Debate Now White Privilege and an Institution of Racism

[Foxfyre]

NOTE: This thread is in the Structured Debate Forum.

John H. McWhorter PhD offers an interesting perspective on race in a recent essay. The inspiration for his thoughts were apparently triggered by students being required to attend "White Privilege 101" classes. His response to that is "Why, and for whose benefit?"

The concept he expresses raises the question of who is benefited when the conversation focuses on identification with race rather the means by which racism is eliminated or diminished.

Excerpted from the essay--pay special attention to the third paragraph cited here:

. . .If you’ve been white lately, you have likely been confronted with the idea that to be a good person, you must cultivate a guilt complex over the privileged status your race enjoys.

It isn’t that you are doing, or even quite thinking, anything racist. Rather, your existential state of Living While White constitutes a form of racism in itself. Your understanding will serve as a tool … for something. But be careful about asking just what that something is, because that will mean you “just don’t get it.”

To be sure, there is, indeed, a distinct White Privilege. Being white does offer a freedom not easily available to others. You can underperform without it being ascribed to your race. And when you excel, no one wonders whether Affirmative Action had anything to do with it. Authority figures are likely to be your color, and no one associates people of your color with a propensity to violence. No one expects you to represent your race in a class discussion or anywhere else. . . .​

And later in the essay he comments:

. . . the idea is not to teach white people that White Privilege means that black people are the only group of people in human history who cannot deal with obstacles and challenges. If the idea is that black people cannot solve their problems short of white people developing an exquisite sensitivity to how privileged they are, then we in the black community are being designated as disabled poster children. . . .​

And he further notes that these days, a white person accused of being racist is somewhere on a par with being designated as a pedophile.

The whole essay is here: The Privilege of Checking White Privilege - The Daily Beast

THE RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please. The topic is stated in the question to be answered below.

2. No ad hominem re other members or political parties or conservatives or liberals, etc. Focus on the comment posted and not the character or motive of the person posting it. Focus on the stated position of a political party if pertinent to the topic and not on the character or motive of the political party itself.

3. References, reasonable excerpts of, and links to other stated opinions are allowed but will not be required for this discussion. If used, put the basic concept of the linked material into your own words also and explain how it relates to the concept of 'white privilege'.

THE QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

Does a focus on 'white privilege' and racism as McWhorter describes it help or hurt black people? Please explain your 'yes' or 'no' answer or any position you take between 'yes' or 'no'.

I guess in some related way it may help Black people but other than waking up some whites I dont see how it helps or hurts Black people. Black people dont need whites to feel guilty about anything. I guess it would keep animosity down if whites admitted to reality instead of pretending everything is equal. I think the concept of a colorblind society is silly. I'm Black and there is no reason I would want or expect someone not to notice that.

Yes, I notice hair color and eye color in people too, and of course I notice skin color. But until skin color becomes of no more importance than hair color or eye color, I think racism will remain alive and well in this country and many others. So long as I am expected to treat you differently, more sensitively, that I do others, supposed to be careful about the words I use or the examples I use, etc., because you are a black man, we will not ever be allowed to truly be equals. (I'm speaking rhetorically here of course as I have never met you and likely will never interact with you in real life.)

 

[Asclepias]

I don't think "focus" (whatever we might mean by that term) on white privilege and/or racism either helps or hurts black people, no.

But I do think knowing our history -- which is the context of the world in which we live -- helps everybody equally. You can't know where you're going if you don't know how you got where you are now.

Yes. And those of Irish and Chinese and Italian and Jewish and Japanese and Mexican et al ancestry all have really ugly histories at some time in their stories of life in America.

But the point is we now have non discrimination based on race laws on the books at the federal level and every state in the union. Affirmative Action laws were probably necessary for a short period to break down cultural barriers and allow black and white people to get used to living and working side by side. That is mostly accomplished now.

Segregation was a reality but it has been abolished. Nobody has to sit in the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain because of who or what they are any more. Everybody has full access to all public facilities and all institutions of learning etc.

So isn't it time to demand a color blind society and really allow all people to be seen and treated equally? No more of the political correctness nonsense that tends to generate more hostility than it corrects? No more protected class stuff that does put black people at a disadvantage because it forces people to treat them as more fragile and vulnerable and even inferior and incapable of achievement on their own merit. Nobody deserves that.

So do you feel that while whites had 400 years of exclusive white affirmative action in which they were able to own all the resources in this country that Blacks and others should have less AA time?

I think you will find that the resources change hands pretty steadily. Thomas Jefferson's concern that a few of the wealthy elite families would own all the property in the United States if inheritance laws were not somewhat restrictive on that proved to be unfounded. There is no money to be made from that and those fears never materialized. If anything, the government itself is the only entity that grabs and holds resources in excess.

And both Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have researched and mostly agree with McWhorter re the black people's situation in America and both agree that black people, with segregation still in place in most places and without any significant government help, were pretty much the most rapidly advancing group in the years leading up to and shortly after the so called Great Society initiatives. So what happened to stall that progress? In their opinion it was both black and white opportunistswho stepped in to make racism big business. The instilled the sense that a person was black first and foremost and everything takes a back seat to that.

. . .As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson.

This decline in the poverty rate among blacks continued during the 1960s, dropping from 47 percent to 30 percent. But even this continuation of a trend already begun long before cannot all be attributed automatically to the new government programs. Moreover, the first decade of affirmative action -- the 1970s -- ended with the poverty rate among black families at 29 percent. Even if that one percent decline was due to affirmative action, it was not much. . .​

Thomas Sowell

Sowell's commentary on the Dunbar school in that same essay is enlightening.

Resources may have changed hands steadily but true wealth still remained with upper class white males. Those white males controlled and still control the vast majority of resources in the US simply because whites had 400 years of AA.

Never heard of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell is a an uncle tom if my memory serves me correctly so I am unimpressed by their research. Segregation in of itself is no hindrance to Blacks surviving and making their own wealth. The problem comes when whites were legally able to destroy those communities and get away scot free which another form of AA whites enjoyed. See Black Wall Street for an example. Also see research such as Buried in the Bitter Waters which documents the ethnic cleansings that occurred in the US where whites killed off Blacks where they were low in number and stole their land.

 

[Asclepias]

I don't think "focus" (whatever we might mean by that term) on white privilege and/or racism either helps or hurts black people, no.

But I do think knowing our history -- which is the context of the world in which we live -- helps everybody equally. You can't know where you're going if you don't know how you got where you are now.

Yes. And those of Irish and Chinese and Italian and Jewish and Japanese and Mexican et al ancestry all have really ugly histories at some time in their stories of life in America.

But the point is we now have non discrimination based on race laws on the books at the federal level and every state in the union. Affirmative Action laws were probably necessary for a short period to break down cultural barriers and allow black and white people to get used to living and working side by side. That is mostly accomplished now.

Segregation was a reality but it has been abolished. Nobody has to sit in the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain because of who or what they are any more. Everybody has full access to all public facilities and all institutions of learning etc.

So isn't it time to demand a color blind society and really allow all people to be seen and treated equally? No more of the political correctness nonsense that tends to generate more hostility than it corrects? No more protected class stuff that does put black people at a disadvantage because it forces people to treat them as more fragile and vulnerable and even inferior and incapable of achievement on their own merit. Nobody deserves that.

I agree with most all of that, if not all completely. Though I do wonder why you left out black people from the list at the top -- they suffered the worst. And they've also suffered the worst whitewashing (no pun intended) of the history books about it. I think we've all been schooled in the "no Irish need apply" signs, the treatment of Chinese railroad workers, even to some extent that of Native Americans, but how may of us have been taught of the Red Summer of 1919 and all the race riots of that time? How many are aware that beginning in the aftermath of the Civil War black people were being regularly accosted, beaten, raped, hanged, burned alive, skinned, (skinned), dragged behind vehicles, cut into pieces sold as souvenirs, and that this went on for nearly a century? Our schoolbooks somehow find a way to leave all that out, the omission of which bestows on us a great distortion. And such distortions, even in their omission, influence our perspectives and thereby our judgment. Context is vital.

I agree with all you've posted here about affirmative action and segregation laws. But those are laws. We got over the legal part, yes. What we have yet to get past is the cultural part. That's what this question is today -- a cultural one. And without knowing -- and acknowledging -- that history, cultural development can't move forward. Because culture carries its own context. It has no choice but to carry it; it's part of what makes it culture.

I was about to add that examples of ignoring context in favor of deliberately and self-servingly muddying the waters of rational discussion would appear in this thread as exhibit A - but it's already here:

Racism and other things, are tools of the left to create hate and division in the country so that people look to the government for answers thus giving it more power to create more division and hate to get more power to create division and hate to get more......

I left black people off the list because it was black people that prompted the comments and because it is racism affecting black people that is the focus of this thread. Black people are unique in that they lived here during a period of slavery, and did suffer historically more than others in degree, but they were not the only people who have suffered mistreatment by society as a whole.

And now we have a choice--a choice implied in McWhorter's essay. We can continue to live in the past and hold it up as a justification for keeping the issue of racism alive and well now--which is exactly what race baiters and opportunists do--or we can breathe a deep sigh of relief that we have dealt with it, eliminated it as an institutional policy, and opened the doorway to achieve true equal opportunity for all.

And the basis of the OP is that we don't allow people equal opportunity if we continue to keep the focus on racism which in turn suggests black people are more needy, fragile, damaged, incapable than everybody else, most especially when that is blamed on anybody who is white.

That seems like rationalization whites take on when they are against Blacks ,making more advances due to AA. It has nothing to do with being fragile. Its about providing equal opportunity. Whites had centuries of exclusive white affrimative action. Why do you not consider whites fragile and needy for having more AA than Blacks?

Sorry but I have looked into the eyes of my gifted and capable black friend when I looked into her eyes and saw the hurt there. She had been made aware that her colleagues, though they were friendly with her, viewed her as the 'token Negro' and she got her job becaise of affirmative action and not because she merited it.

I agree that Affirmative Action was necessary to open doors for black people when segregation ended. There were cultural barriers in place that resisted mixing black and white. But once those cultural barriers came down and whits and black people were used to working alongside each other and it was no longer odd or unusual--that took about ten years--Affirmative Action should have ended. By the mid to late 1970's and 1980's, I think it was a more harmful thing to black people than helpful.

I have looked into the eyes of whites that know they only reason they have a job is because a family member that owned the company or was in a high enough position to get them in. So I am sorry. The legacy of white AA points to weakness and a inherent sense of inferiority for whites. You dont handicap people you know youre better than. Whites did this with white only AA because they felt they couldnt compete with Blacks. By doing this they not only owned the resources and the systems that governed them, they owned the knowledge that came with that.

i personally never cared what white people thought about how I got my job when i was working for someone else. I think if whites had 400 years of exclusive AA then Blacks should have the same. So far Blacks havent had any exclusive AA and even the partial we do have seems to frighten whites.

 

[Foxfyre]

feel guilty about anything.

Guilt is not a productively positive emotion.

I would agree EXCEPT when it spurs a person who has been acting in error to remedy any harm he/she has done or inspires him/her to change for the better. It is completely anti-productive when we blame ourselves or put pressure on ourselves for something we had no part in or which was out of our control.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. And those of Irish and Chinese and Italian and Jewish and Japanese and Mexican et al ancestry all have really ugly histories at some time in their stories of life in America.

But the point is we now have non discrimination based on race laws on the books at the federal level and every state in the union. Affirmative Action laws were probably necessary for a short period to break down cultural barriers and allow black and white people to get used to living and working side by side. That is mostly accomplished now.

Segregation was a reality but it has been abolished. Nobody has to sit in the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain because of who or what they are any more. Everybody has full access to all public facilities and all institutions of learning etc.

So isn't it time to demand a color blind society and really allow all people to be seen and treated equally? No more of the political correctness nonsense that tends to generate more hostility than it corrects? No more protected class stuff that does put black people at a disadvantage because it forces people to treat them as more fragile and vulnerable and even inferior and incapable of achievement on their own merit. Nobody deserves that.

I agree with most all of that, if not all completely. Though I do wonder why you left out black people from the list at the top -- they suffered the worst. And they've also suffered the worst whitewashing (no pun intended) of the history books about it. I think we've all been schooled in the "no Irish need apply" signs, the treatment of Chinese railroad workers, even to some extent that of Native Americans, but how may of us have been taught of the Red Summer of 1919 and all the race riots of that time? How many are aware that beginning in the aftermath of the Civil War black people were being regularly accosted, beaten, raped, hanged, burned alive, skinned, (skinned), dragged behind vehicles, cut into pieces sold as souvenirs, and that this went on for nearly a century? Our schoolbooks somehow find a way to leave all that out, the omission of which bestows on us a great distortion. And such distortions, even in their omission, influence our perspectives and thereby our judgment. Context is vital.

I agree with all you've posted here about affirmative action and segregation laws. But those are laws. We got over the legal part, yes. What we have yet to get past is the cultural part. That's what this question is today -- a cultural one. And without knowing -- and acknowledging -- that history, cultural development can't move forward. Because culture carries its own context. It has no choice but to carry it; it's part of what makes it culture.

I was about to add that examples of ignoring context in favor of deliberately and self-servingly muddying the waters of rational discussion would appear in this thread as exhibit A - but it's already here:

Racism and other things, are tools of the left to create hate and division in the country so that people look to the government for answers thus giving it more power to create more division and hate to get more power to create division and hate to get more......

I left black people off the list because it was black people that prompted the comments and because it is racism affecting black people that is the focus of this thread. Black people are unique in that they lived here during a period of slavery, and did suffer historically more than others in degree, but they were not the only people who have suffered mistreatment by society as a whole.

And now we have a choice--a choice implied in McWhorter's essay. We can continue to live in the past and hold it up as a justification for keeping the issue of racism alive and well now--which is exactly what race baiters and opportunists do--or we can breathe a deep sigh of relief that we have dealt with it, eliminated it as an institutional policy, and opened the doorway to achieve true equal opportunity for all.

And the basis of the OP is that we don't allow people equal opportunity if we continue to keep the focus on racism which in turn suggests black people are more needy, fragile, damaged, incapable than everybody else, most especially when that is blamed on anybody who is white.

That seems like rationalization whites take on when they are against Blacks ,making more advances due to AA. It has nothing to do with being fragile. Its about providing equal opportunity. Whites had centuries of exclusive white affrimative action. Why do you not consider whites fragile and needy for having more AA than Blacks?

Sorry but I have looked into the eyes of my gifted and capable black friend when I looked into her eyes and saw the hurt there. She had been made aware that her colleagues, though they were friendly with her, viewed her as the 'token Negro' and she got her job becaise of affirmative action and not because she merited it.

I agree that Affirmative Action was necessary to open doors for black people when segregation ended. There were cultural barriers in place that resisted mixing black and white. But once those cultural barriers came down and whits and black people were used to working alongside each other and it was no longer odd or unusual--that took about ten years--Affirmative Action should have ended. By the mid to late 1970's and 1980's, I think it was a more harmful thing to black people than helpful.

I have looked into the eyes of whites that know they only reason they have a job is because a family member that owned the company or was in a high enough position to get them in. So I am sorry. The legacy of white AA points to weakness and a inherent sense of inferiority for whites. You dont handicap people you know youre better than. Whites did this with white only AA because they felt they couldnt compete with Blacks. By doing this they not only owned the resources and the systems that governed them, they owned the knowledge that came with that.

i personally never cared what white people thought about how I got my job when i was working for someone else. I think if whites had 400 years of exclusive AA then Blacks should have the same. So far Blacks havent had any exclusive AA and even the partial we do have seems to frighten whites.

