Skip to main content

I attended an academic conference a few months ago and particularly enjoyed one session called Perceptions of Race and Racial Inequity in the Obama Era. The research presented largely challenged the notion that we live in a "post-racial America". I was especially struck by one set of findings but I haven't written about them because the study was in press (accepted for publication, but not net published). With the final version available for download on the primary author's website and the Wall Street Journal reporting on the findings, I can report on a striking finding that shouldn't be horribly surprising:

Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing

Note: I am going to use the terms Blacks and Whites in this diary as this is the terminology employed by the researchers.

In a free society that believes all men are created equal, everybody should have equal access to resources and opportunities for advancement. In America, we haven't necessarily lived up to that idea, though great progress has been made since the civil rights movement gained steam in the 1950s. In terms of how Americans view the march to equality, what we would hope for is pattern akin to that depicted in the chart below, where over time, Blacks rise to the level of Whites.

Photobucket

But is this how Americans actually view equality? Many conservative politicians and pundits have distorted programs created to advance the state of racial/ethnic minorities (e.g., affirmative action in higher education) as taking something away from deserving Whites to give to undeserving Blacks (while ignoring the gains made by whites when racism was codified into law). Note: punditician relayed a story in the comments the really brings this point home. Given this drumbeat of "helping this group comes at the expense of your group" from some quarters, is it possible that White Americans have come to view equality as something threatening to Whites? Might they see equality as depicted below, a zero-sum game where gains by Blacks come at the expense of Whites? And if so, who is "winning"?

Photobucket

Dr. Michael I. Norton, an associate professor of Business Administration at the Harvard Business School, and Dr. Samuel R. Sommers, an associate professor of psychology at Tufts University, wanted to see just how White America views equality. They worked with an online survey research company to recruit a large representative sample (N = 417; 208 Black, 209 White) of Americans. They matched the sample to representative of Black and White America on age, gender, and education level, as measured by the 2000 census. These demographic variables had no effect on the results and I will not discuss them further.

Norton and Sommers asked the participants to rate on a 10 point scale the degree to which they felt that Blacks and Whites were victims of discrimination for each decade from the 1950s through the 2000s. So each participant answered two questions for each decade:

Indicate how much you think Blacks [Whites] were/are the victims of discrimination in the United States in each of the following decades

The researchers analyzed their findings by looking at both the race of the participant and the race of the target.

I was unsure about copyright issues, so I did not republish the graph from their journal article. I created the image below using the data reported in the paper. The blue lines represent ratings by the Black participants and red lines represent ratings by the White participants. The solid lines are ratings of anti-Black discrimination while the broken lines are ratings of anti-White discrimination. Allow the trend depicted below is perfectly linear, that is not necessarily the case in the graph produced by Norton and Sommers (2011). But the mean ratings for the 1950s and the 2000s found by the authors are depicted accurately below:

Photobucket

Blacks and Whites have basically indistinguishable views about discrimination in the 1950s, but those views diverge over time. Both see large decreases in anti-Black discrimination, with Whites observing a larger drop than Blacks. The most striking finding is that Whites see an increase in anti-White discrimination such that Whites perceive anti-White discrimination as worse than anti-Black discrimination in the 2000s.

For the statistics people, the authors submitted the ratings to a Race of Participant (between) by Race of Target (within) by Decade (within) mixed-model Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). This yielded a significant three-way interaction, F(5, 376) = 17.39, p< .001. Follow-up t-tests showed that in the 2000s, Whites saw anti-White discrimination as worse than anti-Black discrimination, t(208) = 3.94, p < .001.

But does this mean that Whites view equality is a zero-sum game? Yes, the gains by Blacks seemed to linked to losses by Whites among the White participants. The researchers analyzed the ratings of anti-Black and anti-White discrimination for each decade and found that for Whites, ratings of anti-Black discrimination and anti-White discrimination were significantly and negatively correlated. This means that White participants who gave high ratings of anti-Black discrimination tended to give low ratings of anti-White discrimination. The reverse is also true, with White participants who gave high ratings of anti-White discrimination generally giving low ratings of anti-Black discrimination. The correlations for Black participants were also negative, but the magnitude of the correlations were smaller and they were only statistically significant (the values are likely an accurate reflection of the population) for ratings of the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.

Moreover, the change in discrimination toward Blacks and Whites was negatively correlated among White participants, but uncorrelated among Black participants. In other words, White participants who saw anti-Black discrimination declining tended to also see anti-White discrimination climbing. For Black participants, perceived changes in anti-Black discrimination were not linked to perceived changes in anti-White discrimination.

Put shorter: The perceived link between White losses and Black gains was strong for White participants, but almost non-existent for Black participants.

What does this mean? Whites seem to believe that the progress that Blacks have made have largely come at their own expense. This is unsurprising, especially in tough economic times when politicians are blowing racist dog whistles, depicting social programs as a "milk cow with 310 million tits".

The final question is more difficult to answer: What do we do about it?

Originally posted to Just PsycoBabble on Thu May 12, 2011 at 06:58 AM PDT.

