Posted by
FeargalX on Sunday, August 17, 2008 1:29:38 AM
Admittedly, societies dominated by “white” groups (or Caucasian groups) are responsible for the term “white” as a term where “whites” were given preferential treatment. Two obvious examples are the United States (particularly the South-East) in its pre-civil Rights Era policies as well as South Africa under apartheid.
I deserve to be treated as an individual. My ancestors deserve, at the least, protection from lies and defamation. The “code word” of diversity should be relegated (thanks to the media and academia) to history’s rotting trash. Diversity has come to be defined, thanks in some sort of bizarre historical revisionism, to relegate all “whites” of being the same along with a false history of “white” collective oppression of other groups.
Today, it has been more than 40 years since Affirmative Action has been mandated by U.S. Federal Policy (a consequence of a Presidential Executive Order by Lyndon Johnson). Thanks to a combination of ignorant beaurocrats, politically correct Universities, the U.S. Congress and a litany of judges ready willing and able to reject the 14th Amendment (among many contrary federal Constitutional mandates those defined as “whites” in America receive separate and worse treatment from any other “non-white group.”
Recently, I saw a person on television justify affirmative action (and criticize Obama for his suggestion that affirmative action might ought to be class/financially based) with an argument that even though he may have more money than other people, because of people do not like blacks, they as a group should receive preferential treatment.
First, wouldn’t this guy suppose that treating one group better than another group purely based upon a racial characteristic might actually engender some form of hostility? Evidently some people are totally unaware that millions of “white” people struggle financially and receive no financial benefit due to “whiteness.”
Of course, America (and no other “white controlled country”) has ever solved the “problem” of white poverty. While admittedly 50 years ago, as well as today, “whites” have generally earned more than “blacks” in America, that “fact” by no means shows that few whites are poor. 50 years ago, as well as now, more “whites” were in poverty by raw numbers.
Today, statistically speaking, “whites” are not even the greatest earners in financial terms. For example, especially when white Jewish people are excluded, many segments of Asian American earn significantly more than “whites.” Looking at other statistics, such as white female college graduates versus black female college graduates, we can see that black females earn more than white females.
Our bigoted and racist policies are utterly indefensible. Indeed, they do not even, in a narrowly tailored constitutional sense, have some form of “two wrongs making a right” historical basis.
After World War II, millions of Germans were killed by Soviet soldiers due to a factual “two wrongs making a right” theory. Indeed, Germans generally were responsible for killing perhaps tens of millions of Eastern Europeans. The Soviets at the end of World War II via deportations and simple ethnic cleansing killed hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans who were living in what had been part of Germany (Germany lost significant territory after world war II, as did Poland, the Soviets moved their Republics’ borders Westward forcibly moving millions of people for purely ethic reasons.)
In Rwanda, Tutsis had historically oppressed the majority Hutus – and years later perhaps millions of Tutsis were murdered.
In Tanzania, after more than 100 years of Arab oppression, thousands of Arabs were murdered by the black Tanzanians after independence.
On countless occasions, I have heard the “two wrongs making right” argument to support preferential treatment programs. However, there is no similar historical basis to provide “support” for the unequal treatment as exists for the above atrocities.
Before a full analysis occurs, it is important to understand, in simple terms, how American “affirmative action” operates.
Public Contracting
In public contracting, federally funded programs (which account for a fairly high percent of public works programs) provide “goals” for non-white male contractors to be involved as prime and subcontractors. Putting it simply, anyone who is not white male (as defined by the federal government) can count towards the goal. From the standpoint of both bureaucrats and prime contractors and government consultants, it is much easier to simply obtain the services, goods or participate in a contract than spend significant hours proving that the agency, consultant or company is not discriminating. For practical purposes, it is nearly as ironclad as a quota since it is much easier simply preferring the services of a “minority” firm than “proving” that you tried to solicit “minorities” on to work on the project.
To describe groups that receive “preference” is to engage in a kind of bizarre historical revisionism. That is, the Spanish and Portuguese European Groups receive preference as they are defined as disadvantaged minorities (even if the person is directly from Spain or Portugal as opposed to a former colony).
It is important to talk about Spanish and Portuguese Colonies at this point. While it might be pathetic for any high school graduate to be unaware of certain facts about these groups, I think that a clear majority of Americans probably believe that these groups were “oppressed.”
Spain was at one time among the two most powerful world empires (the others being France and England). Spain killed millions of native peoples (primarily what used to be known as “American Indians” and now are called “Native Americans”) and enslaved millions of black Africans. In places like Costa Rica and Porto Rico the Spanish succeeded in killing most of the American Indians/Native Americans. The Spanish also wiped out hundreds of native languages and obliterated cultural influences in dozens of places now known as Countries.
