I am so tired of hearing about reverse racism.
That's the big new thing on the right, since they realized that all their cries of "socialism" weren't resonating with the American people, who apparently decided they had enough of eight years of unbridled capitalism under George W. Bush.
Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., got a big surprise when he went home to talk with voters. Baucus represents one of the more conservative states in the union, and he told voters he was opposed to single-payer health insurance. Montana voters were angry, and polls in the state showed that a solid majority favored what the right loves to call socialized medicine.
Ditto with President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. A Gallup poll released Tuesday said 50 percent approved and only 22 percent opposed Sotomayor, a higher number than approved of any of Bush's nominees to the court.
So despite the controversy the media loves to highlight, a lot of Americans seem to approve of the direction Obama is taking us.
So the right wing is playing the race card.
If you listen to them, Obama hates white people and so does Sotomayor. In fact, if you listen to them, nominating Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is the moral equivalent of a Republican nominating former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke.
Now you might be surprised to know that I'm not all that disappointed -- and certainly not surprised -- to hear Rush Limbaugh saying that about Sotomayor. He is what he is, and he has his audience.
But it's only been this year that the mainstream media seems to be playing up whatever he says. In fact, Rush has gotten more press coverage this year than any year since his arrest on prescription drug charges.
I'm sure he's loving it.
I'm sorry, though. The last thing we need is white people at the bottom of the economic spectrum thinking that the reason they're not getting ahead is someone else's reverse racism.
In my entire career, I lost out on one job because I was white. And I never really wanted to be president of the NAACP anyway.
Seriously, for all the talk of affirmative action, there is no doubt that being a white male is still the most advantageous position to hold in this society.
So let's not whine about reverse racism.
My guess is it's about 97th on our list of national problems, right behind whether we have enough calcium in our diets.
Posts
13 comments:
Wimp.
There's only so much white-guilt-angst that a normal person can stomach.
You have exceeded the limit.
Don't even pretend that you're fair, unbiased, and not a socialist.
You are what you are.
The liberal media's counterpart to Rush Limbaugh
Alex
Alex, you obviously don't understand the purpose of writing a column. It's certainly not to be "fair and unbiased."
What I do here is try to present a point of view in a way that it will reach some people.
I am absolutely not "fair and unbiased," just as Fox News is anything but "fair and balanced."
The difference is that I'm not giving you the news.
As for socialism, I don't consider it the boogeyman the way right-wingers do. I try to live my life according to the teachings of Christ, who told us that we are our brother's keeper and we have a responsibility toward the "least among us."
If the choice were between extremes, I would much rather live in a socialist society than one with unregulated capitalism.
This is so true. I'm sick of white people playing the victim. Too many on the "left" have been trying to make excuses for Sotomayor. We need to draw a line in the sand, and this "reverse racism" stuff needs to be on the unacceptable side of that line.
I want one white person to show me the point in history at which it became more advantageous to be black in America than to be white.
To kevin Lockett,
You may call me a racist, but I don't believe in preferring one group of people over another. You may call me a sexist because I don't believe in prefrring one gender over another.
I know of several cases involving my family and me where preferences were given to others (based on race and geneder) that excluded me, my brother, and my sister from jobs and college admissions.
What I want, Kevin, is the same old crap about the past being dished back when any form of bias is wrong.
There's no making up for the past sins and errors.
There's only today and tomorrow.
So, I think it's disinegnuous for you or Mike to tell me to "get over it" and to slouch away and not stand up and declare bias simply because you don't care to recognize it.
It does exist -- and it would be a better world if we eradicated it in every case we encounter -- rather than rationalizing it because it somehow redresses some past wrong.
Maybe it's time you and Mike "got over it" and started thinking about today and tomorrow instead of redressing all the yesterdays.
Alex
Anonymous, would you be willing to acknowledge that whites are the overwhelming beneficiaries of bias? How is it that you know (without giving too many personal details) that you or members in your family were unjustly denied opportunity due to being white?
And, again, at what specific point in history did being black become an overwhelming advantage?
Kevin, he's not anonymous. He gives his name -- Alex -- at the end of his post.
Being black has never been an advantage, and before anyone mentions the NBA, it isn't even an advantage there. If pro basketball were strictly a matter of skills, there might not be five American white guys in the league.
