strange to hear someone telling me that by viewing others as individuals rather than as merely members of a particular race, I am promoting racism.
it sounds even stranger to hear you defend your color-blindness and say my anti-racist activism is radical, even racist. Whoops, pay attention... I never said your anti-racist activism is "radical".
>but it is simply foolish to >beleive that individual rights are paramount in america. otherwise race would not exist as a sociopolitical entity here at all. Individual rights are what the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment are all about. Yes, race does exist as a sociopolitical identity. Some seek to capitalize on that by creating programs to benefit members of a particular race at the expense of others not of that race. The thinking seems to be that by concentrating the benefits to a smaller group while spreading the costs around in a larger group, you can guarantee votes from the small group without sacrificing many votes from the large group. While some of us would like to make that sociopolitical identity a thing of the past, others seek to perpetuate it through discriminatory programs.
>i say, and will continue until i am convinced otherwise by words and deeds, that america is reluctant to be anti-racist as a democracy. individual opinions not manifest in politics are of little interest. in other words, i don't care whether or not you are individually a racist or not. what i care about is how you act within the american political context. The rejection of affirmative action does provide evidence that America is anti-racist as a democracy. The above sentence is wrong isn't it. Yet it parallels your reasoning precisely. The problem is that you refuse to accept that people can have honest disagreements about what constitutes "anti-racist". To you it means supporting affirmative action. To me it means fixing our eduacation system so that children of all races emerge from high school with educations that are not a function of where they went to school. To me "anti-racism" also means ending affirmative action. Until you can present an arguement that accepts that my belief is just as valid as your belief until proven otherwise, we are simply wasting our time. >and what i am >saying is that in the american political context, all white people are assumed to be non-racist or racially self-interested (ie subject to white ^^^^^^^^^ What is wrong with being assumed to be non-racist? It would be nice if everyone were that way. >supremacist motivation). this is done by the political leaders that the (white) mainstream elects year after year after decade. Explain the election of Lincoln, the end of Jim Crow, the civil rights legislation of the 60's, why affirmative action hasn't already ended... >in a nation that >needs anti-racist politics, this is unacceptable.
[identifying the intransigent white vote] >White Americans are not the only Americans responsible for America's politics. Others can vote too. And white Americans don't vote as a block so they don't form a voting majority.
really? were the reagan democrats not white? is the religious right not right. is the mainstream of the republican party not white? what about libertarians? what about those who supported ross perot? what about the environmentalists? if you examined the anti-racist politics of all these groups, you will come up short. why is that, do you suppose?
>>but jimmy carter will not be - >>because he took a principled stand. they shouldn't be punished, but it is white political intransigence, not black which leaves white supremacy unchallenged. >
You blame white Americans for American politics supposedly being pro-racist, and you say Jimmy Carter took a principled stand? An awful lot of whites voted for that guy - twice!
i did not say american politics is pro-racist. it is profoundly lacking in anti-racist principles which means it does not consistantly combat existing racism and does nothing to prevent swings in electoral politics from becoming racist or using racist ideas. do you understand the difference? sure, lots of white folks voted for jimmy carter. where are they now, and how exactly are they making their voice heard on racial issues?
>>'revolt' is not so much the case with affirmative action so much as it is the unwillingness of some whites to accept their responsibility as citizen to obey the letter and spirit of a law which seeks social justice. >The letter and spirit of the law, as contained in the 14th amendment, demand equal treatment of citizens by the government regardless of their race - i.e. colorblindness. Many Americans, however, that affirmative action forces them to violate the letter of that law. you beleive affirmative action to be unconstitutional? >>of >>course the 'angry white males' consider the law unjust, and perverters of affirmative action flaunt the law. despite the letter of the law, the politics which support legislative and policy work. >>what do white folks say to the white man who accepts affirmative action in principle? where does he stand politically? when did he announce his presidential candidacy? >Well, you mentioned Jimmy Carter. Many people voted for him - twice. There are many Senators who have long supported affirmative action and are continually re-elected with a majority of their uents being white.
A: yes, many people voted for jimmy carter twice. how are these people identified politically today? what is their political power in the mainstream? yes, some senators did the right thing in the carter administration. who are they and how are they identified to the mainstream today? do we hear from these senators you speak of on a regular basis when racial issues arise in current events? they press issue? no. as long as their remain reasonable political solutions, this 'revolt' is part and parcel of the democratic process. the problem is that the solutions are not comprehensive and no party, nor popular candidate wants to do any better. those who try are considered race baiters.
Q: Your argument seems to be that affirmative action is justified because the white majority is racist. And the white majority is racist because it doesn't embrace affirmative action. >It sounds very circular to me.
A: america, as it settles around comfortable positions in the terms affirmative action is being defined today by those bent on its destruction is incapable of making a proper judgement. to address the issues of social justice affirmative action was designed to address, we have america buying into -- nothing --. the answer is 'let them eat cake'. i assert that is politics as usual and that neither party is willing to do better as a matter of principle. all the white voters are sheep on the issue and as such willingly paint themselves into a political corner. i cannot determine how individual white voters come to their conclusions but i can measure the character and content of the political positions they vote for. this is how i see them as citizens, and it is the proper way for citizens to be evaluated. but this is all so obvious.
^pQ:>>simply speaking, white supremacy assigns vvvvvvvalue to europeans on the basis of color and nothing else. as well it devalues the african on the same basis. to ignore that basis is to be unable to tell what is purposefully racist from anything else.
Q Do we only oppose white supremacy, or all racism?^pQ:>that's a question for your political agenda. african americans in the overwhelming majority fight white supremacy. it is in their self interest to do so. 'whites', if they have any self-interested anti-racist agenda it is less anti-white supremacist than it is a rather soft-pedalled non-racial view or jdl style politics. there are standouts like kunstler and morris dees. neither seek political office.^p
Q:Let me rephrase that: Do YOU only oppose white supremacy, or all racism? >>i am anti-racist in principle trying to stimulate anti-racist politics in the context of american politics. that means all racism is principly repugnant to me, but as a cop, i can bust jaywalkers or i can solve murder mysteries. besides white supremacy and anti-semitism stand many ugly little red herrings. >But do you go around shooting innocent people in your attempt to solve the murder mysteries? Do you instruct your officers to shoot people who look like they might be murderers? When you find a murderer, do you punish only him or do you punish his whole family on the suspicion that they might be murderers too? >Do you protect people's rights or simply go around shooting people who look suspicious? enough with the analogies. what are you saying?^pQ:>>Even if we do only oppose white supremacy, not all whites are white supremacists, nor are all blacks victims of white supremacists.^pQ:>all americans live in a society profoundly shaped by white supremacy which mostly cultural but sometimes political. in the post-civil rights era, white supremacy persists though it has no legal basis. if the (white) political majority can distance itself from all forms of white ssssupremacy,^pQ:You speak of the "white majority" as though it were a uniform blob of like-minded people. It isn't. >>the political majority are those who set the tone and direction of american politics. are those people not white?
Those who set the tone and direction of American politics are not "the political majority". A small minority of the population gets to set the tone and direction of politics. >That majority must keep in mind their constituents desires when they do so, of course. And how much attention they pay to those constituents is determined by how likely those constituents are to vote and how much money and power those constituents have to contribute to politics.
A: this minority does not get a minority of power. the winners are the defacto majority no matter what the margin or turnout. they have the consent of the governed, period.
In short, you have vastly oversimplified things. While most of the power in politics does come from whites, that power is not unified in any way. Thus, there is no "white majority" that sets the tone and direction of American politics. A "majority" of some sort sets the tone, but that majority always includes substantial numbers of people of all races, not just whites. And that majority never includes all whites.
A: yeah we could argue that. but lets be specific. do you beleive that whites who would vote against affirmative action do so out of self-interest or not? further do you believe that whites do not vote in percieved self-interest on a racial basis? and finally do you believe there has ever been in america an issue of racial self-interest in which whites have lost the election? then finally you must ask is it merely a coincidence that anti-affirmative action activists in california are hyping this referendum as a true measure of the people's will as opposed to the high level executive orders that initiated affirmative action as public policy?
>and does not that racial identity >>effect their position on issues concerning race? i say the overwhelming majority of christian white americans have no credible anti-racist ppraxis. >
But what of those who do? You seem to advocate punishing those who don't, but how will you separate them?
issue by issue.
>As for a credible anti-racist praxis, I strongly favor leveling our k-12 school system so that people have a fair chance at an education no matter where they live. I believe that it is those who believe in affirmative action who have no credible anti-racist praxis, because they seek only to hide the symptoms, without bothering to cure the disease.
so america can only afford one or the other?
>>they were forced to accomodate a grass roots political movement and since 1980 they have been lashing back on every political front.^pQ:>then success is at hand. yet the intellectual and cultural agenda of multiculturalism suffers against white, conservative political bbbbacklash.^p
Q:Stick to the topic. We were discussing race and racism, not culture and multiculturalism.