Also republished by Black Kos community, The Amateur Left, Moose On The Loose, Erase the Hate, and Science Matters.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (304+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    frandor55, angry marmot, Pager, slinkerwink, wildcat6, dougymi, Cenobyte, the new, sricki, SpecialKinFlag, Limelite, never forget 2000, Pinto Pony, VClib, triv33, punditician, CaptUnderpants, wyldraven, tardis10, vets74, jam, joanneleon, LynChi, blue aardvark, nickrud, Uberbah, TexDem, MooseHB, babeuf, luvsathoroughbred, DBunn, Mistral Wind, allie123, DelRPCV, gizmo59, Karl Rover, roses, el dorado gal, TomP, raina, BlueInARedState, Ian S, MKinTN, Emerson, Lady Libertine, mamamedusa, TheGreatLeapForward, Odysseus, poligirl, genethefiend, Kinak, Onomastic, GenXangster, Keori, jfromga, pontechango, CrissieP, kyril, gramofsam1, Maikeru Ronin, KMc, blonde moment, Lefty Mama, shanikka, TheLizardKing, Liberal Capitalist, catnip, ferment, PhilJD, FishOutofWater, DianeNYS, jethrock, cooper888, stunzeed, Colorado is the Shiznit, gulfgal98, Graff, MBNYC, Steveningen, Aint Supposed to Die a Natural Death, Steve In DC, Robobagpiper, brae70, Seneca Doane, Gowrie Gal, willibro, rebel ga, Trevin, semiot, thomask, Trendar, janmtairy, Dom9000, Bendra, Gemina13, Arahahex, virginwoolf, shopkeeper, alyosha, seeta08, publicv, legendmn, Loudoun County Dem, thenekkidtruth, Nulwee, aerie star, Chi, Clytemnestra, Leap Year, Keone Michaels, wader, Vtdblue, Shockwave, Xapulin, zedaker, LA rupert, rimstalker, oyka1, pat bunny, MKSinSA, pat of butter in a sea of grits, EdSF, PBen, peteri2, Socratic Method, HylasBrook, priceman, HartfordTycoon, Marie, Aspe4, Mimikatz, Exquisite, Imhotepsings, historys mysteries, FogCityJohn, sawgrass727, blueoasis, carlos the jackal, MJ via Chicago, rja, fiddler crabby, dionys1, Pintlala, GeorgeXVIII, Benintn, glitterscale, SteelerGrrl, pileta, maggiejean, Indexer, krllos, majcmb1, Curt Matlock, CarbonFiberBoy, Dave925, Margd, mconvente, opoponax, Renee, Ckntfld, the tmax, Noddy, JayC, Maori, Sherri in TX, sideboth, waytac, NapaJulie, mslat27, AaronInSanDiego, VTCC73, on board 47, Friendlystranger, DruidQueen, camlbacker, prettygirlxoxoxo, lgmcp, dirtfarmer, mikejay611, smellybeast, freeport beach PA, Malvern, Anak, bythesea, dotsright, greengemini, Pluto, tonyahky, eru, canadian gal, karlpk, NearlyNormal, platypus60, milkbone, prfb, Larry Bailey, maybeeso in michigan, newpioneer, asterlil, bnasley, mod2lib, Oaktown Girl, GenXWho, malharden, millwood, kck, smoothnmellow, boofdah, oblios arrow, kevin k, musing85, greenomanic, HCKAD, BachFan, Heather in SFBay, cdreid, kingneil, progressivebadger, bluesteel, rapala, mikidee, Bionic, fidel, Blackacre, Sun Tzu, The Troubadour, gooderservice, Dvalkure, blueoregon, blueintheface, defluxion10, nellgwen, kimoconnor, boriquasi, Skaje, wolverinethad, CA Nana, opinionated, Its a New Day, cyncynical, madgranny, Matt Z, Kewalo, cpresley, TXdem, Whimsical Rapscallion, greycat, Lynwaz, dewtx, EthrDemon, MsGrin, Alice Venturi, Paddy999, Bob Duck, pensivelady, lordcopper, splashy, cinnamon68, ParkRanger, Badabing, pengiep, Little Flower, LucyandByron, StellaRay, Strange New World, ChuckInReno, Paul in Berkeley, skohayes, implicate order, grollen, zenox, Tonga 23, TN yellow dog, Lujane, ChiTownDenny, tomephil, noise of rain, SJerseyIndy, jennybravo, SingerInTheChoir, alnep, dharmafarmer, RosyFinch, dle2GA, Val, Uwaine, geomoo, KVoimakas, lincoln deschain, aufklaerer, frankzappatista, byDesign, subtropolis, DiegoUK, ninkasi23, mofembot, koNko, mikeconwell, cloudbustingkid, unspeakable, alivingston, evergreen2, chrisblask, hazzcon

    I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. I'm one of the Angry Gays. Deal with it.

    by psychodrew on Thu May 12, 2011 at 06:58:47 AM PDT

  •  Anti-white discrimination. (91+ / 0-)

    For the life of me, I cannot wrap my brain around that one. As a white woman, I've been discriminated against for being a woman, but never for being white. Everything in life is easier when you are not a person of color. Where does this victim complex come from? I would really love an answer to that one.

    I can just about forgive the Brits for starting our revolutionary war and burning DC to the ground during the war of 1812 for giving us Led Zeppelin.

    by Pager on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:07:11 AM PDT

    •  It's called division (80+ / 0-)

      which is what conservative politicians are excellent at. The conservative media has led the drumbeat about how social programs, which are designed to benefit Americans of every race, are instead favoring minority groups. They've instigated myths about Cadillac queens, Sister Souljah, etc, and welfare programs to make these white people resentful of how their taxpayer dollars are being used.

      Meanwhile they're playing whites against minority groups is when the politicians are instead letting the wealthy and corporations get away with it. It's misdirection, so the whites don't pay attention to the real problems in society.

      I work with B2B PAC, and all views and opinions in this account are my own.

      by slinkerwink on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:11:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My late in-laws felt discriminated (29+ / 0-)

        against by white people who had more money than they did, and they were white.  Heaven forbid they had lived to see black people infringing on their sense of alienation.  Going to the beach during the 60's was an object  lesson in bitterness - Gawd! We had to go to a public beach!

        There will always be a dissatisfied, seemingly stifled group of people who base their grievances on their strata of class identification and now apparently compounded by race.

      •  It's NOT "Conservative Politicians" (45+ / 0-)

        And we're never as a country going to get over this IMO if folks don't stop "othering" racism.

        It is ALL of us.  I don't care what your political views are -- all of us suffer from this national disease and either all of us, no matter what are political stripe, are going to name it, claim it and do some serious work, or we're going to just keep finding ourselves the way that DailyKOS operates:  a whole bunch of people patting themselves on the back and doing almost nothing of value to try and fix the problems -- which starts by fixing ourselves.

        Anybody can talk the talk.  Will liberals once and for all start walking the walk? (Hint - that is a lot harder than people want to accept because it requires divorcing the term "racist" from "bad person" despite all the cultural reinforcement for this false idea, which allows most whites in particular to just avoid doing anything other than talking the official party line.)

        If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

        by shanikka on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:07:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm gonna say it is conservative politicians. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          willibro

          God is good. If it isn't good. It isn't God.

          by publicv on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:49:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Feel Free (15+ / 0-)

            If you're satisfied with just pretending to fix the problem of racism rather than actually fixing it.

            If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

            by shanikka on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:58:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Was not "Sistah Soujah" trotted out by a Dem (17+ / 0-)

              namely Bill Clinton?

              I never did understand calling him the first 'black' president.

              I will name and claim this for myself, being a white person from the lower economic classes, and I suspect other white people in my strata feel the same: We know good and well only so many jobs are going to ever get created (shit part-time Wal-Mart jobs at that) and we are afraid of not getting those jobs. Afraid.  And until white people feel like we can breathe and don't have to be afraid, we are going to step on black folks or anybody else without even thinking about what we're doing.  In this economic system, I don't see things improving either.  It's more than just rhetoric that keeps us divided.  There is a level of reality that does as well.

              The question in my mind is: How to get poor white people to see that we need to band with black, Hispanic, and everybody else to fight for economic justice for everybody so that we are then all safe.  

              •  And isn't hippie puncin' a grand ol' dem trad? n/t (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                willibro, zett, boofdah, Vtdblue, splashy

                boycott Koch = don't buy Northern TP

                by glitterscale on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:05:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  But why do you see a difference? (7+ / 0-)

                Between white and black people? Don't they all look the same to you?

                I'll tell you one of my favorite stories. When I was in the first grade, my best friend was named One. My family was out for a Sunday drive in a rural part of our town, going slowly, when suddenly I saw One! I rolled down my window and shouted to him. He came running over. My father put the car in gear and drove off before he could get there. Looking back at him through the rear window, I suddenly saw that he was black. And his family was black. I'd never even noticed. I had become a racist, just like that.

                We won't get rid of it until we refuse to see it. We can control our minds. That's part of being human. We have to refuse racism.

                Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why we win. -Syriana

                by CarbonFiberBoy on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:26:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The only thing is those perpetuating/per (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CarbonFiberBoy, splashy

                  petrating 'grownups' who get to your mind first.  Then it's planted there and you have to spend the rest of your life trying to get rid of it.

                  God is good. If it isn't good. It isn't God.

                  by publicv on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:32:34 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Too right. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    publicv

                    We all got work. Luckily, it doesn't take psychotherapy, so we can all do it.

                    Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why we win. -Syriana

                    by CarbonFiberBoy on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:42:31 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  It is the responsibility of parents to teach their (6+ / 0-)

                    children to be racist or not. Children are not born racist. They see differences in skin color but do not treat "others" differently unless they are taught to do so. I actually saw a mother teach racism to her child one day.

                    I was eating lunch in a restuarant and a young, white woman came in with her child. They were sitting a few tables away and the child kept turning around to stare at me (I am African-American). I smiled at the baby and she smiled back. When she turned around again, her mother took the baby's head and made her turn back around. She then pointed to a white woman sitting on the other side and said, "Isn't that better?" I tried to burn a hole in the back of the mother's shirt with my eyes, but it did not work.

                    I have always wondered if the mother intended to make her child a racist and if the little girl grew up to be one.

                    •  Oh my God, that is truly the embodiment of evil. (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      sberel, Tonedevil

                      What a horrible thing to do to that innocent child. What a useless waste of space that woman is. What rough Geographic location was this?

                    •  I think this may be an example of an honest (0+ / 0-)

                      misinterpretation of her actions.  I always taught my kids that it's impolite to stare at people.  Although I admit I don't understand the woman's remark "Isn't that better"...doesn't seem to relate to the circumstance.

                    •  Same happened to me. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      zett

                      Sitting in a greyhound bus, tall (as in Quarterback-tall) black guy and his ca. 5 year old daughter enter, take the row before mine.

                      Girl turns, smiles at me (white guy, tall, but no QB stature) I smile back, the dad sees it, tells the kid to turn, later changes the seat rows while looking angrily at me.

                      I'm not saying it is exactly the same situation. I know African-Americans are a minority, while whites have the majority and the power, but: If your experience is an example of white racism, mine would be one for black racism, no? Being an anti-racist activist (= often being the one white guy in the room), I experience stuff like this on a regular basis...

                      (I've told this story before in a similar discussion, and a black Kossack accused me of being a child molester because I smiled at the kid. Way to overcome racial tensions.)

                      "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect." Mark Twain

                      by aufklaerer on Fri May 13, 2011 at 01:52:24 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I see a difference, I reckon, because I was raised (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  CarbonFiberBoy, cdreid, sberel, jennybravo

                  to.  Now, I am working on myself to let black folks' perspectives into my mind.  I hope that counts for something.  But truth is, I'm still afraid.  It's easy to be afraid all the time when money is tight.  I have to work on my fears, too.

                  •  Yes, that's absolutely right. (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    zett, pengiep, sberel

                    Buddhists call it "stepping into nothingness." You have to step off and hope for updrafts. Nothing gained without that step. Fear is the little death. I said that.

                    Having run my own small business, which no one thought could ever succeed, for 37 years, I know all about fear.

                    Even though we were poor, we liked having our own business because every tiny success or failure was ours. No one to blame it on. Well, maybe Bush, but not really. We should have seen that one coming, and we did, but we didn't do enough to counter it in time.

                    Corruption is what keeps us safe and warm. Corruption is why we win. -Syriana

                    by CarbonFiberBoy on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:59:18 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  We can't refuse to see it until we get rid of it. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  sberel

                  I'm not sure I agree that "we can control our minds", since our minds are what is doing the controlling, but that's a different issue.

                •  I See A Difference (5+ / 0-)

                  Because I was born and raised in a white supremacist culture called America, same as everyone else.  Now, do I believe the differences I see have any real meaning in terms of human worth? Absolutely not.  But do they have real meaning in terms of how our society operates? Absolutely.

                  Refusing to see race in that context merely enables it.  Actually it does more than enable it - it feeds it.  In the last 40 or 50 years, America has shifted from being an overtly racist country to a covertly racist country (although the election of President Obama has scratched away some of the cover since folks' reactions have been so evocative of both hundreds of years of training that we simply are too inferior to be in charge of white folks' destiny and almost primal fears about Black people and what we might do as "revenge" if we have power).  IMO, it is directly tied to the cultural conspiracy that says that where racism is concerned, if you can't "see it" it doesn't exist.  Of course, it is a conspiracy because the laws have been carefully crafted to define racism as only that which you can actually "see" with "objective" measures -- i.e. patent admissions of intent.

                  It's a great system if you're the race in charge.  Unfortunately, it's killing the country.  Not that those in the majority are concerned about that.  They are concerned about their hurt feelings when Black folks, other people of color, and their race traitor allies call out racism for what it is.

                  If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

                  by shanikka on Fri May 13, 2011 at 04:18:12 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  And what are the odds (0+ / 0-)
                And until white people feel like we can breathe and don't have to be afraid, we are going to step on black folks or anybody else without even thinking about what we're doing.  

                of that happening, considering white people have been being continually told of their need to "be afraid; be very afraid" of anything and everything not them ( except, of course, the one thing that they actually should fear... the "greed is good" crowd that is actively giving them the  "Ned Beatty in Deliverance" treatment )

                It took 50 years of concerted effort to get white people to this point and now it is the norm as far as state of mind is concerned...

                Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

                by awesumtenor on Fri May 13, 2011 at 09:02:46 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  It's not ONLY that label of people but (0+ / 0-)

              it is them.

              God is good. If it isn't good. It isn't God.

              by publicv on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:33:12 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  You must not live in a red state. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            AZphilosopher, foufou

            These politicians exist because they have a constituency, not the other away around.

        •  It was generation after generation of (7+ / 0-)

          reinforcing the notion that white is the dominant race...and I guess it will take as many generations to totally irradicate this notion and have all of us just be classified as...uh humans.  What a concept.

          •  ??? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Aji, Imhotepsings, doroma

            Whites are the political majority (not the same as demographic majority) so I don't know what you're talking about.

            I notice that many recommends are given to the person who has a good answer, with hardly any given to the person who asks the right question. That is backwards to me; without that question, the good answer might never have come.

            by Nulwee on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:54:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  institutional racism (0+ / 0-)

              both benign and malignant is founded on the idea that people of european descent are inherently superior to all others on this planet... whether you argued it from a secular or religious perspective it was designed to reach the same conclusion; either europeans are superior because God ordained it to be so or because they are the "most evolved" of all homo sapiens.

              Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

              by awesumtenor on Fri May 13, 2011 at 09:27:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Probably better to use two terms (8+ / 0-)

          I think the "bad person" idea comes from our tendency to conflate what I see as two related but distinct issues.  One is "racism."  The other is what I'll call "racial discrimination."  We think people who practice the latter are "bad people," and they are.  But we also tend to make the mistake of assuming that racial discrimination is all that racism is.  Thus, people wrongly assume that if we eliminated all the "bad people" practicing racial discrimination, we'd be rid of racism.  Not so.