I can't agree with that. The son or daughter who advances within the family business is not AA. It is the way things are. What father or mother who built up the family business is not please when their children choose to work there and continue it? The businesses around here that happen to be owned and run by black people are no different.

And if you don't care whether others admire and/or acknowledge your ability and creativity and work ethic, fine. That's you. My friend wasn't like that though and I hated to see her hurt. She was so smart and capable and creative, but got little credit for that. Her coworkers were probably resentful of her abilities and rise in the company and would have been with a white person too, but AA gave them the perfect excuse to minimalize her achievements, something they would not have been able to do with a white person.

 

[Asclepias]

NOTE: This thread is in the Structured Debate Forum.

John H. McWhorter PhD offers an interesting perspective on race in a recent essay. The inspiration for his thoughts were apparently triggered by students being required to attend "White Privilege 101" classes. His response to that is "Why, and for whose benefit?"

The concept he expresses raises the question of who is benefited when the conversation focuses on identification with race rather the means by which racism is eliminated or diminished.

Excerpted from the essay--pay special attention to the third paragraph cited here:

. . .If you’ve been white lately, you have likely been confronted with the idea that to be a good person, you must cultivate a guilt complex over the privileged status your race enjoys.

It isn’t that you are doing, or even quite thinking, anything racist. Rather, your existential state of Living While White constitutes a form of racism in itself. Your understanding will serve as a tool … for something. But be careful about asking just what that something is, because that will mean you “just don’t get it.”

To be sure, there is, indeed, a distinct White Privilege. Being white does offer a freedom not easily available to others. You can underperform without it being ascribed to your race. And when you excel, no one wonders whether Affirmative Action had anything to do with it. Authority figures are likely to be your color, and no one associates people of your color with a propensity to violence. No one expects you to represent your race in a class discussion or anywhere else. . . .​

And later in the essay he comments:

. . . the idea is not to teach white people that White Privilege means that black people are the only group of people in human history who cannot deal with obstacles and challenges. If the idea is that black people cannot solve their problems short of white people developing an exquisite sensitivity to how privileged they are, then we in the black community are being designated as disabled poster children. . . .​

And he further notes that these days, a white person accused of being racist is somewhere on a par with being designated as a pedophile.

The whole essay is here: The Privilege of Checking White Privilege - The Daily Beast

THE RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please. The topic is stated in the question to be answered below.

2. No ad hominem re other members or political parties or conservatives or liberals, etc. Focus on the comment posted and not the character or motive of the person posting it. Focus on the stated position of a political party if pertinent to the topic and not on the character or motive of the political party itself.

3. References, reasonable excerpts of, and links to other stated opinions are allowed but will not be required for this discussion. If used, put the basic concept of the linked material into your own words also and explain how it relates to the concept of 'white privilege'.

THE QUESTION TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS DISCUSSION:

Does a focus on 'white privilege' and racism as McWhorter describes it help or hurt black people? Please explain your 'yes' or 'no' answer or any position you take between 'yes' or 'no'.

I guess in some related way it may help Black people but other than waking up some whites I dont see how it helps or hurts Black people. Black people dont need whites to feel guilty about anything. I guess it would keep animosity down if whites admitted to reality instead of pretending everything is equal. I think the concept of a colorblind society is silly. I'm Black and there is no reason I would want or expect someone not to notice that.

Yes, I notice hair color and eye color in people too, and of course I notice skin color. But until skin color becomes of no more importance than hair color or eye color, I think racism will remain alive and well in this country and many others. So long as I am expected to treat you differently, more sensitively, that I do others, supposed to be careful about the words I use or the examples I use, etc., because you are a black man, we will not ever be allowed to truly be equals. (I'm speaking rhetorically here of course as I have never met you and likely will never interact with you in real life.)

You should treat everyone with equal sensitivity and differently as we are different people. I dont expect most to actually do it because most are too lazy and not personally developed enough to comprehend the benefits of treating people how they want to be treated.

 

[Asclepias]

I agree with most all of that, if not all completely. Though I do wonder why you left out black people from the list at the top -- they suffered the worst. And they've also suffered the worst whitewashing (no pun intended) of the history books about it. I think we've all been schooled in the "no Irish need apply" signs, the treatment of Chinese railroad workers, even to some extent that of Native Americans, but how may of us have been taught of the Red Summer of 1919 and all the race riots of that time? How many are aware that beginning in the aftermath of the Civil War black people were being regularly accosted, beaten, raped, hanged, burned alive, skinned, (skinned), dragged behind vehicles, cut into pieces sold as souvenirs, and that this went on for nearly a century? Our schoolbooks somehow find a way to leave all that out, the omission of which bestows on us a great distortion. And such distortions, even in their omission, influence our perspectives and thereby our judgment. Context is vital.

I agree with all you've posted here about affirmative action and segregation laws. But those are laws. We got over the legal part, yes. What we have yet to get past is the cultural part. That's what this question is today -- a cultural one. And without knowing -- and acknowledging -- that history, cultural development can't move forward. Because culture carries its own context. It has no choice but to carry it; it's part of what makes it culture.

I was about to add that examples of ignoring context in favor of deliberately and self-servingly muddying the waters of rational discussion would appear in this thread as exhibit A - but it's already here:

I left black people off the list because it was black people that prompted the comments and because it is racism affecting black people that is the focus of this thread. Black people are unique in that they lived here during a period of slavery, and did suffer historically more than others in degree, but they were not the only people who have suffered mistreatment by society as a whole.

And now we have a choice--a choice implied in McWhorter's essay. We can continue to live in the past and hold it up as a justification for keeping the issue of racism alive and well now--which is exactly what race baiters and opportunists do--or we can breathe a deep sigh of relief that we have dealt with it, eliminated it as an institutional policy, and opened the doorway to achieve true equal opportunity for all.

And the basis of the OP is that we don't allow people equal opportunity if we continue to keep the focus on racism which in turn suggests black people are more needy, fragile, damaged, incapable than everybody else, most especially when that is blamed on anybody who is white.

That seems like rationalization whites take on when they are against Blacks ,making more advances due to AA. It has nothing to do with being fragile. Its about providing equal opportunity. Whites had centuries of exclusive white affrimative action. Why do you not consider whites fragile and needy for having more AA than Blacks?

Sorry but I have looked into the eyes of my gifted and capable black friend when I looked into her eyes and saw the hurt there. She had been made aware that her colleagues, though they were friendly with her, viewed her as the 'token Negro' and she got her job becaise of affirmative action and not because she merited it.

I agree that Affirmative Action was necessary to open doors for black people when segregation ended. There were cultural barriers in place that resisted mixing black and white. But once those cultural barriers came down and whits and black people were used to working alongside each other and it was no longer odd or unusual--that took about ten years--Affirmative Action should have ended. By the mid to late 1970's and 1980's, I think it was a more harmful thing to black people than helpful.

I have looked into the eyes of whites that know they only reason they have a job is because a family member that owned the company or was in a high enough position to get them in. So I am sorry. The legacy of white AA points to weakness and a inherent sense of inferiority for whites. You dont handicap people you know youre better than. Whites did this with white only AA because they felt they couldnt compete with Blacks. By doing this they not only owned the resources and the systems that governed them, they owned the knowledge that came with that.

i personally never cared what white people thought about how I got my job when i was working for someone else. I think if whites had 400 years of exclusive AA then Blacks should have the same. So far Blacks havent had any exclusive AA and even the partial we do have seems to frighten whites.

I can't agree with that. The son or daughter who advances within the family business is not AA. It is the way things are. What father or mother who built up the family business is not please when their children choose to work there and continue it? The businesses around here that happen to be owned and run by black people are no different.

And if you don't care whether others admire and/or acknowledge your ability and creativity and work ethic, fine. That's you. My friend wasn't like that though and I hated to see her hurt. She was so smart and capable and creative, but got little credit for that. Her coworkers were probably resentful of her abilities and rise in the company and would have been with a white person too, but AA gave them the perfect excuse to minimalize her achievements, something they would not have been able to do with a white person.