>>we are talking about what motivates citizens' values and the priority they put on addressing social problems through the political process.
You seem to be alluding to a lot of things without having a basis for any of it. In doing so you jump from topic to topic without completely covering any of the bases. "We" are not talking about what motivates citizens' values and the priority they put on addressing social problems through the polical process, "you" are. >_I_ am still talking about whether or not affirmative action is a racist social program and whether or not government should be colorblind.
A: Affirmative action is not a racist social program. demonstrably not. this government should not be colorblind in its politics because white supremacy and anti-semitism conflict with the best interests of the democratic nation. this government should, however, be colorblind in the establishment and protection of citizens' rights.
>>for blacks >>who experience first hand or have an intimate understanding of how racism negatively affects their prospects for success, one motivation is clear - self-interst. for whites who don't have that perspective, it takes some doing to get them on a proper political path.
It sounds like you're saying that the "proper political path" is whatever is in the self-interest of blacks.
A: that's not at all what i'm saying, that's just what you hear. i am at this moment doing some of that 'some doing', because you just don't get it.
Please, your arguments are circular and baseless, or at least based on things that are subjects of controversy.
you think i oversimplify, yet you find it hard to follow my arguments. if i find myself repeating, this gets boring.
How about this - state some things that we can all agree on, and then based on those build up your argument. First, say something that is so obvious that no one can disagree. Then show how that implies that government should discriminate based on race.
read the race man's home companion (such as it is) if you have a web browser. it's pretty basic. you have the url in my sig. return and comment. but hows this: there are 80 whites in grade A, there are 20 blacks in grade A. there are 100 whites in grade B. there are 50 blacks in grade B. 75% of blacks and 90% of whites in grade B are immediately eligible for promotion into grade A. the government says i can take race into consideration in my promotions in order to balance my workforce. therefore i can promote more blacks in grade B than whites even though more whites are qualified in order to address the discrimination evident in the 30 percentage point differential in black representation the two grades. this is affirmative action and it is anti-racist. simple enough? >>most white citizens are more >>interested in assuaging personal guilt than creating authentic and effective anti-racist politcs precisely because of the issue of self-interest.^pQ:>the willingness of a (now majority) political faction to do battle against an intellectual and cultural program (which is fundamentally anti-racist and not colorblind) demonstrates the inability of america to set a mainstream anti-racist political agenda. in fact, it recruits from a pool of 'angry white males'. a successful, reactionary political move antithetical to fighting racism.
:>not all whites are white supremacists, but their elected political leaders attack the best anti-racist strategies designed to combat white supremacy. so what's that?^pQ:Well, whose political leaders are you talking about? Not all whites have the same political leaders. Why do you insist on referring to whites as though they were a unified homogeneous mass?
Q:That in itself smacks of racism, or at least racial stereotyping.
>>see my last paragraph...
>I did. I still consider it racist. >>[..]^p
Q:>>>you suggest that affirmative action is racist and a wrong equal to the injustice which it seeks to address. perhaps because you are not willing ttttto^pQ:>>>say 'institutional racism' or 'white supremacy' and admit their workings iiiiin^p
Q:>>>america.^pQ
:>>I'm unwilling to treat people as groups rather than as individuals. It IS wrong to punish one person for the crimes of others, regardless of whether those others share his race. Similarly, it does no good to compensate one individual for something he has not been the victim of, even if all of the victims are of the same race.
Simply put, one should not be judged by his race, but according to his own merits and experiences.
A: i judge citizens by their politics because i beleive in democracy.^p
Q:Do you do this when you're deciding who you should hire to work at your company or wash your car??? Affirmative action programs are not aimed at election methods, but hiring and firing methods.
A: i agree with the aims of affirmative action. that is a political statement. i follow the methods suggested by law.
Q: Please elaborate. It is difficult to follow you when you only allude. What methods suggested by law?
A: see my above example. there is a price to pay, but i accepted that price by agreeing in principle.
Q What price? Agreeing in principle to what?
if somebody does not accept >>the price and/or wishes to abolish affirmative action, then they are a political enemy. what could be clearer? >People who don't agree with you on affirmative action are your political enemies. Finally you say something directly.
A: a color blind person might not wish to see that it is white people who are seeking the abolition of affirmative action.
Q: Are you saying that there are no non-white people seeking the abolition of affirmative action? The one thing that is becoming clear is that you do not view people as individuals, only as members of a particular race. That is the very heart of racism.