          In my view, racism is a much larger phenomenon, of which racial discrimination is only a part.  Racism is a pervasive thing.  It affects our society's economic order, our "justice" system, and our individual attitudes, to name just a few.  Getting rid of it will require a lot more than passing laws like Title VII.  So I think we might do a bit better in the discussion if we separated these terms.

          As for the conservative politicians, I don't think they've created this problem, they've simply been extremely adept at exploiting it for their own political ends.  But they'd never have had any success if racism weren't already out there for them to exploit.

          "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

          by FogCityJohn on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:46:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Getting rid of it will take a lot more than that (7+ / 0-)

            Jeebus on a crutch, John, sometimes, I swear, I have to wonder if the history of Reconstruction, let alone Franz Fanon, has been taught anywhere in the US for the last 40 years.

            Racism is in the interest of certain elites. It always has been. It is slavery without the whips and chains and chattel documents. If you're an inhuman monstrosity who wants to make a shitload of money and maintain all sorts of other dominion, and you don't  give a damn how you do it, you'll find institutional racism works FAR better than actual slavery ever did. You will be glad to pay to promote it, teach it to your kids, and teach other people to teach it to their kids.

            As long as it continues to be such, it will continue to be promoted and enforced, as a set of institutions, by those elites.

            In the teeth of that, all this talk about correcting liberal consciousness and boiling the ocean of white privilege and Daily Kos's being 98% white is just so many farts in a hurricane.

            •  I Recommended this (8+ / 0-)

              For the first part of what you wrote.  No the history of Reconstruction - and in particular, the history of the willful destruction of Black rights to strip away the limited progress former slaves collectively made during Reconstruction -- is not taught.  No, Franz Fanon is not taught.  Folks instead teach only about structural racism/laws and it is a major reason why we too often now have discussions that presume that racism is in the past, rather than also the present.  

              However, I disagree iwth your last paragraph because frankly we have to start somewhere and the Democratic brand is done if we cannot find long-lasting ways to communicate effectively between people of color and whites who are liberal.  So I never see this as a waste of time in the aggregate (even as I am definitely sick and tired of being sick and tired sometimes following individual bouts of discussion.)

              If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

              by shanikka on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:18:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for your recc (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                pengiep

                but my last paragraph is informed by the earlier ones. You of course, are welcome to fight racism anyway you choose, as long neither of us forgets that we are not  "starting somewhere" at all (given that people of many different ethinicities have been fighting and dying in this war for at least 600 years).

                Me, I've watched WAY too many years of Ron Karenga-style cultural revolutionaries standing around in dashikis chanting various BS slogans while they shopped the BPP to the FBI. I am, and will be forever, deeply suspicious of any "movement" that indulges in lots of consciousness-raising hype at the expense of acknowledging, much less attacking, the economic power and legitimacy of fundamentally racist US institutions, such as the justice system (from the Supreme Court on down) and (as I tried to allude to) the system of public education.

            •  I didn't purport to propose a comprehensive . . . (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              willibro

              solution to the problem.  I was just pointing out where I think the discussion sometimes goes off the rails.  

              Sorry if my comment was unclear.

              "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

              by FogCityJohn on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:32:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  I'd take it one step further and add (4+ / 0-)

        that the media presents social programs as if the only people that benefit from them are non-White. This is despite the fact that there are more Whites receiving "welfare" than any other group. The face of white poverty has been completely obliterated from our social conscience, so alot of Whites actually believe that these social programs favor certain groups above them.

      •  And it's been a successful propaganda campaign (0+ / 0-)

        During the civil rights struggles down here, the progressive/liberal meme that civil rights would improve things for ALL got a lot of play and many people, black and white, believed it.  We believed that all boats would be lifted up, so to speak, that everybody could "win."

        But the reactionaries got busy, busy, busy.  The Southern Strategy, and all those jerk-off GOP political activists like Lee Atwater (just to mention one) decided to make race-baiting a GOP trademark. And racial paranoia continued to work for them. Now that the rightwing echo chamber is a roar, these sorts of messages are everywhere. Just watch Fox news for a day.

        A lot of people think it's wierd that I don't really have conservative friends.  Not really. And I don't think that's unusual. AT least in this state liberals of all races tend to hang out mostly with other liberals.

        And this is the reason why.  We can't bear to hear this whiny-ass white persecution crap. I have relatives who are  wingnuts and get into this threatened-white-race crap; I've had coworkers do it too.  But I'd never voluntarily listen to that BS. The white people I spend time with don't believe this crap.  Are we a minority? Maybe so.

        It's pathetic--but it is YET ANOTHER CASE where the wingnuts' atrocious ideas win, because they are such avid & tireless propagandizers. I always try to argue with this whenever I hear it--but they believe Fox News more than me.

    •  It comes from racist propaganda like this: (49+ / 0-)

      Framing affirmative action as reverse racism has been affective political strategy for conservatives. These are the results. People buy it.

      These data were also collected after the economic downturn and scapegoating of racial/ethnic minorities by majority groups tends to increase in times of economic hardship.

      I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. I'm one of the Angry Gays. Deal with it.

      by psychodrew on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:12:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm in agreement with your view (32+ / 0-)

      that it's a victim complex and it's wrong-headed.

      It probably comes from working class whites who are looking for a scapegoat as to the fact that their wages haven't increased in the last 30 years.  Couple that with the decrease in union membership, and a depressed economy, and you can understand, although not agree with, the reasons they would be looking for a scapegoat.  

      "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

      by wildcat6 on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:12:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Which is why it's powerful for us (32+ / 0-)

        to focus on corporations and special interests as the real reason why their wages haven't increased. Politicians on our side should be pointing this out, but they aren't.

        I work with B2B PAC, and all views and opinions in this account are my own.

        by slinkerwink on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:15:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They aren't losing their jobs to blacks (26+ / 0-)

          They are losing them to Chinese / Indonesian / Brazilian guys who are being paid 1/10th of what an American earns.

          In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

          by blue aardvark on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:36:05 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If theories of privilege are correct, (22+ / 0-)

            then some whites have lost privileges.  This would show up in the poorer strata of whites, where skin privilege most made a difference.  The loss of privilege, even if minor privileges, could be seen as "discrimination" by some, especially where they are economically powerless.  Skin color becomes a big part of identity of such folks.

            It's easy to say these folks are stupid and bad, and certainly racism is both, but the key to changing some is understanding what is happening as they see it.  A cultural anthropology of whites who see the world as a zero sum game with blacks could be sueful to changing at least some.

            WWRHD? What Would Robin Hood Do?

            by TomP on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:46:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  In many cases, they're losing a privilege (25+ / 0-)

              they didn't realize they have which for me is the crux of white privilege, hetero, male  privilege etc. . You don't have to do anything active to have it; it just is. It's an accident of birth.

              When the playing field is leveled so that non-insert privilege group here can't be discriminated against, then that which wasn't actually earned but rather conferred, is perceived as loss.

              We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book.

              by Vita Brevis on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:18:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think you're right. (11+ / 0-)

                It may be in unmet expectations that they perceive as "normal."

