PDA

View Full Version : Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege by Senator Jim Webb (D-Va)




bobbyw24
07-24-2010, 05:18 AM
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

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?


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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html

ChaosControl
07-24-2010, 07:17 AM
He must be a "racist" for pointing out so much common sense. The left will disown him.

malkusm
07-24-2010, 07:35 AM
I lived in Virginia for a fair amount of time. One of my friends there posted this on his Facebook saying "Hmm....I guess Jim Webb isn't running for re-election."

Cowlesy
07-24-2010, 07:45 AM
A democrat calling for the end of State-sponsored diversity programs?

Curious.

Southron
07-24-2010, 08:52 AM
Yes poor whites do kind of get shafted with all the focus on minorities.

I guess it's because they are part of the "privileged white race".

I know quite a few guys in their 20's who have really had quite a time with this recession.

bobbyw24
07-24-2010, 11:51 AM
Go Webb Go

By Scott McConnell


Is it too soon for a “Webb for President” bandwagon? Of course it is. But Webb’s landslide win in a Southern state—well, make that a pre-recount third of a percentage-point win carved from big margins in the Washington suburbs—has transformed him instantly into a commodity of interest for the Democrats, as was former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner before him. A national audience will now become aware of the Webb paradox: the qualities that make him most compelling are the very ones that make him not a particularly smooth or natural politician. Despite Webb’s impressive military background, it’s not as if he commanded armies in a winning war. No one will offer Jim Webb an Eisenhower ride to a higher nomination.

My own Webb bandwagon moment occurred in late September at a fundraiser in Northern Virginia. The candidate arrived, slightly late, while a suburbanite audience awaited the chance to shake his hand, size him up. He worked the room for a few minutes, our host introduced him to me, and he stopped for several minutes to converse about a Paul Schroeder essay that had appeared in TAC. This was thrilling, of course, and it’s impossible to imagine any other major-party candidate (even among the coterie of TAC readers in the House GOP) who would have behaved the same way.

As an aide shuffled impatiently, Webb shifted into a more normal politician mode, greeting the people gathered. Then he stepped up to address the room. It was an odd speech, devoid of enthusiasm-generating applause lines, indeed devoid of any applause lines at all. It was almost professorial—an attempt to analyze the categories of Left and Right in the country, explain why they were outmoded and how his campaign was working towards transcending them and fueling a new synthesis. You had to pay attention or you would miss major points.

I found myself recalling a phrase I had first heard in history class about the French socialist Leon Blum—“an intellectual in politics.” Webb was attempting to give voice to common-man themes of the sort that might be inspired by the Scots-Irish of his critically acclaimed ethnography, Born Fighting, and to appeal more generally to the American middle and working classes. But if it was a latently populist message, it was delivered in distinctly non-populist style.

Webb’s intellectualism ensures that he will do something that professional politicians hardly ever do: think through a position and take a public stand on it without consulting the polls. The essay he wrote for the Washington Post on Iraq, seven months before the war began, was startling in its prescience. Webb questioned whether an overthrow of Saddam would “actually increase our ability to win the war against international terrorism” and pointed out that the measure of military success can be preventing wars and well as fighting them. He charged, “those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade.” He concluded, “the Iraqis are a multiethnic people filled with competing factions who in many cases would view a U.S. occupation as infidels invading the cradle of Islam. … In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets.” If any major senators were thinking like this long before the invasion, not many Americans heard of it.

Peter Boyer’s New Yorker profile of the Webb-Allen contest noted that Webb spent much campaign time lamenting the widening gap between the very rich and the rest of the country, noting that he regularly pushes for stronger border security and strict enforcement of laws that will stop corporate exploitation of cheap illegal-alien labor. Webb adds that “free trade is not fair trade” and is open in his disdain for the neocons: “These guys are so far to the left you think they’re on the right. It’s right out of the Communist International—exporting ideology at the point of a gun.” Concluded Boyer: “He almost seems a Pat Buchanan conservative.”

This is not really true, in that most Buchananites, and especially including my McLean, Virginia-based colleague (who has kept his own counsel about his vote last Tuesday) are serious cultural conservatives, for whom Webb’s pro-choice position and other more typical Democratic social-issue stands are likely or potential deal-breakers.

But it may be true that no successful politician is doing more to shatter the post-1960s categories of Left and Right than Webb is trying to do. If the present results hold, the Old Dominion has given us a vastly more complex senator than the oleaginous George Allen and perhaps its most interesting emissary to the upper chamber since the 19th century.

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2006/dec/04/00006/

low preference guy
07-24-2010, 06:45 PM
by Mr. James Webb, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Virginia.


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.

Link (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html).

JustinTime
07-25-2010, 10:43 AM
Im proud of Webb.

For as long as I can remember, Ive advocated government be banned from recognizing race in any way. Individuals and private organizations can do it all they want, even discriminate on that basis, but government should never be allowed to even "see" race.

stu2002
07-25-2010, 10:52 AM
What?



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

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?


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.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379630952309408.html

johngr
07-25-2010, 10:57 AM
Can anyone say "damage control"?

johngr
07-25-2010, 03:43 PM
An easy way to determine if Webb is sincere: Rebuke from the White House = sincere. No rebuke = insincere.

BoutTreeFiddy
07-25-2010, 06:32 PM
Yes poor whites do kind of get shafted with all the focus on minorities.

I guess it's because they are part of the "privileged white race".

I know quite a few guys in their 20's who have really had quite a time with this recession.

You're quite right. I know a lot of whites that had manufacturing jobs that got laid off and haven't been able to find work for the past year. There seems to be this myth about whites not wanting to work manual labor jobs. This is bogus. Plenty of whites do manual labor, but are very knowledgable when it comes to mechanics and things of that nature. That's something that a lot of manual labor mexicans don't have.

That's part of Obama's plan. Get rid of skilled white workers for the sake of the minority. All other whites will have a find an office job or service job. He wants college-educated people like himself that have done no part to contribute in any significant way to be the dominant part of society. This can only lead to disaster.

BoutTreeFiddy
07-25-2010, 06:33 PM
An easy way to determine if Webb is sincere: Rebuke from the White House = sincere. No rebuke = insincere.

Not true. They may not even want to touch this. How are they going to argue with what he's saying? If they can't, they won't even try and they'll hope it just passes by the American people.

ItsTime
07-25-2010, 06:38 PM
Not true. They may not even want to touch this. How are they going to argue with what he's saying? If they can't, they won't even try and they'll hope it just passes by the American people.

Exactly.