Thursday, October 21, 2010
Here's a great little post by Nathanael Blake on the racism within the liberal establishment and intelligentsia. It's rare to see this much clarity of thought, but pretty par for the course when it comes to Mr. Blake.
[A]ffirmative action only entrenches the underlying white power structure. It demeans while it elevates. Some are promoted beyond their abilities and fail, others, who have ability, are tainted by the suspicion that they don’t. A black man who legitimately earns his way into Harvard Law (or Yale, or any other top school or position) cannot constantly produce his LSAT score to prove his merit to each person he meets. Further acquaintance may show that he is brilliant, but he will likely always suffer from some initial stigma. Furthermore, any minority who has succeeded during the era of affirmative action faces pressure not to question it, for if he questions it his own position may be threatened. Thus, liberals feel free to imprecate against Justice Thomas and cast aspersions upon his merit to an extent they would never dare against other successful black men. The message is clear, accept what we give you, or else.
Affirmative action is a settlement. Minorities are bought off with some token hires and government assistance and in return agree not to fuss too much. The white power structure (which includes East Asians and Jews who are, for these purposes, culturally white) is safe. Most “minority leaders” accept these terms and simply try to get a better deal within them. What upsets this are men and women who won’t accept the deal. They don’t want a larger quota, they want to compete directly and encourage others to do the same.
This is a threat not only to the white power structure, but also to the mythos that sustains it. It is the myth of the white (literally) knight, in the form of the social worker or the college admissions officer or the hiring partner, coming to save poor minorities. The witness of a Clarence Thomas defies the assumption of white liberals that the racial sins of society can be easily extirpated by their own actions. Thomas won’t allow that sort of cheap grace and easy righteousness. He asserts that only black Americans can save black America, which is an intolerable message for white liberals. Nothing they do, certainly not any easily-filled quotas, will atone for the sins of their social class.
Liberals want to keep black men like Clarence Thomas in the role of suppliants, which means submission. Thomas won’t accept that, and so they hate him, oh how they hate him. They’d lynch him if they could.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I hope you can see the irony here. You post an article that is critical of the liberal establishment for patronizing black Americans with the idea of affirmative action because it pretends to know what's best for them. Yet, this article in and of itself supposes to know better for an entire race of people. Worse, it's flat wrong.
First, the condescending nature of Blake's article and your approval of it is shocking. White guy #1 and White guy #2 discussing how black people do or do not want/need the current white power structure is laughable considering he presupposes to be authoritative on the subject. Outside of Blake's opinion of Thomas' actions, there are no facts here. I guess that's why blogging isn't journalism.
Listen, I read your blog all the time. I disagree with much of what you post, but I want to ensure I stay fresh by hearing opposing viewpoints, and checking them against my personal ideology and theology. To that end, I've learned quite a bit from what you post here.
Is affirmative action outdated and irrelevant in modern day America? Yeah, probably.
Without Affirmative Action could we even be able to intelligently discuss the possibility of black people in America succeeding purely on merit without the implementation of a system that allowed some minorities the opportunity to prove they weren't genetically less intelligent than whites? (a myth by the way, many people still believe) Nope.
So it's not all evil is it?
The article is correct, a black man is likely to suffer some initial stigma. I was so thankful he didn't run with the "racism is dead" mantra. Its better, and we should be moving beyond it, but its not dead.
Have you or Mr. Blake talked to black folks or read a book, blog, anything written BY black people? Black people aren't proud of affirmative action. We don't like it any more than a conservative white would. We want to succeed or fail purely based on our effort in pursuing the opportunities present. Like it or not, this is not reality even in "post-racial America". This, by the way isn't a small minority of blacks lead by conservative Clarence Thomas in fighting to bring down the established white power structure. Its not a left/right issue. Its a humanity issue. I feel like you should know better than to pander to political divisiveness.
The issue of racism in today's America isn't so much about hatred and hostility, as it is about condescension. Blake is right in that the liberal social justice camp (we call them White Jesus - yeah the movie "The Blind Side" makes us nauseous) is all too concerned about assuaging their "White Guilt". Unfortunately, he and you fall into the opposite trap of denial.
May I recommend you read "Rage of a Privileged Class" by Ellis Cose? Its written in the early '90's so some of his data is outdated, but he does a great job of revealing how those who have succeeded due to AA feel about it, and what the reality of that success is. Hopefully, you can gain a little more perspective.
Peace...
BJ
Good comments, BJ. Though I'm a little confused... you initially claimed that you disagreed with Blake and that he was wrong, then spent most of your comment agreeing with him. ?
"You post an article that is critical of the liberal establishment for patronizing black Americans with the idea of affirmative action because it pretends to know what's best for them. Yet, this article in and of itself supposes to know better for an entire race of people. Worse, it's flat wrong."
No, the problem isn't that the liberal establishment believes they know what is best for blacks. The problem is (besides them being wrong in their ideology) that they get so angry and oppressive toward any blacks who won't toe their line. Leftism is inherently totalitarian, since equality rather than freedom is the highest value. So it makes sense that it is so oppressive toward other viewpoints. Conservatism (particularly the Biblical variety), on the other hand, values freedom above all other rights.
"White guy #1 and White guy #2 discussing how black people do or do not want/need the current white power structure is laughable considering he presupposes to be authoritative on the subject. Outside of Blake's opinion of Thomas' actions, there are no facts here. I guess that's why blogging isn't journalism."
True, blogging isn't journalism. But I could point you to others whom Blake (and I) has read who ARE authorities on this issue. People like Thomas Sowell, or Harry Jackson, or Clarence Thomas, for that matter. But I don't think one has to fall for the margine immunitas logical fallacy that one has to be black to understand race in America. That affirmative action encourages class warfare is self-evident. Did it at one point help speed along the integration of blacks into society? Perhaps. But just because it once MAY have been useful doesn't mean that it hasn't outlived its usefulness. Just like labor unions, AA has worn out its welcome. Bombing Dresden to hasten the end of WWII was probably a good thing; bombing it for another thirty years after the end of the war would have been considered cruel and unhelpful (to say the least). Eventually, even good things must come to an end... particularly true with politics since it is such a corrupting force.
"I was so thankful he didn't run with the "racism is dead" mantra. Its better, and we should be moving beyond it, but its not dead."
Yeah, I don't think we would say it is dead. Perhaps on life support. It would probably be more accurate to say that it has radically changed in nature since the 60's. It tends to be much more subtle (outside of some enclaves in the South perhaps) and just as likely to be found in certain black churches (Rev Wright's, for example) as in KKK meetings. Racist "words" are very politically incorrect, so people mask their racist attitudes behind ideologies and policies instead. Most importantly, outside of affirmative action and a few other racist policies like welfare, racism is no longer institutionalized into our halls of government like it was with forced segregation and what not. I think that is the critical change. The culture will come along in time (though it will never be perfect this side of eternity), but the government should not be encouraging it. I have no legal problem (morally I do) with companies or individuals choosing to stay around their own "kind." That is their right. That right applies to minorities and whites equally. If a bunch of blacks want to make a black-only community, fine. It's sad, but whatever. Their loss. Unfortunately, I think the law overstepped itself a bit in the Civil Rights Act and elsewhere by limiting the freedom of private citizens to congregate as they so choose, the legal logic of which has led to the current gay rights oppression of Christian groups, particularly on university campuses. Don't accept people group X to your party, be prepared to be fired upon by academia and the State.
"This, by the way isn't a small minority of blacks lead by conservative Clarence Thomas in fighting to bring down the established white power structure. Its not a left/right issue."
I wish that were the case, but as it currently stands, liberal politicians and a majority of academics (most of whom are leftist in their politics) are the ones who support affirmative action. What blacks actually feel on that matter is irrelevant. What matters is what happens when one of them like Justice Thomas has the audacity to speak up. He's called an Uncle Tom and worse. He's accused of sexually deviant things he never did. He's made to look like a dimwitted fool who only got where he did because of AA. His treatment has been very telling of how intolerant the liberal white power structure can be toward those who choose to bite the hand that feeds them.
I'll look into that book by Cose. I'd definitely like to be wider read on this issue. On the flip side, I'd recommend Thomas Sowell's work on the issue of race and affirmative action. I haven't read it, but he has a book on AA called Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study. Another good one of his that I have but haven't read much of yet is Black Rednecks & White Liberals.
Feel free to continue this dialogue.
Man, I don't know enough to speak intelligently to the issue of affirmative action, but I'm definitely with BJ in thinking that it's something white guys should speak about tentatively and never without having read widely and talked with black people.
This post (and especially its title) is in bad taste, D.
PB, I think you miss the point of the title. White liberals want people like Justice Thomas to "sit in the back of the bus" and shut up and just accept what they are given rather than try to earn it on their own. I'm speaking against that. How in the world is that in bad taste?
"I'm definitely with BJ in thinking that it's something white guys should speak about tentatively and never without having read widely and talked with black people."