                WWRHD? What Would Robin Hood Do?

                by TomP on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:20:44 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  We're experiencing this play out on a global basis (0+ / 0-)

                Everyone born in the US has advantages not available to people in other countries - clean water, plumbing, electricity, literacy, etc.  

                A "leveling" out of global prosperity seems like a WTO/G20 objective and rather than implement that in a bold and constructive managed way we get "free trade" that shifts American jobs off shore, takes from us to bring up the lives of other countries. The mediocrity of our global strategic planners and the tyranny of wealth creates intolerable local loss and unfulfilled gains elsewhere.

                Nothing is really being done to avoid the same reaction to globalization as what ruined affirmative action.  There will always be people who are unable or unwilling to embrace the opportunities due to their unwillingness to suffer a loss or just plain old resistance to change. Affirmative action was frequently blamed for what was instead simply a rigid resistance to change, mismanagement and incompetency provoking quotas. We're heading in the same direction by not managing a graceful transition to a global marketplace.

                Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

                by kck on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:50:13 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  well (0+ / 0-)
                  Everyone born in the US has advantages not available to people in other countries - clean water, plumbing, electricity, literacy, etc.  

                  most people, but by no means everyone, especially in some communities.

            •  But not all whites are "privileged" (5+ / 0-)

              And maybe it comes down to my definition of "privilege", which may not be yours. I definite "privileged" as being upper middle-class to well, going to either the best private or public high schools, knowing "the right people" at universities, and having "friends" who can open doors that would otherwise be closed. What comes to mind is the affluent Yale graduate who is in the right fraternity and has parents who are well-connected. Most whites don't have connections like that.

              •  You're describing class privilege, (32+ / 0-)

                economic privileges.

                For example, poor whites likely are not pulled over for driving while black.  Poor whites recevied job advantages for generations when blacks were discriminated against in job hiring.

                Class and race interesect at times, but they are different.  Whites can be underprivileged economcially and privileged in terms of race advantages in a still racist system.

                A black can be economically privileged, and yet subject to racism is some ways.

                Now intitutionalized racism (and 400 years of slavery followed by segregation and discrimination) set up a system in which people are born into under-privilege.

                It actually is complex, as is most things in life.

                It does not mean whites are "bad," although I think racism is immoral.   People do make choices.  

                But theiries of privilege are less about morality of the individual and more about opening people's eyes to the reality of racism in a more instiutionalized basis.

                Many poor whites are oppressed and exploited economically.  And yet, they may have certain skin privileges.

                The loss of those privileges would come with increasing equality.    As Vita said, the lsos of a privilege (especially one that is unrecognized by the recipient of the privilige) could well be preceived as discrimination by the person.  Add to that a deliberate policy of Republcians over the last 40 years of telling poor whites that they are vicitims of discrimination, and you get a feeling of a xero sum game among some whites.

                Let me give you an example,  Duke Power in the 70s was a big discrimination case.  Duke Power required janitors to have a high school diploma.  What that meant is a still de-facto, although no longer de jure, segregated North Carolina education system was that  fewer AAs had high scholl diplomas.   If I recal correctly, the janitors were all white or virtually all white.  The S.Ct. held that this was discrimination because a high school diploma was not related to the job requirements.

                Whites were privileged at that time with respect to those jobs.   And end to discrimination meant an end to that privelege, and the hiring of blacks meant that fewer whites got those jobs.  Those whites were unaware and may still be unaware of that privilege,  but the ones who could not get jobs because the high school diploma proxy for whiteness no longer worked, may well have screamed "reverse discrimination."

                It's complex, but I believe real.  People can debatte on the parameters of privilege, but I think the theory does describe reality in some ways.      

                WWRHD? What Would Robin Hood Do?

                by TomP on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:49:12 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Yes, you are privileged if you are white (11+ / 0-)

                unless you live a life where being white hurts your job chances, your likelihood of being arrested or mugged or beaten or raped or profiled in stores constantly.

                I notice that many recommends are given to the person who has a good answer, with hardly any given to the person who asks the right question. That is backwards to me; without that question, the good answer might never have come.

                by Nulwee on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:56:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It all depends on context (0+ / 0-)

                  in some contexts there is white privilege, such as the fact that a white teenage boy is less likely to be pulled over by the cops than a black teenage boy.  

                  In some contexts, there is a "privilege" given to minorities, such as in most college admissions process, government contracting, and some affirmative action hiring programs.  In those contexts, being white can be a disadvantage to some individuals.

                  But in my view, "privilege" is far more dependent on socio-economic class than race.  Even if the first context.  A teenage black boy looking more "preppie" (to use an outdated term) driving a nice new car in a middle class neighborhood is far less likely to be pulled over by the cops than a teenage boy dressed more "urban" (to use a fashion term) driving a not-as-nice car.  

                  •  Ahem. Do you understand (11+ / 0-)

                    that being black or hispanic or American Indian or south Asian means you are automatically more likely to have diabetes, certain cancers, be uninsured, be unemployed, be raped? Whoo, yay for a college admissions advantage that only confers advantage when all other factors have been adjusted.

                    No one is saying there aren't individuals like Tiger Woods who escape this Nexus. That isn't the point.

                    I notice that many recommends are given to the person who has a good answer, with hardly any given to the person who asks the right question. That is backwards to me; without that question, the good answer might never have come.

                    by Nulwee on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:12:09 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I'm glad you brought (10+ / 0-)

                      up the differring medical outcomes, as well as other outcomes.  Environmental justice looks closely at chemical body burdens and certain diseases.

                      Those outcomes arre more subtle and harder for some to see, but they can be scientifically quantifed.

                      WWRHD? What Would Robin Hood Do?

                      by TomP on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:18:38 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  If you would say that being black is (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Vtdblue

                      generally a disadvantage, or statistically, or something like that, I would agree with you.

                      It's the blanket statement that being white = privilege, and being black = disadvantaged, that I disagree with.  It's a matter of whether you look at it on a group basis (which you are doing) or on an individual basis (which I am doing).  

                      Blacks as a group are disadvantaged.  Whites as a group are privileged.  

                      On an individual basis, however, there is more nuance.  

                      And all the things you mentioned are statistical things that speak to the "group" basis.  In addition, those things you mentioned -- diabetes, certain cancers, uninsured, unemployed, or being the victim of crime like rape -- have as much to do with socio-economic class as they do with race.   Statistically, lack households are more likely to be low income (a higher percentage of black households are low income than white households).  So yes, if you are black, you are statistically more likely to be economically disadvantaged that if you are white.  Does that mean that every black person is economically disadvantaged, and every white person is economically advantaged?  Of course not.  On a group basis, yes; on an individual basis, it depends.  

                      That's why, to me, terms like "white privilege" are so broad as to be meaningless for starting a discussion.  You can't address some overall group notion of "white privilege."  You can address specific cause/effects of privilege and disadvantage in specific contexts.  

                      •  No, there are just other types of privilege. (6+ / 0-)

                        Being white is by definition a privilege.

                        In addition, those things you mentioned -- diabetes, certain cancers, uninsured, unemployed, or being the victim of crime like rape -- have as much to do with socio-economic class as they do with race.  

                        No, they don't. Even among middle-class blacks and American Indians, certain diseases are still persistently more common than among whites.

                        Granted, maybe if every person of racial minority status were a billionaire, we'd be on top of all our health inequity, but that aside. It may be partly to do with socio-economic status, but it is also partly genetic, and party to do with certain kinds of stresses that befall people who are born with the wrong appearance or into the racially inauspicious family.

                        The question of economic privilege is an entirely different axis. You're trying to negate the notion of inherent racial privilege with outliers and irrelevant examples, as if anyone ever suggested that the poorest of poor whites have some sort of bonanza every day of their lives. It's a dishonest debate.

                        I notice that many recommends are given to the person who has a good answer, with hardly any given to the person who asks the right question. That is backwards to me; without that question, the good answer might never have come.

                        by Nulwee on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:47:37 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Again, the distinction is privilege (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          badger, Vtdblue

                          as a group versus privilege on an individual basis.

                          I absolutely agree that as a group, whites statistically are privileged when compared to minorities.

                          I disagree that this general principle applies in the case of every white person and every minority person.  Even those things that are partly genetic.  As a group, those genetic risks apply more to minorities.  I absolutely agree.  Does that mean that every individual white person enjoys a genetic privilege?  Is a white man who has a strong  family history of heart disease "privileged" over a black man with a strong family history of diabetes?  

                          Inherent racial privilege exists on a group basis -- that can be statistically proven.  That is not the same as saying that every white person is "privileged" over every black person.  Statistics will demonstrate "most" "majority" or statistical significance.  They do not show that it is true in every individual sense.  

                          The difficult question is whether to use those group principles in all individual situations, regardless of the individuals before you.  Put more bluntly, does white privilege justify Sasha and Malia being the beneficiaries of an affirmative action type initiative, when whites below the poverty line are not?  Does group "white privilege" trump individual situations or other factors -- such as economics act to provide advantages or disadvantages to the specific individuals before you?  

                          I would argue that we should move toward a system where individual economic privilege, or disadvantage, trumps racial privilege or disadvantage. And I think that decision needs to be made in a context- by context way.  When decisions are made on an individual basis, group privileges/disadvantages matter less.  For example,  I'd rather see a low-income black student and a low-income white student be the beneficiaries of affirmative action initiatives in college admissions than a low-income black student and a child of a black doctor.  On the other hand, in situations like racial profiling by police where decisions are improperly made on the basis of group identity (like police pulling people over because of race) group privilege is much, much more relevant.  

                          •  You're comparing apples to oranges (6+ / 0-)

                            When everything else is adjusted, like class and sex, geography, et cet, whites are still more privileged than African-Americans.

                            Compare a white vs a black homeless person. Compare a male vs. female homeless person. They may not be "privileged" in the sense you mean, but one party in each scenario is more privileged than the other. Doesn't mean that life isn't still fraught with risks and inequities.

                            I notice that many recommends are given to the person who has a good answer, with hardly any given to the person who asks the right question. That is backwards to me; without that question, the good answer might never have come.

                            by Nulwee on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:40:01 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  We agree that (0+ / 0-)

                            "when everything else is adjusted," whites are more privileged.  That is a statistical fact.

                            Where we disagree, I think, is what role that should play when we are making distinctions that affect that lives of individuals who may, or may not, fall within those statistical norms.  I think that, when the distinctions are group distinctions, yes.  I think that when the distinctions are individual distinctions -- hiring, promotions, college admissions, government contracts -- not so much.  

                            Say we have local small businesses bidding on the same city contract, and the bids are pretty similar (fitting into your "when everything else is adjusted").  One is by Company A, owned by politically-connected upper income black man.  One is by Company B, owned by working class Asian who is trying to start a business. (not so far-fetched for my city of New Orleans, which has a network of politically-connected African-American businesses and a working-class Vietnamese population in New Orleans East.)  Should race play a role in making that decision?  I would say no.  No matter which person belongs belongs to the more privileged group, the distinction here ought to be  based on factors unique to the individuals, not factors applicable to the two racial groups.  I would prefer that the government contract process, in that situation, to take into account the socio-economic background of the two individuals and give the preference to the one trying to build a business.

                            Again, I do not dispute that whites, as a group, are statistically privileged.  I simply question what role that should play in the decisions that have major impacts on the lives of individuals.  I think that should be a context-based thing, not some flat assumption that, because one belongs to a privileged group, one should always be regarded as privileged in all contexts.

                  •  to be fair those admission schemes (6+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TomP, Anak, Deep Texan, Matt Z, Tonedevil, Nulwee

                    were designed as an affirmative means to overcome the structural and baked-in-the-cake discrimination against minorities.  Employment discrimination still exists, to the point that a white felon has the same chance of getting a job interview as a black person without a criminal record (imagine if they did).

                    This is actually a case in point of the mindset. You saw affirmative action and positive discrimination as a "privilege" of being a minority when, in fact, it is only meant to level and counteract the existing white privilege.

                    Leveling the playing field in a field still beset with advantages (conscious and not-conscious) for whites.

                    Affirmative action gets the attention because it has a name, it is publicized, and it is a formal policy.  Yet, the unfairness in society it is meant to counteract is never seen because nobody sees it, or doesn't even know (or believe) it exists.  

                    All they see is the positive discrimination, they do not see the negative discrimination it is counteracting (to give minorities more opportunities that the flawed society would deem to give them).

                    White privilege has been so a part of American society that most do not even recognize its existence, but, as others have said as well; when it disappears or something is put in place to counteract or address it, it suddenly feels as if they are the victim being unfaily targeted.  They never even understood their initial advantage in the first place so this feels as if they are being discriminated against unfairly.

                    •  It is a group privilege (0+ / 0-)

                      but not always an individual privilege

                      Whites as a group are statistically privileged.  That's absolutely true.  

                      However, on an individual basis, it is much more nuanced.  An individual white person may be privileged by race in some contexts and disadvantaged by his race in other contexts.  An uneducated white family operating below the poverty line in a crime-infested neighborhood may not see much "white privilege."  You could show all the statistics you want that absolutely prove that whites as a group are statistically privileged.  

                      Just as it would be very difficult to argue that Sasha and Malia suffer from much disadvantage due to their race. Oh, sure, there will be times when someone behaves irrationally toward them because of race.  But the times will be far fewer, and -- more importantly -- have minimal impact on their lives, and are more akin to the unfairness that most of us suffer  because of some reason or another.  I, myself, am "vertically challenged" -- kind of short -- and as a woman lawyer, I know that has worked against me when some less enlightened lawyers view my credibility or evaluate my skills.  People who are not  attractive by today's conventional methods, are overweight, have a lot of freckles, wear glasses, are aging, or whatever all experience that unfair stereotyping once in a while.

                      The overriding problem is when you apply group concepts -- like "white privilege" --  to individual situations, like which of the two of you gets into this school, gets this job, gets this promotion.  If the race of a white person actually acts as a disadvantage to that particular person in that particular situation, they are not at all comforted by the notion that it is indisputably true that, as a group, whites enjoy white privilege.