I disagree. If they only got the job because they were family even when they were really bad at it then thats white AA. Basically whites own the companies so they own the opportunities for employment and by far they'd rather hire whites. This has already been proven as fact so its pointless to debate it.

I think the fact that her coworkers felt that way is a testament to what I said. Its pretty easy to see if someone is capable or not. If they are ignoring her work and still pretending she isnt qualified that pretty much proves my point that whites have an inherent sense of inferiority that causes them to ignore reality. This is the main reason the engineered white exclusive AA for centuries for themselves. They needed the head start and are intent on keeping it.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think "focus" (whatever we might mean by that term) on white privilege and/or racism either helps or hurts black people, no.

But I do think knowing our history -- which is the context of the world in which we live -- helps everybody equally. You can't know where you're going if you don't know how you got where you are now.

Yes. And those of Irish and Chinese and Italian and Jewish and Japanese and Mexican et al ancestry all have really ugly histories at some time in their stories of life in America.

But the point is we now have non discrimination based on race laws on the books at the federal level and every state in the union. Affirmative Action laws were probably necessary for a short period to break down cultural barriers and allow black and white people to get used to living and working side by side. That is mostly accomplished now.

Segregation was a reality but it has been abolished. Nobody has to sit in the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain because of who or what they are any more. Everybody has full access to all public facilities and all institutions of learning etc.

So isn't it time to demand a color blind society and really allow all people to be seen and treated equally? No more of the political correctness nonsense that tends to generate more hostility than it corrects? No more protected class stuff that does put black people at a disadvantage because it forces people to treat them as more fragile and vulnerable and even inferior and incapable of achievement on their own merit. Nobody deserves that.

So do you feel that while whites had 400 years of exclusive white affirmative action in which they were able to own all the resources in this country that Blacks and others should have less AA time?

I think you will find that the resources change hands pretty steadily. Thomas Jefferson's concern that a few of the wealthy elite families would own all the property in the United States if inheritance laws were not somewhat restrictive on that proved to be unfounded. There is no money to be made from that and those fears never materialized. If anything, the government itself is the only entity that grabs and holds resources in excess.

And both Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have researched and mostly agree with McWhorter re the black people's situation in America and both agree that black people, with segregation still in place in most places and without any significant government help, were pretty much the most rapidly advancing group in the years leading up to and shortly after the so called Great Society initiatives. So what happened to stall that progress? In their opinion it was both black and white opportunistswho stepped in to make racism big business. The instilled the sense that a person was black first and foremost and everything takes a back seat to that.

. . .As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson.

This decline in the poverty rate among blacks continued during the 1960s, dropping from 47 percent to 30 percent. But even this continuation of a trend already begun long before cannot all be attributed automatically to the new government programs. Moreover, the first decade of affirmative action -- the 1970s -- ended with the poverty rate among black families at 29 percent. Even if that one percent decline was due to affirmative action, it was not much. . .​

Thomas Sowell

Sowell's commentary on the Dunbar school in that same essay is enlightening.

Resources may have changed hands steadily but true wealth still remained with upper class white males. Those white males controlled and still control the vast majority of resources in the US simply because whites had 400 years of AA.

Never heard of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell is a an uncle tom if my memory serves me correctly so I am unimpressed by their research. Segregation in of itself is no hindrance to Blacks surviving and making their own wealth. The problem comes when whites were legally able to destroy those communities and get away scot free which another form of AA whites enjoyed. See Black Wall Street for an example. Also see research such as Buried in the Bitter Waters which documents the ethnic cleansings that occurred in the US where whites killed off Blacks where they were low in number and stole their land.

Okay. All I can say to this is that whites didn't "kill off blacks' but a lot of small towns did drive the few black people among them out. This would be amidst the cultural upheaval when segregation ended and I have absolutely nothing with which to defend such practices. I saw it up close and personal in one tiny town in West Texas when a restaurant owner refused service to a well dressed young black man. The man left without comment. And so did almost all of the white people who were in the restaurant in protest at the restaurant owner's actions. Elliott Jaspin's book didn't report that kind of thing.

And you've never heard of Walter Williams? I sure wish you would read some of his essays. Just google the name, click on his website and they're all there. But Thomas Sowell is an Uncle Tom? Surely you jest. If more black people would read and understand what he teaches, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Asclepias]

feel guilty about anything.

Guilt is not a productively positive emotion.

I would agree EXCEPT when it spurs a person who has been acting in error to remedy any harm he/she has done or inspires him/her to change for the better. It is completely anti-productive when we blame ourselves or put pressure on ourselves for something we had no part in or which was out of our control.

What are white people confused about? I honestly dont get it. Why would you put pressure on yourself or blame yourself unless you know you are contributing to the problem? If you know you benefit from white AA thats fine. If you pretend you dont and then say Blacks are lazy because they didnt have the headstart whites did/still do then youre not being truthful and that will cause stress.

 

[Asclepias]

I don't think "focus" (whatever we might mean by that term) on white privilege and/or racism either helps or hurts black people, no.

But I do think knowing our history -- which is the context of the world in which we live -- helps everybody equally. You can't know where you're going if you don't know how you got where you are now.

Yes. And those of Irish and Chinese and Italian and Jewish and Japanese and Mexican et al ancestry all have really ugly histories at some time in their stories of life in America.

But the point is we now have non discrimination based on race laws on the books at the federal level and every state in the union. Affirmative Action laws were probably necessary for a short period to break down cultural barriers and allow black and white people to get used to living and working side by side. That is mostly accomplished now.

Segregation was a reality but it has been abolished. Nobody has to sit in the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain because of who or what they are any more. Everybody has full access to all public facilities and all institutions of learning etc.

So isn't it time to demand a color blind society and really allow all people to be seen and treated equally? No more of the political correctness nonsense that tends to generate more hostility than it corrects? No more protected class stuff that does put black people at a disadvantage because it forces people to treat them as more fragile and vulnerable and even inferior and incapable of achievement on their own merit. Nobody deserves that.

So do you feel that while whites had 400 years of exclusive white affirmative action in which they were able to own all the resources in this country that Blacks and others should have less AA time?

I think you will find that the resources change hands pretty steadily. Thomas Jefferson's concern that a few of the wealthy elite families would own all the property in the United States if inheritance laws were not somewhat restrictive on that proved to be unfounded. There is no money to be made from that and those fears never materialized. If anything, the government itself is the only entity that grabs and holds resources in excess.

And both Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have researched and mostly agree with McWhorter re the black people's situation in America and both agree that black people, with segregation still in place in most places and without any significant government help, were pretty much the most rapidly advancing group in the years leading up to and shortly after the so called Great Society initiatives. So what happened to stall that progress? In their opinion it was both black and white opportunistswho stepped in to make racism big business. The instilled the sense that a person was black first and foremost and everything takes a back seat to that.

. . .As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson.

This decline in the poverty rate among blacks continued during the 1960s, dropping from 47 percent to 30 percent. But even this continuation of a trend already begun long before cannot all be attributed automatically to the new government programs. Moreover, the first decade of affirmative action -- the 1970s -- ended with the poverty rate among black families at 29 percent. Even if that one percent decline was due to affirmative action, it was not much. . .​

Thomas Sowell

Sowell's commentary on the Dunbar school in that same essay is enlightening.

Resources may have changed hands steadily but true wealth still remained with upper class white males. Those white males controlled and still control the vast majority of resources in the US simply because whites had 400 years of AA.

Never heard of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell is a an uncle tom if my memory serves me correctly so I am unimpressed by their research. Segregation in of itself is no hindrance to Blacks surviving and making their own wealth. The problem comes when whites were legally able to destroy those communities and get away scot free which another form of AA whites enjoyed. See Black Wall Street for an example. Also see research such as Buried in the Bitter Waters which documents the ethnic cleansings that occurred in the US where whites killed off Blacks where they were low in number and stole their land.