A: I can't beleive you can't see that i am talking politics. but.. there it is. action but an american anti-racist sees it clearly, as do the overwhelming majority of 'racial minorities'. this is an old standoff. what is so chickenshit is 'angry white male' victimology. they argue sideways against affirmative action with the most shallow identity politics imaginable. if mainstream politicians were not trying so desparately to court this reaction, it would be laughable.
Q Victimology started is one of the many bitter fruits of affirmative action. Everyone is out to prove they're a victim. You're certainly trying awfully hard.
A: puhlease. if you see me as a victim, or if you read anything i have said as courting victimology you are not only color-blind, but i doubt your reading comprehension skills.
A: you should as well, citizen. the fact that you and so many others look at this at a personal level only demonstrates the lack of sound anti-racist political thinking in the elected majority.
Q:Yes, I'm a citizen. And one of my rights as a citizen is to be treated the a same as all other citizens by my government and its laws, regardless of the race of those citizens. The 14th amendment guarantees my right as a citizen to be treated in a color blind manner by the government. It sounds a bit strange to hear someone telling me that by viewing others as individuals rather than as merely members of a particular race, I am promoting racism.
A: it sounds even stranger to hear you defend your color-blindness and say my anti-racist activism is radical, even racist.
Q: Whoops, pay attention... I never said your anti-racist activism is "radical".
A: ok fine. but it is simply foolish to beleive that individual rights are paramount in america. otherwise race would not exist as a sociopolitical entity here at all.
Q: Individual rights are what the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment are all about. Yes, race does exist as a sociopolitical identity. Some seek to capitalize on that by creating programs to benefit members of a particular race at the expense of others not of that race. The thinking seems to be that by concentrating the benefits to a smaller group while spreading the costs around in a larger group, you can guarantee votes from the small group without sacrificing many votes from the large group.
While some of us would like to make that sociopolitical identity a thing of the past, others seek to perpetuate it through discriminatory programs.
A: I say, and will continue until i am convinced otherwise by words and deeds, that america is reluctant to be anti-racist as a democracy. Individual opinions not manifest in politics are of little interest. In other words, i don't care whether or not you are individually a racist or not. what i care about is how you act within the american political context.
Q: The rejection of affirmative action does provide evidence that America is anti-racist as a democracy.
A: if and only if affirmative action were racist. it is not, and you are being disingeuous by saying that it is.
Q: The above sentence is wrong isn't it. Yet it parallels your reasoning precisely. The problem is that you refuse to accept that people can have honest disagreements about what constitutes "anti-racist". To you it means supporting affirmative action. To me it means fixing our eduacation system so that children of all races emerge from high school with educations that are not a function of where they went to school. To me "anti-racism" also means ending affirmative action.
A: i have no problem with people having honest disagreements about anti-racist action. nor have i said that affirmative action constitutes the single or even best implementation of anti-racist public policy. i have said that the anti-affirmative action voices in today's political atmosphere are more racist than not and that white america as an electorate is not particularly interested in developing a credible anti-racist platform in any mainstream political body, and that their political leaders stand ready and willing to exploit racial reasoning for their gain, at the expense of progress.
Q:Until you can present an arguement that accepts that my belief is just as valid as your belief until proven otherwise, we are simply wasting our time.
A: sorry, i'm no relativist. i am working from principle. anti-racist principle is an uncompromisable bedrock. and what i am saying is that in the american political context, all white people are assumed to be non-racist or racially self-interested (ie subject to white supremacist motivation). this is done by the political leaders that the (white) mainstream elects year after year after decade.
Q:What is wrong with being assumed to be non-racist? It would be nice if everyone were that way.
A: It would be nice? Always "it would be nice."
Q: Explain the election of Lincoln, the end of Jim Crow, the civil rights legislation of the 60's, why affirmative action hasn't already ended...
A: Lincoln campaigned in principle against full citizenship for the negro. i've read the texts of the debates. it is patently clear. as for the rest, it becomes clear to me that you, like many other folks i have debated over the nets in the past 7 or 8 years are satisfied that america will progress on racial matters with or without your direct or concerted political efforts. you are satisfied that non-racial is good enough because you don't understand or recognize what it means to fight racism. you speak of peace without respect for war. existentially ok for you, sad for the nation. go ahead and cherry pick. that is your privilege for being an american, but don't expect the respect due those dedicated and consecrated.
mbowen@panix.com