                      The question is whether group concepts justify application of race-based solutions to individuals in specific situations, where the individuals involved may, or may not, have been part of the group privilege or group disadvantage.

                      •  the privilege is there (5+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        TomP, Anak, Deep Texan, Tonedevil, Nulwee

                        and all things being equal, it will be a 'plus' for a white man in the same socio-economic situation  and neighborhood as a black man. Simple as that.

                        In the absence of better solutions, then we have to do what we can to address the systemic discrimination that stacks the playing field against minorities. Will that cause resentment? Sure, in part because many do not even realize their group privilege to begin with. More awareness may lessen this resentment but probably wont eliminate it. It doesn't help when all the discourse is dominated by people who frame in a manner that never even concedes the existence of the initial systemic discrimination in the first place.

                        The problem then is that affirmative efforts to address discrimination are more stop gaps; ones that by their nature helping to feed the negative feelings (however unjustified) towards minorities.

                        The stop-gaps may be necessary but in the future need to change and be eliminated. But for them to be eliminated requires that something be done to change the underlying white privilege to begin with.

                        How to do that? Address race openly and eagerly at a young age (both white and minority parents). It has to stop being one of those taboo subjects. It must be openly talked about and the words have to be said that other races are "like us."  I'm not sure who has seen Solidad O'Briens special on race: Children are sponges and inherently soak up the social rules, norms, and prevalent ideas in their society

                        Without talking to their kids, these  kids picked up "being white is good, being black is bad"  Even black kids learned to be ashamed of their blackness and to point to lighter skinned drawings as "good" and "prettier".  That's what happens when you do not actively talk to your kids about race. Actively tell them that we are all similar and that black can be good, as can white.

                        Until then, these imperfect stop gaps are necessary and I will support their use.

                        •  We disagree on the solution (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          denise b

                          For me, the key to your point is "all things being equal," it is a plus to be white.  When you are making decisions on a group basis, that is absolutely a legitimate distinction to make.

                          But when you are dealing with individuals, you can't make that statement about "all things  being equal."   Because they are not.  It's a matter of weighing the advantages/disadvantages.  Does the socio-economic privilege of Sasha and Malia outweigh the white privilege of a child raised in poverty?  Pure raced-based affirmative action, where being a member of an underrepresented racial or ethnic group is a factor in your favor in the admissions process, says no -- Sasha and Malia may well get extra consideration in college admissions over the white child raised in poverty going to underperforming schools.  And that breeds racial resentment.

                          Economic-based affirmative action college admission programs say that for this one situation economic privilege outweigh racial privilege, and we're going to give extra consideration to the white child raised in poverty over Sasha and Malia.  In this context, economic privilege trumps racial privilege.  

                          Again, I absolutely agree that group privilege, as a generalization, is a statistically provable fact.  

                          I disagree that this statistically provable group fact should play a significant role in all individual situations when decisions should be made based on the facts applicable to the individual over the facts applicable to the group.  

                          •  I didn't say that it could not be tweeked (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Deep Texan, Tonedevil

                            But in general, positive discrimination to overcome the general anti-minority discrimination is something that is necessary. In individual cases can policy take such apparent socio-economic differences into account.  Sure.

                            But overall, affirmative positive discrimination is a necessity; race should be something that employers and admissions people look at as part of their hiring/admissions calculus since unofficially (at least in the labor market) employers seem to be looking at race.

                            http://www.princeton.edu/...

                            A study in New York shows that race, on its own and independent of qualifications, or other factors, had an effect on how likely a respondent would get a positive reaction from an employer.

                            Can we guard for the most egregious examples like the Malia v. poor white kid example? Sure.  But in principle race should be seen as a factor for the most part.

                          •  I'm not sure there's universal agreement to this (0+ / 0-)
                            But in general, positive discrimination to overcome the general anti-minority discrimination is something that is necessary.

                            What you are saying is that present racial discrimination in favor of Group 1 and against Group 2 is necessary due to prior racial discrimination against Group 1 and in favor of Group 2.  

                            In other words, we can racially discriminate against Charlie from Group 2 in favor of Joe from Group 1 because others from Charlie's Group have discriminated against Joe's Group in the past, and some in Charlie's Group may still discriminate against Joe's Group. Even if Charlie had nothing to do with it, personally, and even if Joe, personally, wasn't greatly impacted by it in a way that relates to the job they are both applying for.  

                            Do you think Charlie is not going to resent that?  Are you surprised that people from Group 2 think that, when preferences based on race are applied to Group 1, that is a racial disadvantage to them?  Do you think that Charlie will say, well,  my Group (not necessarily me, at least not all that much) is generally more privileged, so Joe should get the job over me based on the fact that he belongs to a disadvantaged Group?

                            Charlie is absolutely going to resent that, especially if "Group" is "race."  Very few Charlies in this world are going to say, hey, that all right, I'll lose the job, the promotion, the college admission, in the name of racial diversity.  

                            As long as those decisions are perceived by people who lose out as race-based, at least in part, there is going to be racial resentment.  

                            I understand it's a process, but I think we need to move from race-based consideration to socio-economic based consideration.  

                          •  have in the past? (4+ / 0-)

                            It's still ongoing. That new york study was done in 2005.

                            We aren't on an equal playing field.

                            Employment discrimination exists now. A stop gap measure is affirmative action to address and counter that tendency.

                            It's not perfect. But just because some people abuse unemployment insurance and don't look for work, doesn't mean the program is not worthy of being continued.  Some people may feel that they were passed over wrongly, but it doesn't negate the public and societal good that is being achieved by leveling the group playing field.

                            But can policy to stop Malia from being considered more for a scholarship vs. the white kid from 8 mile be implemented. I think so.  The thrust of the program is good though, whether in some individual cases it might unfortunately not be optimal.  That can be addressed by measures to reduce those cases, but it does not make the affirmative action type programs unworthy to continue.

                          •  I said "and some still do discriminate." (0+ / 0-)

                            But Charlie does not, and he is disadvantaged because of his race.   And Joe had a middle-class upbringing, went to decent schools, a decent college -- certainly no worse than Charlie.  And yet he gets a perceived advantage because of his race.  

                            That kind of thing breeds resentment.  

                            Few people will willingly agree that they should be personally disadvantaged by their race in the name of some greater societal good.  This method of accomplishing that good carries with it racial resentment.  It is necessarily going to be that way.  So the greater societal good  needs to be measured against the societal harm caused by the inherent racial resentment in any race-based preference.  

                            In my view, a similar societal good could be achieved (i.e, providing opportunity to those most in need) by using preferences based on something like socio-economic background, and would not be accompanied by the racial resentment that is inherent in any program of racial preferences.  

                            I guess my point is that as long as race is used as a preference in some way, the group that is not "preferred" is going to have racial resentment. There's no getting around that.  

                          •  Yes, all things being equal (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Deep Texan, Tonedevil

                            Charlies race is typically an advantage. That employment study should show that to be the case (and this is in a diverse city with formal laws baring racial disrimination btw).