Most teams try to have at least a couple of white players, which probably keeps better players from getting jobs.
Nope, for the most part, it's still a major disadvantage.
Still, I would rather see affirmative action programs based on economic status. Not all black people need the help, but there are some raggedy-ass white people who sure could use it.
To Kevin in response to "How is it that you know (without giving too many personal details) that you or members in your family were unjustly denied opportunity due to being white?"
I was told. By the African-American Human Resources director.
My brother was told by the associate director (a a Hispanic woman) that although he had a 4.0 GPA, he would not be admitted to a prestigious university because they had to hold open a certain quantity of spots of African-Americans with lower GPAs in order to remain qualified for federal grant money.
My sister was dating a fellow who told her that her application for employment at a company with federal contracts was excellent, but in order to keep their status, they HAD to fill the position she was seeking with a minority candidate who was not as well qualified as her.
So, Mr. Lockett, although it's obvious you have some "racist" axe to grind in this discussion, those are "facts" that suggest that it is a common practice NOT to look for the best candidate, but to kowtow to some arbitrary rule that emphasizes racism and sexism over hard work and accomplishment.
Look, I'm not an idiot. I know there are racists everywhere. And they are of every race, creed, and color.
I'm just saying it is disingenuous of you and Mike to maintain the charade that it doesn't go on because it does.
Dr. Martin Luther Kind, Jr. envisioned a day when competence would be the only standard, not race.
And maybe you're saying that it's not the time yet for such a high ideal, but every time you rationalize and justify any form of bigotry and bias, you postpone that day Dr. King envisioned.
You can't have it both ways.
Either you're a bigot and prejudiced because you subscribe to a biased system, or you're color-blind and gender-blind.
You can dismiss me because I may be younger than you, but that would make for an ad hominem argument -- attacking me for my youth rather than dealing with the salient facts. And the salient facts are that there exists today arbitrary and unfair hiring and admissions standards based on a retroactive policy of redressing past wrongs.
Run back to Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice" -- don't I bleed?
Don't I suffer unjustly when a criteria for acceptance is based on anything but blind merit?
If there's one thing that annoys me, Mr. Lockett, it is your tacit approval of a biased system (so long as it serves your agenda) and your utter contempt for and dismissal of any ideas contrary to your own.
And yes, there are times I've envied people of color because I know were I not white that with my grades and experience, I would have easily passed through the artificial filters of racism that derailed my plans.
Sorry, but there is racism (more often held secretly in the human heart than actively practiced in the open) and there is reverse racism practiced in the light of day under the guise of being fair.
Neither should exist or be condoned.
Alex
Before anyone catches my typo and mocks me, his name was Dr. Martin Luther KinG, Jr., not Dr. Martin Luther Kind.
It was am unfortunate typo.
Sorry.
Alex
First of all, let me say that I am against quota systems, which you described. That said...
In the case of your brother, I would guess that there were also whites who were admitted who did not have perfect 4.0 GPAs. Why not get angry at them as well? Also, I think it's time we stop assuming that GPAs and SAT scores are conclusive measures of a person's worth to a university. First off, the nature of these measures is extremely biased and inconsistent across race, socio-economic status, school district, and geography. Second, schools are concerned with more than who has the highest test scores. They have to balance qualifications, likelihood for success, and benefit to the school community. They can't learn that just from GPA or SAT scores.
As for your sister, again, how are you defining "qualified"?
One thing that affirmative action tries to do is take into account the fact that, generally, people of color have not been judged by their character or been provided equal opportunities. So, if I'm a college admissions officer, and I see that a minority applicant hasn't taken any honors or advance placement classes, I'm less likely to hold that against them because I know that minority students are overwhelmingly more likely to attend schools that don't offer such classes. If I'm an employer, and I see that an minority applicant hasn't advanced much in their previous positions, I can't automatically assume that this is because they had poor performance.
We live in a country where black people still get denied jobs because their names sound too black, where minorities are still under-represented in trade unions. Look at the recent sub-prime mortgage companies. Many have attacked blacks for getting such mortgages, but ignore the fact that many blacks who qualified for real, legitimate mortgages were not offered them. Study after study shows that minorities are treated unfairly when seeking mortgages.
So, I see how you could be upset about what you perceive as bias in favor of minorities as a result of affirmative action, but you must also acknowledge that there are much greater and more significant biases against them (after all, even with affirmative action, blacks and Latinos are under-represented in colleges and universities).
If you're going to oppose affirmative action, I suggest you offer an alternative plan to account for the bias against people of color in this country, unless your one of those people who believe it's more advantageous to be black than to be white.
Man, you are TOO much.
Talk about your perpetual victims.
"We live in a country where black people still get denied jobs because their names sound too black ..."
Prove that statement.
Just one freakin' case.
You're all talk.
Big talk.
You start splitting hairs with my sister's qualifications.
She's more qualified than anyone you know.
You can't have it both ways -- saying on the one hand you don't believe in quotas and then supporting affirmative action.
I'm not suggesting you're foolish or stupid or in any way not a great guy, but you parroting gibberish.
It's all about, as Mike has written, whose Gore is oxed.
I don't think affirmative action serves any useful purpose any more than to create a future backlash against minorities for breaks that no one ought to be getting.
I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.
To me, your whole way of thinking is shallow and compromised.
You probably see yourself first as an "African-American" rather than a male or just an American.
Maybe it's an age thing.
Maybe my generation has gotten beyond so many of the hangups of your generation.
I don't know.
But it appears rather than evolving toward a worldview that doesn't distinguish color or gender, you're camping out in the forest of racial identity first.
I feel sorry for you if that's true.
Even though you're probably a very nice guy, if that is your worldview then you will have to come to grips with the fact that YOU are a racist.
A racists is not necessary evil or malevolent or bad.
A racist is anyone who believes in racial identity first, and above all.
My grandfather admits he's a racist. he always sees people first as a member of a race. He's not hateful or bigoted or prejudiced. But he sees race first.
It was a part of his era.
It's not part of mine.
I have friends of all races. My brother is married to a beautiful Asian woman. They don't see race. I don't, either -- and that's why i am perplexed that you can't see what you're saying directly stems from racism.
Just because you're an African-American doesn't mean you can't be a racist.
Jesse Jackson is a racist. It's clear when he's referred to New York as Hymietown.
That's racist.
Maybe you need to get the self-righteous log out of your own eye before lashing back at me.
Alex
I'm no Rush Limbaugh fan, but you are becoming the master of the cheap shot, ala Rush.
You wrote: "But it's only been this year that the mainstream media seems to be playing up whatever he says. In fact, Rush has gotten more press coverage this year than any year since his arrest on prescription drug charges."
Was that really necessary?
It makes you come off as petty, not clever.
As for Alex, I understand your frustrations, but Kevin and you have to be fairly close in age -- his generation IS your generation.
So, it may be more than a generational perspective. It may be a cultural perspective.
And Kevin, you are obviously an intelligent man, but in this little exchange of ideas, your ideas come off as second best.
And I say that as a person of color -- my mother is white and my father is a black Hispanic.
Alex is right about being consistent -- you can't complain about whites yelling reverse discrimination and be for any form of discrimination, and you are.
Examine your comments from a neutral perspective and I think you'll see that you are advocating a "racist" agenda. Alex is right; simply because you're a person of color doesn't mean you can be a racist.
Shaundra W., Montebello, CA
Alex is right about being consistent -- you can't complain about whites yelling reverse discrimination and be for any form of discrimination, and you are.
1. There is such a thing as acceptable discrimination. We don't let children drive cars. We (hopefully) don't let persons convicted of violent crimes own guns. We don't let perverts teach in schools. The law discriminates all the time. The question is, is it appropriate.
2. When have I advocated discrimination, appropriate or otherwise? I only support forms of affirmative action that take the disprivilege experienced by minorities into account as one of many factors in making decisions.
Are you a lawyer, or just pre-law?
What you define as "discrimination" is not what most intelligent people will define as discrimination. The fact that kids can't drive cars or that convicted child molesters cannot be around children is NOT discrimination.
You suggesting that racial bias is a mere distinguishing between candidates.
It is far more.
Webster's dictionary addresses the type of "discrimination" you are spinning the word to mean:
"the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment, i.e. racial discrimination"
You might claim it's on an individual basis, but what you truly advocate is a systematic approach to dealing with the issue, codifying it in law and procedures.
I disagree with you.
Shaundra W., Montebello, CA
Post a Comment