Of course, in the 1950s people understood that the Spanish were not a different race than the English, Germans and Italians. Had Desi Arnaz been a “different race” I Love Lucy would never have been made (though clearly at that time there was a residual dislike of groups like the Spanish, Southern Italians and Greeks – due to their “Mediterranean” looks).
The Portuguese had a similar history. Slavery and Native killing were a significant legacy of the establishment of Brazil. Brazil did not even end slavery until about 20 years after the United States did.
On top of that, the Portuguese (along with South Africans and Rhodesians) had a apartheid policies in its colonies in Angola and Mozambique. The Apartheid policy was in full force until the mid 1970s – and unlike South Africa and Rhodesia (which were NOT colonies of Great Britain in the 1970s). So, in certain ways Portugal might have been the most anti-black African country in history.
Don’t you feel sorry for “Hispanics” after these after this historical lesson? As a somewhat logical example, given these well-known historical truths, New York State’s “minority” contracting program has recently rejected European “Hispanics” program. Of course, the New York program still allows preference for New World Hispanics (who are more likely to have ancestors who killed American Indians and enslaved black Africans).
Also benefiting from the our preferential contracting programs are those who are members of high Indian Castes, historically powerful families in Japan, along with countless other groups who have no history of being “victims.” There is no point in writing an anthropological treatise here – the program simply makes no sense.
Interestingly our federal Affirmative Action contracting program actually defines non-Hispanic Caucasians in a way that is “sort of” accurate. That is, North Africans (like Tunisians) West Asians (like Syrians) are not supposed to benefit from the contracting program. So, racial Caucasians are treated alike (aside from “Hispanics”). While we are on the subject of the term “Caucasian” – people should understand (though most probably do not) that the term “Caucasian” stems from a location in between Europe and Asia (Russia, Armenia, Georgia, etc.) The Caucasian “area” is much closer to places like Iran and Iraq than Norway or Ireland. So, and Iranian is much more “Caucasian” than a Scot.
Another weird facet is that these programs do not even require that the beneficiary be an American citizen. So, a price from sub-Saharan Africa whose great-great-great grandfather sold black slaves to the slave traders receives preference over any white (and the same treatment as a black American whose ancestor were slaves).
So, in summary, the program is at best a sloppy and arbitrary program and at worst bigoted.
Affirmative Action in Education
In education, “affirmative action” is a little bit different. That is, “non-white” groups do very well educationally, particularly in sciences, so preference effectively often does not happen (and, to some extent, discrimination occurs). However, the political correctness of college campuses is, in some cases, violently bigoted.
I am not able to describe the bigoted response by Duke University (and the larger academic community) against the “white” lacrosse players. In sum, there was no evidence any harm let alone any rape to the mentally deranged prostitute (who had semen of multiple persons none of whom included any Duke lacrosse athlete) – who had a criminal history, drug addiction history, history of false claims of rape as well as a history of being involuntarily committed due to mental disease.
From the very beginning, the case never ever made any sense – and yet these well-off, educated “white” students came very close to being convicted of a crime which would have meant the end of their lives.
Dozens of professors wrote bigoted open statements to the Duke Community and the Public at large. These individuals, to date, have suffered NO consequence.
During the height of the integration crisis at Southern Public Universities, there was no similar ruthless open support of arrest and wrongful conviction by University Professors. Those who supported segregation was composed enough to not suggest “castration” of various blacks in public demonstrations.
Let’s ask this additional question, is there any similar treatment by “whites” who make racial “misstatements” as “non-whites” who do the same thing.
Dusty Baker suffers no consequence by suggesting inferiority of white athletes in baseball “when it is hot” while Rush Limbaugh is off the air for suggesting that Donovan McNabb gets preferential treatment due to his color (by the way, in a prior posting I give historical and logical reasons that I actually disagree with Limbaugh). How about Al Campanis? What happened to him?
While David Duke made inflammatory remarks in the 1970s, Jeremiah Wright has much more hostile statements of recent years (which also have no regard to basic factual points and are vulgar while in church).
What exactly is White History?
Like all “Asians” all “Africans” all “whites” are not the same. In fact, many of them have nothing in common with each other (aside from pigment).
While I would not have wanted to be a black person in the United States in 1945, I would prefer that to being a German in Eastern Germany in 1945. America mistreated blacks but it did not engage in wholesale slaughter of blacks.
Undoubtedly, conditions on a slave-slip were horrific – but for the most part there was a strong incentive for the ship’s captain to keep the cargo alive. That same incentive did not exist for those who fled Europe in the 19th Century. For that matter, that same incentive did not exist for those who were shipped from Great Britain and Ireland for petty crimes to a life in Australia (which also was a much longer voyage).
