White people don’t really try to fight racism, all they’ve been doing the past hundred years is making the tiniest allowance to get the greatest return.
First it’s overt: “You’re a nigger, you’re not allowed into my restaurant/school/water fountain/whatever the fuck.”
People didn’t like that, so they toned it down: “We’ll put you in jail, we’ll deny you jobs, we’ll have police stalking you everywhere, we’ll give you heavier sentences for the same crime, we’ll attack the poor and screw a couple of white people to get at you.”
Obviously, that’s not working very well either, people have found it out and are speaking out.
Now it’s “social justice”. Under the guise of acceptance for all, it’s basically come down to what white people think is acceptable and what they don’t. And if you don’t fit into that whitewashed mold (and many PoC who have their own culture and language and ways of handling things don’t)?
“You’re oppressing me.”
“You’re triggering me.”
“You’re denying my identity.”
“You’re using oppressive language.”
It’s the perfect way to emotionally manipulate people who are some of the most shit on, stressed, and put upon people in society, who most of the violence attacks, into making them feel bad that they might actually be oppressing you by using words they created to protect themselves against them.
Apparently some people haven’t heard of affirmative action… being white HURTS your chances of getting into college and getting a job… That’s not an opinion its a law.
“Applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely to get called for an initial interview than applicants with African-American-sounding names. Applicants with white names need to send about 10 resumes to get one callback, whereas applicants with African-American names need to send about 15 resumes to achieve the same result.
In addition, race greatly affects how much applicants benefit from having more experience and credentials. White job applicants with higher-quality resumes received 30 percent more callbacks than whites with lower-quality resumes. Having a higher-quality resume has a much smaller impact on African-American applicants, who experienced only 9 percent more callbacks for the same improvement in their credentials. This disparity suggests that in the current state of the labor market, African-Americans may not have strong individual incentives to build better resumes.”
»Racial Bias in Hiring“The effect of race in these findings is strikingly large. Among blacks without criminal records,only 14% received callbacks, relative to 34% of white noncriminals. In fact, even whites with criminal records received more favorable treatment (17%) than blacks without criminal records (14%). The rank ordering of groups in this graph is painfully revealing of employer preferences: race continues to play a dominant role in shaping employment opportunities, equal to or greater than the impact of a criminal record.”
“Over the past 30 years, a large body of research has shown that four factors consistently influence student achievement: all else equal, students perform better if they are educated in smaller schools where they are well known (300 to 500 students is optimal), have smaller class sizes (especially at the elementary level), receive a challenging curriculum, and have more highly qualified teachers.
Minority students are much less likely than white children to have any of these resources. In predominantly minority schools, which most students of color attend, schools are large (on average, more than twice as large as predominantly white schools and reaching 3,000 students or more in most cities); on average, class sizes are 15 percent larger overall (80 percent larger for non-special education classes); curriculum offerings and materials are lower in quality; and teachers are much less qualified in terms of levels of education, certification, and training in the fields they teach. And in integrated schools, as UCLA professor Jeannie Oakes described in the 1980s and Harvard professor Gary Orfield’s research has recently confirmed, most minority students are segregated in lower-track classes with larger class sizes, less qualified teachers, and lower-quality curriculum.”
“In terms of impact, affirmative action and discrimination against people of color are completely different. Discrimination against people of color, historically and today, deprives those people of color of the right to equal consideration for various opportunities on equitable terms. While some may think affirmative action does the same thing to whites, in fact this is untrue. Affirmative action programs only deprive whites, in effect, of the ability to continue banking our extra consideration, and the credentials and advantages we have accumulated under a system of unfairness, which afforded us more-than-equal opportunities. There is no moral entitlement to the use of such advantages, since they have not come about in a free and fair competition. History — and ongoing racial bias against people of color — have served as “thumbs on the scale” for whites, so to speak. Or even more so, as the equivalent of a “Warp Speed” button on a video game. Merely removing one’s finger from the warp speed button cannot address the head start accumulated over many generations, nor the mentality that developed as a justification for that head start: a mentality that has sought to rationalize and legitimize the resulting inequities passed down through the generations. So affirmative action is tantamount to hitting a warp speed button for people of color, in an attempt to even out those unearned head starts, and allow everyone to compete on as level a playing field as possible. To not do so would be to cement the head start that has been obtained by whites, and especially white men, in the economic and educational realms. It would be like having an 8-lap relay race, in which one runner has had a 5-lap head start, and instead of placing the second runner at the same point as the first, so as to see who really is faster, we were to merely proclaim the race fair and implore the runner who had been held back to “run faster” and try harder, fairness be damned.