Okay. All I can say to this is that whites didn't "kill off blacks' but a lot of small towns did drive the few black people among them out. This would be amidst the cultural upheaval when segregation ended and I have absolutely nothing with which to defend such practices. I saw it up close and personal in one tiny town in West Texas when a restaurant owner refused service to a well dressed young black man. The man left without comment. And so did almost all of the white people who were in the restaurant in protest at the restaurant owner's actions. Elliott Jaspin's book didn't report that kind of thing.

And you've never heard of Walter Williams? I sure wish you would read some of his essays. Just google the name, click on his website and they're all there. But Thomas Sowell is an Uncle Tom? Surely you jest. If more black people would read and understand what he teaches, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I dont think Jaspers book was meant to address one offs where whites actually sided against racism. It was meant to document the financial loss and emotional scarring whites have inflicted on Blacks via outright brutality and theft.

I will check out Walter Williams. Thanks for mentioning him. I will double check on Sowell. The name triggered a memory in me that associated him with an uncle tom.

 

[Asclepias]

I don't think "focus" (whatever we might mean by that term) on white privilege and/or racism either helps or hurts black people, no.

But I do think knowing our history -- which is the context of the world in which we live -- helps everybody equally. You can't know where you're going if you don't know how you got where you are now.

Yes. And those of Irish and Chinese and Italian and Jewish and Japanese and Mexican et al ancestry all have really ugly histories at some time in their stories of life in America.

But the point is we now have non discrimination based on race laws on the books at the federal level and every state in the union. Affirmative Action laws were probably necessary for a short period to break down cultural barriers and allow black and white people to get used to living and working side by side. That is mostly accomplished now.

Segregation was a reality but it has been abolished. Nobody has to sit in the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain because of who or what they are any more. Everybody has full access to all public facilities and all institutions of learning etc.

So isn't it time to demand a color blind society and really allow all people to be seen and treated equally? No more of the political correctness nonsense that tends to generate more hostility than it corrects? No more protected class stuff that does put black people at a disadvantage because it forces people to treat them as more fragile and vulnerable and even inferior and incapable of achievement on their own merit. Nobody deserves that.

So do you feel that while whites had 400 years of exclusive white affirmative action in which they were able to own all the resources in this country that Blacks and others should have less AA time?

I think you will find that the resources change hands pretty steadily. Thomas Jefferson's concern that a few of the wealthy elite families would own all the property in the United States if inheritance laws were not somewhat restrictive on that proved to be unfounded. There is no money to be made from that and those fears never materialized. If anything, the government itself is the only entity that grabs and holds resources in excess.

And both Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have researched and mostly agree with McWhorter re the black people's situation in America and both agree that black people, with segregation still in place in most places and without any significant government help, were pretty much the most rapidly advancing group in the years leading up to and shortly after the so called Great Society initiatives. So what happened to stall that progress? In their opinion it was both black and white opportunistswho stepped in to make racism big business. The instilled the sense that a person was black first and foremost and everything takes a back seat to that.

. . .As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson.

This decline in the poverty rate among blacks continued during the 1960s, dropping from 47 percent to 30 percent. But even this continuation of a trend already begun long before cannot all be attributed automatically to the new government programs. Moreover, the first decade of affirmative action -- the 1970s -- ended with the poverty rate among black families at 29 percent. Even if that one percent decline was due to affirmative action, it was not much. . .​

Thomas Sowell

Sowell's commentary on the Dunbar school in that same essay is enlightening.

Resources may have changed hands steadily but true wealth still remained with upper class white males. Those white males controlled and still control the vast majority of resources in the US simply because whites had 400 years of AA.

Never heard of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell is a an uncle tom if my memory serves me correctly so I am unimpressed by their research. Segregation in of itself is no hindrance to Blacks surviving and making their own wealth. The problem comes when whites were legally able to destroy those communities and get away scot free which another form of AA whites enjoyed. See Black Wall Street for an example. Also see research such as Buried in the Bitter Waters which documents the ethnic cleansings that occurred in the US where whites killed off Blacks where they were low in number and stole their land.

Okay. All I can say to this is that whites didn't "kill off blacks' but a lot of small towns did drive the few black people among them out. This would be amidst the cultural upheaval when segregation ended and I have absolutely nothing with which to defend such practices. I saw it up close and personal in one tiny town in West Texas when a restaurant owner refused service to a well dressed young black man. The man left without comment. And so did almost all of the white people who were in the restaurant in protest at the restaurant owner's actions. Elliott Jaspin's book didn't report that kind of thing.

And you've never heard of Walter Williams? I sure wish you would read some of his essays. Just google the name, click on his website and they're all there. But Thomas Sowell is an Uncle Tom? Surely you jest. If more black people would read and understand what he teaches, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I just looked up Walter Williams and double checked on Sowell. I'd have to rank Walter as a uncle tom from the two articles I read and yes Sowell is also an uncle tom. I dont know if whites truly understand the definition. Its not so much that I disagree with them as their manner of espousing their beliefs. I disagree with lots of Black people all the time but dont consider them uncle toms.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes. And those of Irish and Chinese and Italian and Jewish and Japanese and Mexican et al ancestry all have really ugly histories at some time in their stories of life in America.

But the point is we now have non discrimination based on race laws on the books at the federal level and every state in the union. Affirmative Action laws were probably necessary for a short period to break down cultural barriers and allow black and white people to get used to living and working side by side. That is mostly accomplished now.

Segregation was a reality but it has been abolished. Nobody has to sit in the back of the bus or use a different drinking fountain because of who or what they are any more. Everybody has full access to all public facilities and all institutions of learning etc.

So isn't it time to demand a color blind society and really allow all people to be seen and treated equally? No more of the political correctness nonsense that tends to generate more hostility than it corrects? No more protected class stuff that does put black people at a disadvantage because it forces people to treat them as more fragile and vulnerable and even inferior and incapable of achievement on their own merit. Nobody deserves that.

So do you feel that while whites had 400 years of exclusive white affirmative action in which they were able to own all the resources in this country that Blacks and others should have less AA time?

I think you will find that the resources change hands pretty steadily. Thomas Jefferson's concern that a few of the wealthy elite families would own all the property in the United States if inheritance laws were not somewhat restrictive on that proved to be unfounded. There is no money to be made from that and those fears never materialized. If anything, the government itself is the only entity that grabs and holds resources in excess.

And both Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have researched and mostly agree with McWhorter re the black people's situation in America and both agree that black people, with segregation still in place in most places and without any significant government help, were pretty much the most rapidly advancing group in the years leading up to and shortly after the so called Great Society initiatives. So what happened to stall that progress? In their opinion it was both black and white opportunistswho stepped in to make racism big business. The instilled the sense that a person was black first and foremost and everything takes a back seat to that.

. . .As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson.

This decline in the poverty rate among blacks continued during the 1960s, dropping from 47 percent to 30 percent. But even this continuation of a trend already begun long before cannot all be attributed automatically to the new government programs. Moreover, the first decade of affirmative action -- the 1970s -- ended with the poverty rate among black families at 29 percent. Even if that one percent decline was due to affirmative action, it was not much. . .​

Thomas Sowell

Sowell's commentary on the Dunbar school in that same essay is enlightening.

Resources may have changed hands steadily but true wealth still remained with upper class white males. Those white males controlled and still control the vast majority of resources in the US simply because whites had 400 years of AA.

Never heard of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell is a an uncle tom if my memory serves me correctly so I am unimpressed by their research. Segregation in of itself is no hindrance to Blacks surviving and making their own wealth. The problem comes when whites were legally able to destroy those communities and get away scot free which another form of AA whites enjoyed. See Black Wall Street for an example. Also see research such as Buried in the Bitter Waters which documents the ethnic cleansings that occurred in the US where whites killed off Blacks where they were low in number and stole their land.

Okay. All I can say to this is that whites didn't "kill off blacks' but a lot of small towns did drive the few black people among them out. This would be amidst the cultural upheaval when segregation ended and I have absolutely nothing with which to defend such practices. I saw it up close and personal in one tiny town in West Texas when a restaurant owner refused service to a well dressed young black man. The man left without comment. And so did almost all of the white people who were in the restaurant in protest at the restaurant owner's actions. Elliott Jaspin's book didn't report that kind of thing.