There are lots of “white” groups who really share no connection – not in language, culture or religion. Albanians (mostly Muslim) are not like the Dutch, who are not like the Finns, who are not like the Greeks. Even in many “white” countries – internal “natives” have differences – take Finland once again – Finns, Sami and Swedes are native – and they do not have that much in common.
In many cases, “white” groups have, at times, suffered horrific oppression. Much of this oppression is recent (unlike slavery). For example, take what happened to the Jews of Europe in the 1940s – or a more random (but just as horrific) oppression such as the massive numbers of starved people in Stalin’s Soviet Union (particularly in the Ukraine in the 1930s).
Yet, in racial polarization with a political correction based foundation such historical events are being trivialized and marginalized. Facts do not matter.
How Does “Post-Racial” Obama fit into our “National Dialogue.”
Our national “racial dialogue” reminds me of the kind of “dialogue” a bank robber has with a teller.
Obama can be “forgiven” and his “ignorance” can be celebrated with regard to his “pastor” Jeremiah Wright – but Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are now, in many segments, considered “racists.”
The ridiculous nature of Barack Obama being a victim of oppression is more absurd than my own creative powers could have thought of.
American Society largely believes that Obama is somehow a victim of historical oppression. What is the factual basis for this belief? Certainly, some people “do not like” blacks (thought that “dislike” has not been so strong that it prevented the election of people like Doug Wilder, Edward Brook or Obama himself to a majority white electorate. In Brook’s case, he was elected as a member of majority party as well.
Blacks are not (nor have they been) a victim of wide-scale murder like the Christians of today’s Iraq or the non-Arab or Muslim Sudanese. Things were bad for blacks in America – but it is wrong to compare that injustice to Jews in Nazi Germany.
Of course, Obama is NOT connected to black America (aside to having skin pigment). Obama’s ancestors were not American slaves – and were not even subject to Jim Crow. Kenya, where Obama’s father’s family is from, is nowhere near where black slaves came from.
On an even more of a ridiculously sublime example of Obama’s ancestry, he actually has white slaveholding ancestors.
For those who are unaware, black slaves in America were mostly held by large plantations. As a percentage of the population, a very small percentage of “white” Americans held slaves.
Few, if any, “white” Americans holding slaves were Estonians, Italians, Greeks, Slovenians, Icelandic or Finns. Some slaveholders were American Indians.
Another Nuance
Despite historical truths such as “whites’ suffering a whole lot worse in various places than black Americans in the United States, clearly blacks were subject to much worse treatment than any group in the U.S.
Even though much of the ill-treatment of black Americans was borne from slavery – it was actually more complicated than that. For example, because Pennsylvania was progressive – slavery was ended much earlier than the civil war and early on even when slavery was legal most blacks in Pennsylvania were “free persons of color.”
American Indians were treated much better than blacks. They were allowed to own slaves themselves (the Cherokees did in large numbers), many early American leaders wanted to assimilate with Indians (Jefferson wanted “white” Americans to intermarry with Indians – he had no similar feelings about blacks – though this was hypocritical.
It was a point of pride as early as the 19th century for Virginia families to claim to be ancestors of Pocahontas – yet being suspected of having African ancestry like the Melengeons was a ticket to poor treatment.
Indeed, the foundation of “separate but equal” was from a man named Homer Plessy – who was only 1/8 black African – he was 7/8 “white.”
Meanwhile, while separate but equal was the law of the land, we were able to have American Indian national heroes – Jim Thorpe and “Chief” Bender (who could play major league baseball 30 years before Jackie Robinson, Will Rogers (perhaps among the most popular American humorist 25 years before Brown v. Board of Ed) United States Vice President Charles Curtis in the 1920s (who was nationally elected before even a President put a black Presidential Cabinet Member or appointed a Supreme Court Justice) and even Ira Hayes serving in a Marine Unit with “whites” (who won the Medal of Honor three years before blacks could serve with whites in military units) are examples of why blacks had it worse than any other group in America.
Indeed, if Obama is elected he will not be the first President of Black American ancestry. As stated above, his ancestors were not slaves – they did not even live in America under the Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine. The TRUE fact is that Warren Harding very likely had black American ancestry (albeit he was not “mostly” black). The historical record concerning Harding is quite compelling – and incredibly Harding even admitted this (when questioned by a reporter he famously said “how do I know if I had an ancestor that jumped the fence?”).
Anyway, in today’s politically correct America, it is impossible for “whites” to simply state historical truths about undeniable history. One must remain quiet – or someone will potentially be expelled from school or suffer permanent unemployment.
Any “white” simply trying to make a point on this issue had better hope they were independently wealthy – otherwise they might want to think about leaving the country. No “white” is safe – Bill Clinton’s example has shown this. Wearing a “Hillary 2008” tee-shirt runs the risk of being considered by many to be a “racist.”
In Conclusion
In the America of today, stories like the Duke lacrosse example have shown that non-science University curriculum are no more than a drain on society fostering a distorted untrue of uncontested American and World history. On this point, though some professors have value, the baby ought to be thrown out with the bathwater. Any good that these people do is far outweighed by political correctness.
The media combined with liberal arts found in universities have shut-down any real debate on this issue and has caused most informed people to fear having an open discussion on issues. In the process, it is completely acceptable for pot-shots of “whites” to be taken for non-existent collective guilt for crimes.
Any “white” discussing these issues suddenly becomes a clone of David Duke. We can see this with Obama’s potential election as President. Under objective circumstances a politician who is so closely associated with an openly bigoted person would have no chance for nationally elected office. Even during the Jim Crow era most major Presidential Candidates rejected bigotry (though some privately certainly had prejudices) – none attended a church like Jeremiah Wright’s church.
Obama is a product of the most dangerous form of historical revisionism facing America today. In another source of irony, that revisionism has been, and still is, a large component of the fuel that harms black Americans via bad policy.
Despite what the ignorant would certainly claim to be my “racism” – I am a believer that we need to do something to try to improve the lot of black Americans (those who are actually black – not “Homer Plessy black” and those who are actually descendants of slaves). I am a firm believer in the programs that exist today are bad, and I wonder if government is capable of doing anything right in this arena, but government actually some chance of doing something right in this area (in the aftermath of the Civil War it did make many good decisions).
Of course, that leaves many “non-white” groups who under the media and academia’s warped version of the truth obtaining a “free pass” at attacking “whites.” It matters none that the Japanese tortured, murdered and engaged in vivisection on “white” prisoners of war – we need to be reminded of what America did to the Japanese in America.
It matters not that the Spanish and Portuguese had world empires, someone Irish needs to be reminded of their non-existent “oppression” of minorities. I admit in this area some personal displeasure at the accusations that people of Irish background face with the “group guilt” that is pushed by academia and the media.
A large segment of the Duke lacrosse team was, by both first-name and surname, Irish American. In my case, nearly all of my ancestors came from Ireland (in Specifics, roughly 2/3 were Irish Catholic, about 1/5 Scots Irish, and the remaining made up of Scots with a little bit of Quakers mostly from Ireland).
Historically, it was not so long ago that the Irish faced horrible oppression. In the 17th Century, well over half of all the Irish in Ireland were murdered by Cromwell’s forces (compare that with the Nazi’s killing perhaps 1/3 of European Jews). Thousands of Irish during this era were shipped to the New World as slaves (many “blacks” of Bermuda, Barbados and Jamaica have some of this distant ancestry).
In the early 18th century, Queen Anne placed horribly oppressive rules towards the native Irish (which also caused serious harm to the Irish who were Scot’s Presbyterian and the Quakers) many of the non-Anglican Irish protestants left in that Century and came to the United States.
For the Catholics, more hardship was on the way. Catholics were virtually landless, were not able to freely worship and had their native language nearly wiped out in the 19th century.
Ireland to this day has a strong agricultural base. When the common potato blight hit Ireland (which also impacted much of Western Europe) – since the vast majority of the Irish Catholic were landless they died in huge numbers. Officially, Ireland’s census was around 8.2 million in 1841 – but many of the poorest Irish living literally in holes dug in the earth covered by sticks or a tarp. Nobody will ever know the exact number who resided in Ireland when the blight hit – but it was almost certainly in excess of 9 million people. Between 1845 and 1850, at least 1 million died – many more died uncounted or died on the journey to America or died immediately afterward.
Most of my mother’s family, and a good bit of my father’s family came from the Western Irish Province of Connacht – in certain Places in that Province most people died of starvation and disease. Even today, abandoned cottages dot the Irish countryside.
Today, Ireland is a successful and developed country – but the entire isle still has a population of under 6 million people. How many other regions in the entire world can say that their population of 170 years ago was greater than today.
In my postings, I admit that it is not unusual for me to return to the subject of Ireland. I am not asking for the British to pay us reparations, I am not asking for (unneeded) preferential treatment in contracting or education. I am not asking for the right to accuse those whom I believe may be of English heritage of being responsible for my people’s native tongue dwindling – nor am I asking for an apology.
I am demanding the truth. I demand that historical revisionism end. I am demanding that those who trivialize the harm suffered by the Irish at foreign hands open their eyes and minds to the brutal facts.