Finally, discrimination against people of color, historically, has had the real social impact of creating profound imbalances, inequities and disparities in life chances between whites and people of color. In other words, the consequences of that history have been visible: it has led to wealth gaps of more than 10:1 between whites and blacks, for instance (and 8:1 between whites and Latinos). It has led to major disparities in occupational status, educational attainment, poverty rates, earnings ratios, and rates of home ownership. Affirmative action has barely made a dent in these structural inequities, in large part because the programs and policies have been so weakly enforced, scattershot, and pared back over the past twenty years. So despite affirmative action, whites continue (as I document in my books, Colorblind, and Affirmative Action: Racial Preference in Black and White) to receive over 90 percent of government contracts, to hold over 90 percent of tenured faculty positions, to hold over 85 percent of management level jobs in the private sector workforce, to be half as likely as blacks to be unemployed (even when only comparing whites and blacks with college degrees), and to get into their college of first choice at higher rates than African Americans or Latinos.”
“As many as 15 percent of freshmen at America’s top schools are white students who failed to meet their university’s minimum standards for admission, according to Peter Schmidt, deputy editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education. These kids are “people with a long-standing relationship with the university,” or in other words, the children of faculty, wealthy alumni and politicians. According to Schmidt, these unqualified but privileged kids are nearly twice as common on top campuses as Black and Latino students who had benefited from affirmative action.”
This is a term I should be using more often, for two good reasons.
1. It pisses off anarchists. Traditional (lefitst) anarchists mostly, but even anarcho-capitalists have been annoyed the few times I’ve used it. It just doesn’t sound right.
2. I am a conservative and an anarchist. I use “anarchy” in the manner that political scientists, and most individuals in general, use it, describing a society that lacks any semblance of a centralized state. I am a conservative because I wish to preserve my nation, this includes some factors like ethnicity, values, customs and legal traditions. The state is a hindrance to this goal of preservation, I have even argued in previous posts that the state is necessarily anti-conservative.
The rigamarole about what anarchy means is very revisionist here and strictly in-denial. I’m going to address what I think we should infer from crap like this. I’ll try to be as respectful as possible, but I’m not keen on tolerating proud bigotry like this.
Stateless-Crusader is a white supremacist. It’s clear from his blog’s title. “Crusader” is a white wink to Christian identity, nationalism and I belief in maintaining purity. This guy believes he can’t be racist because he believes in “free association” and is honest. After all, this post is a confession. Both “crusader” and “free association” are white pride badges.
The United States is itself a unity of different nations. We have one nation out of many states. White supremacists never understand what this means. It doesn’t mean, in Mississippi we get to do what we want and in New York you get to do what you want and our government protects us from non-citizens and other threats and leaves us alone. If you’re an Americanist, conservative or not, a white guy speaking about his desire to preserve his nation and his desire for free association is explicitly un-American. White guy making this claim is a straight up bigot.
In spite of his white pride, even this crusader is unwilling to betray his whiteness. Conservative Anarchism is a made up term for An Excuse for My Possessive Whiteness. Here’s what Stateless-Crusader has to say for himself:
First off, I’m white.
This deserves it’s own space. It’s a confession. Not a way to admit privilege, not a way to betray his unearned ambition that comes with being white. It’s a means to establish power within discourse. In fact, it’s a threat. Let’s be honest. He’s establishing order.
At least I believe I’m primarily of European heritage, my mother was adopted so I can’t know for sure. But nevertheless, I identify as white, my community is white and I feel it’s perfectly natural to want that to continue. To be more specific, I’m primarily Pennsylvania Dutch, meaning I’m mostly of Germanic origin. There are unique cultural traits I wish to preserve, and I wish for the group to continue to exist. It’s the right of all nations to exist.
There are also other issues, like higher crime rates and less social cohesion, that comes along with heterogeneity, and I’ve written posts about that before. Basically, tension and conflict increases when more different people occupy a common area.
And before anyone get’s all concerned, know that I’m generally a libertarian in my ethics. I believe in the right of free association and private property
1. “There are unique cultural traits I wish to preserve, and I wish for the group to continue to exist. It’s the right of all nations to exist.”
