| | |
|
MatthewCollinsSecondPaper 3 - 18 Jun 2012 - Main.MatthewCollins
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
On "White Supremacy" | | | Digging Deeper | |
<
< | Of course it would be pandering to my own preconceptions to end there. The existence of poor whites does not alone undermine white supremacy, nor does the fact that so many white people are subject to the derogation and subjugation of the ruling class. 24,140,297 people are nonwhite and below the poverty line –, totaling 8.2% of America. Using race as denominator, 23.8% of nonwhites are below the poverty line compared to just 10.6% of whites. | >
> | Of course it would be pandering to my own preconceptions to end there. The existence of poor whites does not alone undermine white supremacy, nor does the fact that so many white people are subject to the derogation and subjugation of the ruling class. 24,140,297 people are nonwhite and below the poverty line, totaling 8.2% of America. Using race as denominator, 23.8% of nonwhites are below the poverty line compared to just 10.6% of whites. | | | Such denominators do not do enough work to undermine my first notion. There are nearly as many poor whites as poor nonwhites -- should whiteness be supreme, the numbers should be far from comparable as the nonwhite class includes many immigrants or recent immigrants as well as those recovering from the history of slavery and segregation (though a relic of overt white supremacy, to be sure).
However, figures from Tom Hertz cut against this interpretation of census data. In particular, Hertz finds two figures relating to social mobility and race in the United States: (1) 62.9% of blacks born in the bottom quartile between 1942 and 1972 stayed there (as compared to just 32.3% of whites) and (2) controlling for many human capital measures, being black had a negative, statistically significant correlation for social mobility for children born in the same time period.*** | | | Clarifying “White Supremacy” | |
<
< | For support of this definition are many of “diversity” in America. Although affirmative action programs began as government-mandated measures, today they are not only voluntarily engaged-in programs by employers and universities but are also points of pride and part of marketing pitches. If the supreme culture that runs these organizations was so concerned with skin color it would instead view affirmative action programs as an occupation, a forced measure getting in the way of its preferences. | >
> | For support of this definition are many instances of “diversity” in America. Although affirmative action programs began as government-mandated measures, today they are not only voluntarily engaged-in programs by employers and universities but are also points of pride and part of marketing pitches. If the supreme culture that runs these organizations was so concerned with skin color it would instead view affirmative action programs as an occupation, a forced measure getting in the way of its preferences. | | | But while the culture embraces nonwhites it has little interest in these peoples’ unique perspectives – it simply wants a new face on the same worldview. In 2004 Henry Louis Gates commented how the majority of Harvard’s black population was African or West Indian (I needn’t point out that our black president is half-white half-Kenyan). Our most prominent Hispanic politician opposes the DREAM Act. The attitude of diversity is more “we’ll let you act like us” than “we’re interested in you.” A subgroup with a culture and history of its own embedded so far in its collective memory – as African-Americans have – is the least likely to give. And the least likely to get much accommodation in return. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |