A friend, for whom I have great affection while disagreeing on matters political in many cases, sent me the usual “what about this?” e-mail. “This” referred to an article which he said was “over his head” (I know better) which was based on analysis of an article (the writer, a conservative, of course) of the Trope “White Privilege.” The author’s conclusion was that actions based on “remediating” (my word, for want of a better descriptor of what was a long article) White Privilege all lead to Socialism.
The author, similar to most writers of his persuasion and far too many who should know better, apparently recognizes only two degrees of Socialism. None and absolute. I say this because many of us use the word “Democracy,” understanding that we actually don’t live under such a system and no one else, save perhaps a commune of hippies with a bong in the woods) has, since Athens. What I’m pointing out here is that those of the Far Right use the term to describe our governmental system, with the tacit understanding that it really isn’t a “pure” democracy by any means.
These same “Rightists” love the word “Capitalism” and Free Market” (do ya feel me John Stossel?) although we actually live and work under a regulated market economy, far from the Robber Baron era of the 19th century. So, what’s my point? It is that many of those of the Right embrace, nay, wear on their sleeves, terms such as Capitalism, Free Market and Democracy, even while understanding that these only really apply to our economic and governmental systems with a relatively great deal of nuance and degree. These same folks are, by all indicators unable (more like unwilling) to apply the same broad definitions or understanding to the term Socialism. All the above was simply stage setting for why the author decries “White Privilege” in the essay.
While rambling along the way to his conclusion, he makes many assumptions about “this leads to that” which are simply guesses. He also concludes that, because some extremist concepts re: White Privilege (and we are in agreement on some of these) are rather outré and or unproved and unprovable, the entire concept is simply incorrect. This was the point at which my inner historian called bullshit and although I had other things to do I was forced to answer this e-mail.
What follows is my response:
“You want scholarly? This is off the top of my head.
Interesting, semi-scholarly article, but it does contain one of the basic flaws of much editorial writing that separates and distinguishes fact and social research from opinion. That is, that the writer started with an opinion and organized "facts" (really opinions) to demonstrate the point. Not saying I completely disagree, but here, in this case, is what the writer did, He started with the thesis that Socialism is bad or wrong for society and has probably thought so for decades. In all probability, he hopes the reader doesn't realize that there are degrees of every system, including Socialism. Agree or disagree with him, but that is factual and evident in the article. He had the conclusion before he started. He then shapes everything around this "opinion."
As I intimated above, there are degrees to every political/social/economic system. We accept (or most of us do) that the unrestricted monopolistic capitalism of the last half of the 19th century (we learned it as the age of the "robber barons") was wrong (see Sherman anti-trust act). Some today would disagree, claiming that it's fine for the resources of the nation to be commanded by a few and used for their individual gain without regard for their fellow citizens. These people would also agree that workers "belong" to industrialists and should expect no better treatment than the owner decides to allow them. They put a monetary value on intangibles such as opportunity and status rather than diligence of effort.
To take two examples of this central thesis - "earned" vice "unearned" wealth. The Bush family wealth comes from the fortune amassed through some truly shady dealings including Nazi Collusion and was originally kick started by the Opium trade. ( https://www.mondialisation.ca/the-bush-family-saga-airbrushed-out-of-history/5512738 ) That said, the current crop of Bush boys, while not criminals (except for the odd DUI) have all benefitted from a huge running start in their respective careers, none of which they earned themselves. Was GHW a nice guy? Probably, and a good pilot and fair first baseman, too, but the connections he made at Yale (Skull and Bones brotherhood) had far more to do with his success than raw ability ever did. Did his connections with Saudis cloud the early view of Al Qaeda? Almost certainly. On to George W. Could any rational thinker believe that he would even be able to spell "White House" if not for the family ties and money? He may be the prime example of "White Privilege" of the last 50 years. Certainly, that is true in the current Washington climate.
Do I believe there is (or was) such a thing as White privilege? As a historian I must.
The record of post-Civil War race relations demands that I do.
The fact that one racial sector of America once had the "privilege" of owning another, based solely on pigment, demands that I do.
The fact that it was necessary to enact three Constitutional amendments to try to deal with that fact demands that I do.
The fact that for about 100 years, the Jim Crow South and, to a more subtle degree, much of the North, remained racist, demands that I do.
We can never know what might have been, race wise, in America, because Black Americans, legally thrust into "equal" status, were never allowed to exercise that status, instead being told in overt and more subtle ways that they needed to stay in their "place."
The fact that white persons get lighter sentences for exactly the same crimes, especially drug crimes and that a young black man is 3 times more likely to get jail time, a felony conviction, and loss of some civil rights for precisely the same drug related infraction (http://drugwarfacts.org/chapter/race_prison ) demands that I do.
The fact that a white college student (Brock Turner) can repeatedly rape an unconscious woman, including penetrating her with a "foreign object" behind a dumpster and be sentenced to six months in jail (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner#Sentencing ) , while, until this century, almost any rape without violence of a white woman by a black male was a death penalty issue in much of the South, (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/2153368717702700 ) demands that I do.
So yeah, there is White Privilege and has been, since the day in 1619 when Dutch traders brought African slaves taken from a Spanish ship to Jamestown, in North America. Of course, that should be no surprise considering the vicious record of the Dutch in Cape Colony where race is involved.
One thing I am relatively sure of is that without the constant undercurrent of racial bias underlying American society into the present, the claim of White Privilege would have no basis on which to stand. White racism created the conditions for "white privilege" to be delineated. If we had placed all Americans on equal social footing in 1865, finally honoring Jefferson's words in The Declaration, It's hard to say where we would be, but it probably wouldn't be here. Here's an 1893 quote from a Georgia politician named Tom Watson, addressing the whys and wherefores of racial division in the South and by whom. Here he was addressing poor white farmers:
One thing I am relatively sure of is that without the constant undercurrent of racial bias underlying American society into the present, the claim of White Privilege would have no basis on which to stand. White racism created the conditions for "white privilege" to be delineated. If we had placed all Americans on equal social footing in 1865, finally honoring Jefferson's words in The Declaration, It's hard to say where we would be, but it probably wouldn't be here. Here's an 1893 quote from a Georgia politician named Tom Watson, addressing the whys and wherefores of racial division in the South and by whom. Here he was addressing poor white farmers:
“You are kept apart that you may be separately fleeced of your earnings. You are made to hate each other because upon that hatred is rested the keystone of the arch of financial despotism which enslaves you both. You are deceived and blinded that you may not see how this race antagonism perpetuates a monetary system which beggars both.” Sound familiar?
So, when Whites decry black opinions and attitudes as biased, which they sometimes admittedly are, they too frequently look outwardly rather than reflect on how their forbears and in many cases, they themselves, have engineered, created and exacerbated the status quo over the previous 100 years.
Solutions? I don't have a clue, but the claim that White Privilege is linked to socialism does disservice to hard working black entrepreneurs who have faced far more daunting obstacles than anyone named Bush or Trump ever has. Having said that, I think we'd all be better off if Affirmative Action had been unnecessary because we had already truly provided "equal opportunity." Sadly, in education, where now we do strive for equal access, we're also trying to overcome a legacy of bias. Anyone who thought Brown v Board instantly levelled the playing field is too dumb to even tie their own shoes.
Six or seven generations of "Why try, the deck is stacked?" (perceived by some persons of color, true or not, and perception is the determinant of action) is difficult to overcome. Lest we think that’s only a “Black thing” There are Irish who still cannot speak of the English and their actions during "the famine" rationally, and that's been 170 years. That is also the root cause for violence which, while abated at present, still simmers. There are many parallels, but at least the Irish, being Caucasian, weren't also "marked for discrimination" simply based on pigment. When others chide Blacks for not assimilating like their Irish, Italian, Polish forbears did, they somehow miss the whole color thing, the only time they overlook color, since I know some incredibly bigoted second and third generation Western Europeans. Does this validate extreme claims such as that “being able to grasp and solve complex mathematics is “White Privilege.” I think not. I also believe such claims obscure and weaken the understanding of the real racial issues we face as Americans.
Finally, as for the author's "Socialism" bias, as I said earlier, there are degrees of every political system. People who "have", sometimes portray Socialism as Communism (state Socialism), which is not what any nation other than Russia for about 70 years and North Korea and Cuba claimed to have, but we all know they had dictatorships, far more akin to Oligarchy, which is actually Capitalism on steroids. Think I'm wrong? Look at the similarities between Trump and Putin. For an even more stark example look at Argentina under Galtieri (early 1980s) or Chile under Pinochet (1973-1990). Both were extreme right-wing Governments yet looked just as much like Soviet era Russia in terms of class difference, brutality towards their own and concentration of power. Cuba was (only) somewhat of an exception.
Six or seven generations of "Why try, the deck is stacked?" (perceived by some persons of color, true or not, and perception is the determinant of action) is difficult to overcome. Lest we think that’s only a “Black thing” There are Irish who still cannot speak of the English and their actions during "the famine" rationally, and that's been 170 years. That is also the root cause for violence which, while abated at present, still simmers. There are many parallels, but at least the Irish, being Caucasian, weren't also "marked for discrimination" simply based on pigment. When others chide Blacks for not assimilating like their Irish, Italian, Polish forbears did, they somehow miss the whole color thing, the only time they overlook color, since I know some incredibly bigoted second and third generation Western Europeans. Does this validate extreme claims such as that “being able to grasp and solve complex mathematics is “White Privilege.” I think not. I also believe such claims obscure and weaken the understanding of the real racial issues we face as Americans.
Finally, as for the author's "Socialism" bias, as I said earlier, there are degrees of every political system. People who "have", sometimes portray Socialism as Communism (state Socialism), which is not what any nation other than Russia for about 70 years and North Korea and Cuba claimed to have, but we all know they had dictatorships, far more akin to Oligarchy, which is actually Capitalism on steroids. Think I'm wrong? Look at the similarities between Trump and Putin. For an even more stark example look at Argentina under Galtieri (early 1980s) or Chile under Pinochet (1973-1990). Both were extreme right-wing Governments yet looked just as much like Soviet era Russia in terms of class difference, brutality towards their own and concentration of power. Cuba was (only) somewhat of an exception.
There are those who would posit that some things in the interest of human decency should be the right of all citizens. (Like Health Care, of which Medicare is actually a successful socialist example) What is very troubling to me is that while most of the foaming at the mouth anti-socialist crowd proclaim their Christianity just as loudly, they act in the opposite manner. This may be (is) the most glaring contradiction in terms on the planet.
Should we, like Sweden, provide free drugs to addicts? I don't think so. Should we arbitrarily take from Peter to give to Paul (or vice versa) and "level the playing field?" Don't think so. Should Paris Hilton be able to live as she does because her grandfather amassed a fortune by hard work? Harder question, but I think not. Should a C student who can barely read be President because his daddy was? Andrew Carnegie one of the original Robber Barons famously said, "The man who dies rich, dies disgraced." So yeah, I support the idea that after reasonable bequests, Jeff Bezos' billions should revert to those who sent them to him. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates agree and are already doing so. I also believe that decent medical care should be the right of all citizens, and I believe (actually I know, because both Brookings and Johns Hopkins studies support it ( https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/Crossroads/06_13_03.html ) that some "socialist" concepts such as single payer health care systems are a good idea and work better. Who doesn't think so? Drug companies whose profits are in the range of four to five times the average for other US corporations.
So, when someone bitches about Socialism, ask yourself who pays his salary and how he attained the status he has. Of course, we have the hypocrites like Paul Ryan, who only got where he is because of Social Security survivor's benefits and now wants to dismantle the system which sustained his widowed mom. Weird, huh.”
Mikey
Should we, like Sweden, provide free drugs to addicts? I don't think so. Should we arbitrarily take from Peter to give to Paul (or vice versa) and "level the playing field?" Don't think so. Should Paris Hilton be able to live as she does because her grandfather amassed a fortune by hard work? Harder question, but I think not. Should a C student who can barely read be President because his daddy was? Andrew Carnegie one of the original Robber Barons famously said, "The man who dies rich, dies disgraced." So yeah, I support the idea that after reasonable bequests, Jeff Bezos' billions should revert to those who sent them to him. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates agree and are already doing so. I also believe that decent medical care should be the right of all citizens, and I believe (actually I know, because both Brookings and Johns Hopkins studies support it ( https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/about/Crossroads/06_13_03.html ) that some "socialist" concepts such as single payer health care systems are a good idea and work better. Who doesn't think so? Drug companies whose profits are in the range of four to five times the average for other US corporations.
So, when someone bitches about Socialism, ask yourself who pays his salary and how he attained the status he has. Of course, we have the hypocrites like Paul Ryan, who only got where he is because of Social Security survivor's benefits and now wants to dismantle the system which sustained his widowed mom. Weird, huh.”
Mikey
No comments:
Post a Comment