- “It’s the right of all nations to exist” but I don’t believe in the right of the state to exist. In other words, a constituted society of different people from different places is a problem, but a purity is a right. This is explicitly white supremacist.
- “I wish to preserve…” We might ask just what he wishes to preserve? A certain kind of nose or ear? Does he admire his Pennsylvania Dutch penis? This desire to preserve is explicitly white supremacist. I wonder how much this lover of liberty knows about the American eugenics movement? My bet is “a lot”. I’ll permit people who know much more about genetics than I do to address his failure to recognize that his belief in the potential for purity is based on ideological social constructions and not biological reality.
2. “There are also other issues, like higher crime rates and less social cohesion, that comes along with heterogeneity, and I’ve written posts about that before. Basically, tension and conflict increases when more different people occupy a common area.”
- The Myth Of Social Cohesion in Social Purity is like basic White Power 101 stuff. I’m not going to bother with calling bullshit on it.
- White supremacists explicitly conflate class and race. Conservative sociologists, not all white by the way, have done a lot to encourage this confusion. Focusing on social class was supposed to be a way to examine problems that don’t highlight ethnicity. In other words, a sociology that unites us in our common concerns. It hasn’t worked out that way. Intersectionality is important; otherwise, whiteness gets to hide. Conservatives, Capitalists, and white supremacists use their eyeballs to associate poverty and high crime rates as a problem with the people who tend to be poor while at the same time ignoring those social structures that prohibit social mobility. Sociologists and Crusaders may have different intentions, but they’re both wrong. That’s an opinion, but I make the claim to reason we should consider possessive whiteness when we consider social class.
- Stateless-Crusader’s mistake has been decried for centuries. Adam Smith famously wrote about it in the 18th Century. It’s not some liberal plot. We all know the problem. Poor people are unjustly described as dirty, uneducated, lazy, invalid, infirm, and criminal while successfully and socially mobile people are unjustly described as clean, educated, hard-working, valid, healthy, and law-abiding. White supremacists don’t associate these traits with a social class; they associate the traits with tendencies in skin color. (Although it’s cute that he tries to hide his white supremacy in a desire to admire his Pennsylvania Dutchness, it’s still bullshit white pride.) For the bigots, the problems aren’t social, they’re genetic. Both associations are unjust and represent flawed reasoning.
3. “And before anyone get’s all concerned, know that I’m generally a libertarian in my ethics. I believe in the right of free association and private property.”
- Any white guy who writes, “I’m generally a libertarian in my ethics” is generally a bigot without the courage of his white pride. Let’s have a real discussion about your world views, Sateless-Crusader. Give us some proof your belief that white people are less criminal and more healthy than people of color isn’t based simply in your white pride. And cite your data. Let’s put your beliefs in context.
- How do you not have the ability to freely associate and own property right now?
- You are not an anarchist if you believe in private property. At best you’re a minarchist. Private property demands a contract, which demands laws, which presupposes a social structure most reasonable people would call a state. By the way, lots of white conservatives desire to be minarchists. You’re in good company.
“Does he admire his Pennsylvania Dutch penis? ”
Tim Wise, Honky Wanna Cracker? Examining the Myth of “Reverse Racism” (via darkjez)
I read this essay a few days ago. It is really good.
Thinking about Rick Santorum’s racist dog whistle to the Iowa Republican voters. He claims he doesn’t want to use other people’s money to enrich black people. Overtly racist language, of course. I’d not expect anything less from the Catholic conservative. I’m surprised and dismayed to have heard from more than one white friend that there’s an excuse for Rick Santorum’s statement, or that it’s politics as usual, but I’m learning that my liberal white friends are really willing to betray their whiteness. Something about calling out white supremacy in everyday life seems inappropriate to many of them. It’s ok to attack nationalists and fascists, but everyday white folks and “respected” leaders is not nice. I hate that racist civility.
That white people continue to color wealth-distribution is a problem insisting that black America is so corrupted that they cost “us” too much. An argument implying black people are a financial drain on US wealth (thus potential for equality, i.e. white people like to say, “it’s their fault,”) is crazy considering how many black men we purposefully and willfully incarcerate each year, at great cost, and our inhumane sentencing policies that are unjustly applied in states nationwide. That sort of grand expense is cool, but the small amount of revenue spent on useful and successful, necessary welfare-programs is supposed to be unfair.