And you've never heard of Walter Williams? I sure wish you would read some of his essays. Just google the name, click on his website and they're all there. But Thomas Sowell is an Uncle Tom? Surely you jest. If more black people would read and understand what he teaches, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I just looked up Walter Williams and double checked on Sowell. I'd have to rank Walter as a uncle tom from the two articles I read and yes Sowell is also an uncle tom. I dont know if whites truly understand the definition. Its not so much that I disagree with them as their manner of espousing their beliefs. I disagree with lots of Black people all the time but dont consider them uncle toms.

And what manner would that be? If you consider Sowell and Williams to be "Uncle Toms" then McWhorter, who inspired this thread with his essays on race, would also be an Uncle Tom.

 

[Pogo]

So do you feel that while whites had 400 years of exclusive white affirmative action in which they were able to own all the resources in this country that Blacks and others should have less AA time?

I think you will find that the resources change hands pretty steadily. Thomas Jefferson's concern that a few of the wealthy elite families would own all the property in the United States if inheritance laws were not somewhat restrictive on that proved to be unfounded. There is no money to be made from that and those fears never materialized. If anything, the government itself is the only entity that grabs and holds resources in excess.

And both Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have researched and mostly agree with McWhorter re the black people's situation in America and both agree that black people, with segregation still in place in most places and without any significant government help, were pretty much the most rapidly advancing group in the years leading up to and shortly after the so called Great Society initiatives. So what happened to stall that progress? In their opinion it was both black and white opportunistswho stepped in to make racism big business. The instilled the sense that a person was black first and foremost and everything takes a back seat to that.

. . .As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson.

This decline in the poverty rate among blacks continued during the 1960s, dropping from 47 percent to 30 percent. But even this continuation of a trend already begun long before cannot all be attributed automatically to the new government programs. Moreover, the first decade of affirmative action -- the 1970s -- ended with the poverty rate among black families at 29 percent. Even if that one percent decline was due to affirmative action, it was not much. . .​

Thomas Sowell

Sowell's commentary on the Dunbar school in that same essay is enlightening.

Resources may have changed hands steadily but true wealth still remained with upper class white males. Those white males controlled and still control the vast majority of resources in the US simply because whites had 400 years of AA.

Never heard of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell is a an uncle tom if my memory serves me correctly so I am unimpressed by their research. Segregation in of itself is no hindrance to Blacks surviving and making their own wealth. The problem comes when whites were legally able to destroy those communities and get away scot free which another form of AA whites enjoyed. See Black Wall Street for an example. Also see research such as Buried in the Bitter Waters which documents the ethnic cleansings that occurred in the US where whites killed off Blacks where they were low in number and stole their land.

Okay. All I can say to this is that whites didn't "kill off blacks' but a lot of small towns did drive the few black people among them out. This would be amidst the cultural upheaval when segregation ended and I have absolutely nothing with which to defend such practices. I saw it up close and personal in one tiny town in West Texas when a restaurant owner refused service to a well dressed young black man. The man left without comment. And so did almost all of the white people who were in the restaurant in protest at the restaurant owner's actions. Elliott Jaspin's book didn't report that kind of thing.

And you've never heard of Walter Williams? I sure wish you would read some of his essays. Just google the name, click on his website and they're all there. But Thomas Sowell is an Uncle Tom? Surely you jest. If more black people would read and understand what he teaches, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I just looked up Walter Williams and double checked on Sowell. I'd have to rank Walter as a uncle tom from the two articles I read and yes Sowell is also an uncle tom. I dont know if whites truly understand the definition. Its not so much that I disagree with them as their manner of espousing their beliefs. I disagree with lots of Black people all the time but dont consider them uncle toms.

And what manner would that be? If you consider Sowell and Williams to be "Uncle Toms" then McWhorter, who inspired this thread with his essays on race, would also be an Uncle Tom.

I'm more familiar with McWhorter than the other two because he's a linguist, which is more of a topic of interest to me than politics. But it occurs to me that whether one is schooled in languages, political science, physics or whatever field, those are educational backgrounds, as opposed to simply "being black" (or any other ethnic group), which is personal experience rather than a field of study. Therefore one's views on it are going to be informed by personal observation as opposed to some kind of peer-reviewed consensus knowledge base, hence it's illogical to expect everyone of a given race or ethnic group to share the same POV.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you will find that the resources change hands pretty steadily. Thomas Jefferson's concern that a few of the wealthy elite families would own all the property in the United States if inheritance laws were not somewhat restrictive on that proved to be unfounded. There is no money to be made from that and those fears never materialized. If anything, the government itself is the only entity that grabs and holds resources in excess.

And both Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have researched and mostly agree with McWhorter re the black people's situation in America and both agree that black people, with segregation still in place in most places and without any significant government help, were pretty much the most rapidly advancing group in the years leading up to and shortly after the so called Great Society initiatives. So what happened to stall that progress? In their opinion it was both black and white opportunistswho stepped in to make racism big business. The instilled the sense that a person was black first and foremost and everything takes a back seat to that.

. . .As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson.

This decline in the poverty rate among blacks continued during the 1960s, dropping from 47 percent to 30 percent. But even this continuation of a trend already begun long before cannot all be attributed automatically to the new government programs. Moreover, the first decade of affirmative action -- the 1970s -- ended with the poverty rate among black families at 29 percent. Even if that one percent decline was due to affirmative action, it was not much. . .​

Thomas Sowell

Sowell's commentary on the Dunbar school in that same essay is enlightening.

Resources may have changed hands steadily but true wealth still remained with upper class white males. Those white males controlled and still control the vast majority of resources in the US simply because whites had 400 years of AA.

Never heard of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell is a an uncle tom if my memory serves me correctly so I am unimpressed by their research. Segregation in of itself is no hindrance to Blacks surviving and making their own wealth. The problem comes when whites were legally able to destroy those communities and get away scot free which another form of AA whites enjoyed. See Black Wall Street for an example. Also see research such as Buried in the Bitter Waters which documents the ethnic cleansings that occurred in the US where whites killed off Blacks where they were low in number and stole their land.

Okay. All I can say to this is that whites didn't "kill off blacks' but a lot of small towns did drive the few black people among them out. This would be amidst the cultural upheaval when segregation ended and I have absolutely nothing with which to defend such practices. I saw it up close and personal in one tiny town in West Texas when a restaurant owner refused service to a well dressed young black man. The man left without comment. And so did almost all of the white people who were in the restaurant in protest at the restaurant owner's actions. Elliott Jaspin's book didn't report that kind of thing.

And you've never heard of Walter Williams? I sure wish you would read some of his essays. Just google the name, click on his website and they're all there. But Thomas Sowell is an Uncle Tom? Surely you jest. If more black people would read and understand what he teaches, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I just looked up Walter Williams and double checked on Sowell. I'd have to rank Walter as a uncle tom from the two articles I read and yes Sowell is also an uncle tom. I dont know if whites truly understand the definition. Its not so much that I disagree with them as their manner of espousing their beliefs. I disagree with lots of Black people all the time but dont consider them uncle toms.

And what manner would that be? If you consider Sowell and Williams to be "Uncle Toms" then McWhorter, who inspired this thread with his essays on race, would also be an Uncle Tom.

I'm more familiar with McWhorter than the other two because he's a linguist, which is more of a topic of interest to me than politics. But it occurs to me that whether one is schooled in languages, political science, physics or whatever field, those are educational backgrounds, as opposed to simply "being black" (or any other ethnic group), which is personal experience rather than a field of study. Therefore one's views on it are going to be informed by personal observation as opposed to some kind of peer-reviewed consensus knowledge base, hence it's illogical to expect everyone of a given race or ethnic group to share the same POV.

It is true that it is foolish and unproductive to expect any two people, let alone a group, and evenmoreso a whole race of people to share the same POV on everything. But McWhorter, Sowell, and Williams all have experienced 'being black'. Not sure about McWhorter but both Sowell and Williams grew up and achieved their higher education during segregation and without benefit of Affirmative Action, so they both have a perspective that others might not. All three gravitated to academia, but are informed by life experience outside of academia, and speak of basic fundamental issues that affect us all regardless of skin color or any other dyanmics shared by the human race.

 

[Asclepias]

So do you feel that while whites had 400 years of exclusive white affirmative action in which they were able to own all the resources in this country that Blacks and others should have less AA time?

I think you will find that the resources change hands pretty steadily. Thomas Jefferson's concern that a few of the wealthy elite families would own all the property in the United States if inheritance laws were not somewhat restrictive on that proved to be unfounded. There is no money to be made from that and those fears never materialized. If anything, the government itself is the only entity that grabs and holds resources in excess.

And both Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have researched and mostly agree with McWhorter re the black people's situation in America and both agree that black people, with segregation still in place in most places and without any significant government help, were pretty much the most rapidly advancing group in the years leading up to and shortly after the so called Great Society initiatives. So what happened to stall that progress? In their opinion it was both black and white opportunistswho stepped in to make racism big business. The instilled the sense that a person was black first and foremost and everything takes a back seat to that.

. . .As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson.

This decline in the poverty rate among blacks continued during the 1960s, dropping from 47 percent to 30 percent. But even this continuation of a trend already begun long before cannot all be attributed automatically to the new government programs. Moreover, the first decade of affirmative action -- the 1970s -- ended with the poverty rate among black families at 29 percent. Even if that one percent decline was due to affirmative action, it was not much. . .​

Thomas Sowell

Sowell's commentary on the Dunbar school in that same essay is enlightening.

Resources may have changed hands steadily but true wealth still remained with upper class white males. Those white males controlled and still control the vast majority of resources in the US simply because whites had 400 years of AA.

Never heard of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell is a an uncle tom if my memory serves me correctly so I am unimpressed by their research. Segregation in of itself is no hindrance to Blacks surviving and making their own wealth. The problem comes when whites were legally able to destroy those communities and get away scot free which another form of AA whites enjoyed. See Black Wall Street for an example. Also see research such as Buried in the Bitter Waters which documents the ethnic cleansings that occurred in the US where whites killed off Blacks where they were low in number and stole their land.

Okay. All I can say to this is that whites didn't "kill off blacks' but a lot of small towns did drive the few black people among them out. This would be amidst the cultural upheaval when segregation ended and I have absolutely nothing with which to defend such practices. I saw it up close and personal in one tiny town in West Texas when a restaurant owner refused service to a well dressed young black man. The man left without comment. And so did almost all of the white people who were in the restaurant in protest at the restaurant owner's actions. Elliott Jaspin's book didn't report that kind of thing.

And you've never heard of Walter Williams? I sure wish you would read some of his essays. Just google the name, click on his website and they're all there. But Thomas Sowell is an Uncle Tom? Surely you jest. If more black people would read and understand what he teaches, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I just looked up Walter Williams and double checked on Sowell. I'd have to rank Walter as a uncle tom from the two articles I read and yes Sowell is also an uncle tom. I dont know if whites truly understand the definition. Its not so much that I disagree with them as their manner of espousing their beliefs. I disagree with lots of Black people all the time but dont consider them uncle toms.

And what manner would that be? If you consider Sowell and Williams to be "Uncle Toms" then McWhorter, who inspired this thread with his essays on race, would also be an Uncle Tom.

McWhorter could very well be a uncle tom. I dont know anything about him either. Typically I know if I havent heard of a person then there is a very good chance he is an uncle tom or close to being one. I've tried explaining to white people what an uncle tom is and its a difficult concept for them to grasp. I think its because whites are afforded the opportunity to see themselves as individuals without risk of damage to their racial concerns.

Edit...

I just looked up McWhorter and he is worse than a uncle tom. He is more like an uncle ruckus.

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you will find that the resources change hands pretty steadily. Thomas Jefferson's concern that a few of the wealthy elite families would own all the property in the United States if inheritance laws were not somewhat restrictive on that proved to be unfounded. There is no money to be made from that and those fears never materialized. If anything, the government itself is the only entity that grabs and holds resources in excess.

And both Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have researched and mostly agree with McWhorter re the black people's situation in America and both agree that black people, with segregation still in place in most places and without any significant government help, were pretty much the most rapidly advancing group in the years leading up to and shortly after the so called Great Society initiatives. So what happened to stall that progress? In their opinion it was both black and white opportunistswho stepped in to make racism big business. The instilled the sense that a person was black first and foremost and everything takes a back seat to that.

. . .As of 1940, 87 percent of black families lived below the official poverty line. This fell to 47 percent by 1960, without any major federal legislation on civil rights and before the rise and expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society programs of President Lyndon Johnson.

This decline in the poverty rate among blacks continued during the 1960s, dropping from 47 percent to 30 percent. But even this continuation of a trend already begun long before cannot all be attributed automatically to the new government programs. Moreover, the first decade of affirmative action -- the 1970s -- ended with the poverty rate among black families at 29 percent. Even if that one percent decline was due to affirmative action, it was not much. . .​

Thomas Sowell

Sowell's commentary on the Dunbar school in that same essay is enlightening.

Resources may have changed hands steadily but true wealth still remained with upper class white males. Those white males controlled and still control the vast majority of resources in the US simply because whites had 400 years of AA.

Never heard of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell is a an uncle tom if my memory serves me correctly so I am unimpressed by their research. Segregation in of itself is no hindrance to Blacks surviving and making their own wealth. The problem comes when whites were legally able to destroy those communities and get away scot free which another form of AA whites enjoyed. See Black Wall Street for an example. Also see research such as Buried in the Bitter Waters which documents the ethnic cleansings that occurred in the US where whites killed off Blacks where they were low in number and stole their land.

Okay. All I can say to this is that whites didn't "kill off blacks' but a lot of small towns did drive the few black people among them out. This would be amidst the cultural upheaval when segregation ended and I have absolutely nothing with which to defend such practices. I saw it up close and personal in one tiny town in West Texas when a restaurant owner refused service to a well dressed young black man. The man left without comment. And so did almost all of the white people who were in the restaurant in protest at the restaurant owner's actions. Elliott Jaspin's book didn't report that kind of thing.

And you've never heard of Walter Williams? I sure wish you would read some of his essays. Just google the name, click on his website and they're all there. But Thomas Sowell is an Uncle Tom? Surely you jest. If more black people would read and understand what he teaches, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I just looked up Walter Williams and double checked on Sowell. I'd have to rank Walter as a uncle tom from the two articles I read and yes Sowell is also an uncle tom. I dont know if whites truly understand the definition. Its not so much that I disagree with them as their manner of espousing their beliefs. I disagree with lots of Black people all the time but dont consider them uncle toms.

And what manner would that be? If you consider Sowell and Williams to be "Uncle Toms" then McWhorter, who inspired this thread with his essays on race, would also be an Uncle Tom.

McWhorter could very well be a uncle tom. I dont know anything about him either. Typically I know if I havent heard of a person then there is a very good chance he is an uncle tom or close to being one. I've tried explaining to white people what an uncle tom is and its a difficult concept for them to grasp. I think its because whites are afforded the opportunity to see themselves as individuals without risk of damage to their racial concerns.

Well try please. I don't have a clue what you mean by an "Uncle Tom" since none of these three gentlemen come across to me as people who think for themselves, are willing to swim against the tide. They all three have spoken out against real racism and that all oppose most of "Whitey's" gratuitous and patronizing treatment of black people while labeling that "helping the black man, etc." Does that make them an Uncle Tom?

 

[Asclepias]

Resources may have changed hands steadily but true wealth still remained with upper class white males. Those white males controlled and still control the vast majority of resources in the US simply because whites had 400 years of AA.