It's a logical fallacy that one has to be of a certain people group to talk about things related to them. I don't have to be a teacher to have an informed opinion about our educational system. I don't have to be a military veteran to have a useful opinion on our foreign policy. So why is race any different? I'm not talking about what blacks perceive or feel as far as racism. Obviously, in that case, it would be particularly helpful to talk to as many blacks as possible (though how many is enough??).
I (or Blake, more specifically) am talking about the injustice and counter-productive nature of affirmative action. It's pretty easy to readily see. As Blake says, if a job is given to you because of your race (whatever that may be), though you may be immensely qualified or completely unqualified for it, then it warps the system and people's perceptions. If you are qualified, now you have to deal with the stigma that you may have not been. If you aren't qualified, then you get something you didn't earn and begin to think you deserve things based on your race and not your merits. Whatever the case, it inculcates a warped perception of reality in both the recipient of AA and the rest of society. Imagine what it would do if we gave kids passing grades in school no matter how they actually did on their tests... oh wait, that's already happening. Do we actually want blacks and other minorities to achieve freedom and equality or do we just want them to get comfortable enough to leave the white man in power? The slavemasters of the 19th century are the academic elite of the 21st.
Here is some good reading (by a black man, no less!) on the subject:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2002/03/21/history_vs_hogwash
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2003/01/08/quotas_on_trial/page/full/
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2003/06/04/international_affirmative_action/page/full/
http://townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2003/02/07/damaging_admissions
These will give anyone interested a running start on the subject.
I'm not really disagreeing with your perspective and conclusions, D. Once again, I don't know enough about the topic to comment intelligently on it.
For me, as is generally the case when I see posts like this from someone like you who I want to see in positions of leadership at NHC, is the issue is what I perceive to be a lack of wisdom in overestimating the importance of your convictions and perspectives,
while underestimating the unintended consequences of expressing them.
So what exactly is wrong with the title (assuming that someone has sense enough to figure out what is meant by it; to wit, that Justice Thomas isn't willing to sit in the proverbial back of the bus and is thus being attacked)? I can't write my blog titles assuming that some nincompoop with the reading comprehension of a 5 year old is my average reader and is going to get so offended by his ignorant understanding of my point that he's going to dismiss Christians altogether. For example, say I have a post title of "Are Blacks Less Intelligent Based on Genetics?" and then spend my post refuting that idea, only a fool would jump to the conclusion that my title is suggesting that.
Since when is an attack on a societal evil like affirmative action a bad thing? If Christians are actually going to be salt and light in this world, they have to get out of the saltshaker and uncover their lamps. We can't avoid all controversy because some theoretical person might be insulted. What's odd is your blog and Facebook page is just as prone to being a place of controversial and strong opinions as my own... and I have no problem with that. I know a few people in NHC have been quite turned off due to some of your comments or posts, but that is their problem, not yours (at least, most of the time :) ). I'd rather not see the American church become a place where things can't be discussed for fear of saying something politically incorrect. We're to speak truth, not kowtow to the latest cultural forces. If someone chooses to go elsewhere because they can't take you being more politically moderate or liberal even though you pound the Gospel into their foreheads at every turn, then they may have issues of political idolatry they need to repent of.
I agree that my Facebook posts and blogs haven't always show wisdom and take into consideration my context. I'm working on it, and it's part of the reason I haven't blogged in a long time. Too many times, I wrote something that I felt strongly about, but it came with a bunch of collateral damage that I didn't see coming and wasn't worth the point I was trying to make. Until I can see the more of the ripple effect of my words, I need a much chastened approach to blogging and Facebook.
...But I'm not sure how we got talking about me.
Well, the question I come back to is this: how do Christians affect change to culture, politics, society, and communities if they won't talk about any real issues? We can talk about the Gospel all day long, but if we never discuss what it looks like to have the Kingdom of God coming in this life and the Gospel applied to our lives, then it seems like we somewhat miss the boat. Christianity will become irrelevant to our culture if we avoid the hot topics. Imagine if Wilberforce had feared that someone would be offended because he preached that blacks should be free. Likewise, I am not going to be scared of what someone will think because I think blacks should be free of the slavery of affirmative action and welfare states. If they have a problem with that, their problem is not with me but with God and His Word.
That said, I recognize that there are times when not kicking a dog is preferable. Or that sometimes you need to kick it gently.
I completely agree, D. I think where we may not be in agreement is on which dogs we should kick (and how hard) in our context.
Yep, I think that's the sticking point. I actually would encourage you to continue kicking some of the dogs you've been kicking, and in some cases, kick them harder. We need more pastors who tear down the high places of idolatry in the American church.
Post a Comment