That’s white supremacy. It’s not veiled, it’s public policy, it’s explicit and obscene.
[IMAGE DESCRIPTION: The word “whiteness” in the middle of an “anti-symbol,” a red circle with a red line through it, to indicate “anti-whiteness.” In parentheses below, “but NOT anti-‘people who happen to be white.’ Below that, the URL “STFURACISTS.tumblr.com.”]
Read this carefully, white people… then re-blog it. None of it’s new, none of it’s mine alone, none of it’s my original research. It’s just that I’ve just learned from wiser people than myself and I attached a graphic above to get your attention. (And if you’re not white, I’m most likely not reporting anything new to you, but I hope you share this on your blog anyway.)
Whiteness is not a heritage, not a culture. It’s a system of oppression. It’s not anything to be proud of.
It’s fine to be interested in the countries your family tree comes from. Go ahead and be enthusiastic about exploring your background. March in your local St. Patrick’s Day parade, go to the Scottish Highland Games, have some German food and drinks at the next Oktoberfest. That your roots happen to be European, happens to be coded as “white,” does not equate to you being a bad person, not you or other people who would be considered “white.” (You all still could be jerks for other reasons, of course.) The problem isn’t with your “Everyone Loves A(n) [Irish/Italian/German/etc.] Girl” t-shirt. The problem is with the white people asking why “white pride” is criticized as bigotry, not realizing that it’s unavoidably synonymous with “white supremacy.”
Recognize that the reason some people of color express pride in their respective ethnicities is, in part, because they have had to assert their identity, their equality, their humanity. If you’re white, you haven’t been challenged over those things because of your whiteness. (Maybe if you’re a white person who isn’t male, cisgender, heterosexual, etc. But not because you’re white. Even if you were one of the first Irish immigrants and were discriminated against, it was because of your Irishness, not because you were white.)
Pride in whiteness just means you’re proud to have undue privilege, proud of a tradition of oppression and disparity. You’re not getting oppressed for being white. That doesn’t mean you have to be ashamed for being white, it just means it’s nothing to celebrate or defend. It also doesn’t mean you get any points for claiming to be “colorblind” or saying “race doesn’t matter,” because all that means is, “I’m white, so I don’t have to think about race.”
You should think about it. More white people understanding what whiteness is and how it affects the world might just help make things better. Maybe there will even come a time when “whiteness” is so far in the past, that there won’t be such a term as “white people,” just people who would have been described as that a long time ago. But probably not in our lifetime…
… so until then, the very least you can do is be aware.
(If you’re new to reading my posts, start here. If any of my phrasing or word choices is confusing, refer to this and definitely check out that post’s links to others and their writing. Click the links in this post, look around at my blog, and click the tags to find more on each aspect of these subjects.)
source This is from fastweb, THE SCHOLARSHIP WEBSITE, took me less than 30secs to find. You reserve the right to shut the fuck up
If you look your ‘statistics are from the 90’s they dont count in 2012 sorry.
You are attack her with old information so get some more up to date info.
And they have race scholarships, the last time I checked there were no WHITE PEOPLE SCHOLARSHIPS. So you have no right to get upset when she said nothing racist, she was simply stating its hard for white people just like it is everyone else, yet a lot of people seem to think white people have it the easiest.
when in reality they dont, no one has it the easiest in life.
The best, most up-to-date research we have debunks the myth about people of color having it easier as far as scholarships and education goes. Do you really think the numbers have changed that drastically since then? The burden of proof is now on you to show a reversal in the years since those studies.
While you’re at it, show me how white people have had difficulties in voting rights, housing, the justice system, etc., FOR THEIR WHITENESS, just the same as people of color have for their race. Spoiler alert: they haven’t.
Denying white privilege and dismissing the oppression of people of color is, in and of itself, racist.
raure-n is a fucking idiot too lazy to do a Google search..
And actually no I am not, I have no need to google this shit because if you go to fucking school you learn enough to rebuttal this entire conversation
Also, there are Irish, Scottish, English, Polish, Russian, etc scholarships. And, no, they don’t require you to be 1st generation. It’s called google. You’ll be surprised how many “white” scholarships you can find when you actually….look.
hahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahaha OMG BABY JESUS GIVE ME SOME AIR PLEASE
Whiteness is a helluva drug