Never heard of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell is a an uncle tom if my memory serves me correctly so I am unimpressed by their research. Segregation in of itself is no hindrance to Blacks surviving and making their own wealth. The problem comes when whites were legally able to destroy those communities and get away scot free which another form of AA whites enjoyed. See Black Wall Street for an example. Also see research such as Buried in the Bitter Waters which documents the ethnic cleansings that occurred in the US where whites killed off Blacks where they were low in number and stole their land.

Okay. All I can say to this is that whites didn't "kill off blacks' but a lot of small towns did drive the few black people among them out. This would be amidst the cultural upheaval when segregation ended and I have absolutely nothing with which to defend such practices. I saw it up close and personal in one tiny town in West Texas when a restaurant owner refused service to a well dressed young black man. The man left without comment. And so did almost all of the white people who were in the restaurant in protest at the restaurant owner's actions. Elliott Jaspin's book didn't report that kind of thing.

And you've never heard of Walter Williams? I sure wish you would read some of his essays. Just google the name, click on his website and they're all there. But Thomas Sowell is an Uncle Tom? Surely you jest. If more black people would read and understand what he teaches, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I just looked up Walter Williams and double checked on Sowell. I'd have to rank Walter as a uncle tom from the two articles I read and yes Sowell is also an uncle tom. I dont know if whites truly understand the definition. Its not so much that I disagree with them as their manner of espousing their beliefs. I disagree with lots of Black people all the time but dont consider them uncle toms.

And what manner would that be? If you consider Sowell and Williams to be "Uncle Toms" then McWhorter, who inspired this thread with his essays on race, would also be an Uncle Tom.

McWhorter could very well be a uncle tom. I dont know anything about him either. Typically I know if I havent heard of a person then there is a very good chance he is an uncle tom or close to being one. I've tried explaining to white people what an uncle tom is and its a difficult concept for them to grasp. I think its because whites are afforded the opportunity to see themselves as individuals without risk of damage to their racial concerns.

Well try please. I don't have a clue what you mean by an "Uncle Tom" since none of these three gentlemen come across to me as people who think for themselves, are willing to swim against the tide. They all three have spoken out against real racism and that all oppose most of "Whitey's" gratuitous and patronizing treatment of black people while labeling that "helping the black man, etc." Does that make them an Uncle Tom?

Well here goes. An uncle tom is a Black person that will say and do anything for any sign of approval from whites including blaming his race for the conditions that whites and their inferiority complex has caused.. it can be money, a pat on the head, an attaboy etc etc. Plenty of Blacks have railed against patronizing whites and none of the 3 you mentioned are even close to being original in that thought processes. This has been around since Reconstruction. So no that is not what makes them uncle toms. Its their willingness to sell out their people to make whites happy. Basically they are the ointment that soothes white peoples guilt and one reason they are very popular with whites. If they were really about their people more Blacks would know and respect them. Black people can spot a sell out really easily.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay. All I can say to this is that whites didn't "kill off blacks' but a lot of small towns did drive the few black people among them out. This would be amidst the cultural upheaval when segregation ended and I have absolutely nothing with which to defend such practices. I saw it up close and personal in one tiny town in West Texas when a restaurant owner refused service to a well dressed young black man. The man left without comment. And so did almost all of the white people who were in the restaurant in protest at the restaurant owner's actions. Elliott Jaspin's book didn't report that kind of thing.

And you've never heard of Walter Williams? I sure wish you would read some of his essays. Just google the name, click on his website and they're all there. But Thomas Sowell is an Uncle Tom? Surely you jest. If more black people would read and understand what he teaches, I think we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I just looked up Walter Williams and double checked on Sowell. I'd have to rank Walter as a uncle tom from the two articles I read and yes Sowell is also an uncle tom. I dont know if whites truly understand the definition. Its not so much that I disagree with them as their manner of espousing their beliefs. I disagree with lots of Black people all the time but dont consider them uncle toms.

And what manner would that be? If you consider Sowell and Williams to be "Uncle Toms" then McWhorter, who inspired this thread with his essays on race, would also be an Uncle Tom.

McWhorter could very well be a uncle tom. I dont know anything about him either. Typically I know if I havent heard of a person then there is a very good chance he is an uncle tom or close to being one. I've tried explaining to white people what an uncle tom is and its a difficult concept for them to grasp. I think its because whites are afforded the opportunity to see themselves as individuals without risk of damage to their racial concerns.

Well try please. I don't have a clue what you mean by an "Uncle Tom" since none of these three gentlemen come across to me as people who think for themselves, are willing to swim against the tide. They all three have spoken out against real racism and that all oppose most of "Whitey's" gratuitous and patronizing treatment of black people while labeling that "helping the black man, etc." Does that make them an Uncle Tom?

Well here goes. An uncle tom is a Black person that will say and do anything for any sign of approval from whites including blaming his race for the conditions that whites and their inferiority complex has caused.. it can be money, a pat on the head, an attaboy etc etc. Plenty of Blacks have railed against patronizing whites and none of the 3 you mentioned are even close to being original in that thought processes. This has been around since Reconstruction. So no that is not what makes them uncle toms. Its their willingness to sell out their people to make whites happy. Basically they are the ointment that soothes white peoples guilt and one reason they are very popular with whites. If they were really about their people more Blacks would know and respect them. Black people can spot a sell out really easily.

I see. I would agree with your definition.

However,

I fail to see anything in any of these guy's writings that would make them Uncle Toms. Perhaps you could point to something that Thomas Sowell said that would make him an Uncle Tom? Walter Williams? Or John McWhorter? I only recently discovered McWhorter and added him to my list of people I should read regularly. I have followed Sowell and Williams for decades now, however, and Uncle Tom simply does not come to mind in the arguments they make.

 

[Asclepias]

I just looked up Walter Williams and double checked on Sowell. I'd have to rank Walter as a uncle tom from the two articles I read and yes Sowell is also an uncle tom. I dont know if whites truly understand the definition. Its not so much that I disagree with them as their manner of espousing their beliefs. I disagree with lots of Black people all the time but dont consider them uncle toms.

And what manner would that be? If you consider Sowell and Williams to be "Uncle Toms" then McWhorter, who inspired this thread with his essays on race, would also be an Uncle Tom.

McWhorter could very well be a uncle tom. I dont know anything about him either. Typically I know if I havent heard of a person then there is a very good chance he is an uncle tom or close to being one. I've tried explaining to white people what an uncle tom is and its a difficult concept for them to grasp. I think its because whites are afforded the opportunity to see themselves as individuals without risk of damage to their racial concerns.

Well try please. I don't have a clue what you mean by an "Uncle Tom" since none of these three gentlemen come across to me as people who think for themselves, are willing to swim against the tide. They all three have spoken out against real racism and that all oppose most of "Whitey's" gratuitous and patronizing treatment of black people while labeling that "helping the black man, etc." Does that make them an Uncle Tom?

Well here goes. An uncle tom is a Black person that will say and do anything for any sign of approval from whites including blaming his race for the conditions that whites and their inferiority complex has caused.. it can be money, a pat on the head, an attaboy etc etc. Plenty of Blacks have railed against patronizing whites and none of the 3 you mentioned are even close to being original in that thought processes. This has been around since Reconstruction. So no that is not what makes them uncle toms. Its their willingness to sell out their people to make whites happy. Basically they are the ointment that soothes white peoples guilt and one reason they are very popular with whites. If they were really about their people more Blacks would know and respect them. Black people can spot a sell out really easily.

I see. I would agree with your definition.

However,

I fail to see anything in any of these guy's writings that would make them Uncle Toms. Perhaps you could point tosomething that Thomas Sowell said that would make him an Uncle Tom? Walter Williams? Or John McWhorter? I only recently discovered McWhorter and added him to my list of people I should read regularly. I have followed Sowell and Williams for decades now, however, and Uncle Tom simply does not come to mind in the arguments they make.

I'll have to do it later. Gotta cook.

 

[J&K]

Keep Racism alive.

Import for real buisness.