                            all things being equal, Charlie has a leg up on "BlackCharlie" in the same socio-economic and qualification standing.  Just going by socio-economic status will ignore this aspect of our society that consciously (or subconsciously) discriminates DUE to race.  To base it solely on socio-economic standards would ignore this and in large part replicate the problem.

                            I said socio-economic by itself is flawed. I didn't say it could not be part of the calculus along with race.

                            Is it prone to resentment. Sure.

                            But the other purely socio-econ system would not really deal with the employment discrimination in a satisfactory manner and it might just lead to the same discrimination because if two individuals of different races and the same socio-economic status are put forward; in the absence of policy, the white candidate is much more likely to be hired (well, just as likely if the white candidate has a felony and the black one doesn't) . You need to look at more than just socio-econ status. No avoiding that.

                            It's not perfect and will engender some resentment, but until the latent "preference" for whites in our society is attacked, seeing race as one factor in employment has to be done.

                          •  Then, as I said elsewhere, no one (0+ / 0-)

                            should be surprised by the study that shows that some whites believe that "discrimination" against them has increased during the time that race-based preferences were used in such decisions.  

                            It's not surprising that people would think "my race was used to my disadvantage" equates to "racial discrimination against me." And I think that view -- which necessarily accompanies decisions/preferences based, at least in part, on race -- is toxic to our society and actually HURTS the overall cause of working toward ultimate racial equality.   My thinking is that, if you really want to move toward a situation where, all things being equal, the black candidate is not statistically less likely to get the job, then using a system that fosters racial resentment hurts your long-term goal.  

                            You think that the racial resentment is an acceptable price our society pays for the benefits conferred by programs/decisions that use race as a factor. I believe another system could provide most of the same benefits to  without that accompanying price.  We both agree that neither system is perfect -- your preference carries the accompanying racial resentment, my preference does not right as many wrongs as yours does, but does not carry as much racial resentment.  It's a matter of balancing the benefits against the cost.  

                            Difference of opinion.

                          •  It is hard for me to understand this concept of (0+ / 0-)

                            racial resentment. It seems to me that it says some white people resent the presence of blacks in college,  employment, etc. because they think a white person should be there. To me, racial resentment and white privilege are one in the same because they would not have the resentment if a white person got the opportunity.

                            Blaming Affirmative Action for racial resentment is just scapegoating. It seems you equate black people as the primary beneficiaries of Affirmative Action policies despite the fact that all of the evidence shows that white women have been. Also, affirmative action policies range from weak (all things equal, race will be a plus) to strong (less qualified, race is overiding factor). Most colleges and employers use weaker forms since they like to keep students in school and do not want employees that are not up to the job. Many companies have learned over time that they need diversity in their companies to better reach the diversity of their customers/consumers. That is why numerous Fortune 500 companies contribute to programs and scholarships that identify talented minorities (Hispanic, Asian, Native Americans, etc.). At least that is the reason they gave at the ones I attended and my economic background was not a factor.

                            I believe that it is just the color of my skin that makes people "resent" my presence where they believe I do not belong based on assumptions. For example, I went to graduate school naively believing that I would be accepted as "belonging" because admission was based on college grades, school attended, and work experience. I found out the first day how wrong I was when my assigned study group member told me I did not deserve to be there and I stole his friend's spot. He knew nothing about me. It turned out that neither he nor his friend deserved to be there since he did not make it past the first semester and I got great grades and graduated.  

                  •  that's not the story i've heard (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    sberel

                    from friends and acquaintances who are black, even in otherwise liberal college town communities.

                •  No, that's not the definition of privileged. (0+ / 0-)

                  You are basically defining "privileged" as "not having a disadvantage"; when really privileged is more accurately defined as specifically having an advantage.  

                  If you are a poor white guy in white Appalachia, you do NOT have white privilege, because being white gives you absolutely no advantages over your neighbors. The absence of a disadvantage does not equate to having a privilege. That's just the linguistic reality of it.

                  Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

                  by bigtimecynic on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:57:46 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Your comment makes no sense. (5+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Anak, foufou, Deep Texan, Tonedevil, Nulwee

                    It's a teeter-totter.  Privilege is = to not being underprivileged.  Two sides of the same coin.

                    If you are a poor white guy in W. Va., you probably have many privileges over an AA in W. Va.  You posit a lily white world in W. Va.  In a world with only whites, no white has skin privilege.  Duh, but that's not the world.  

                    Want to make a bet about how fast an AA in W. Va. gets "underprivileged" by the oppressed whites?

                    WWRHD? What Would Robin Hood Do?

                    by TomP on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:06:57 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  West Virginia is in fact 95% white. (0+ / 0-)

                      Which is why my comment makes perfect sense. Statistically speaking, West Virginia (and other areas in this country) are nearly entirely white.  

                      And not being underpriviliged is ABSOLUTELY not even remotely the same thing as being privileged. Come on man, tell me that basic definitions are not open for debate now. If you can find a definition that proves me wrong, kindly paste it into a response.

                      Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

                      by bigtimecynic on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:16:05 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Huh? (8+ / 0-)

                        Be black in W. Va. and then come back and tell us all about the lack of white privilege.

                        As for "definitions", do you think arguments to a dictionary win?  

                        You seem very resistant to the concept that whites may have skin privilege.  

                        Under priviliged = the lack of privilege

                        Privileged = having more than some others, i.e., not being under privileged.  

                        You can play with definitions, but reality will remain the same.

                        I hope your heart and eyes open some day.

                        WWRHD? What Would Robin Hood Do?

                        by TomP on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:23:23 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Oy vey. A Daily Kos race diary. (0+ / 0-)

                          Only down this rabbit hole would being treated exactly the same as the rest of your poor coal mining neighbors who look exactly like you be defined as having white privilege.  All because a black man 5 counties away gets subjected to racism in a way that in no way gives you an advantage in life. Classic.

                          Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

                          by bigtimecynic on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:12:42 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

              •  tip for your own personal observation (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TomP, blindyone, Exquisite, mikejay611, Matt Z

                I'm white and I try to educate myself on these things and I may be wrong, but from reading here on DKOS and elsewhere about white privilege, I understood it to mean solely, or mostly, to just BEING white, regardless of income, social standing, etc etc.

              •  You also have to consider the privilege that (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                raina, foufou, Matt Z, Tonedevil

                comes along with simply having white or lighter skin. A poor white person still has the advantage of having fair skin, and a rich black person still has the disadvantage of having brown skin. People are still judged by the color of their skin, and it still plays a major role in our society. Even within the black community, lighter skinned blacks are given preference, and this goes back all the way to slavery. I've heard the same sentiments expressed by Indians and Hispanics.

          •  and that is where the real war lies. (0+ / 0-)

            in the money. the rest is distraction by the moneyed interests even if it is a pernicious, and insidiously evil distraction. we do have to address it and keep it somewhat in check, but we can't get rid of it until the PTB change.

            blink-- pale cold

            by zedaker on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:44:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  No (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nulwee, wildcat6, Criticalfrimmel, Marie

        Woiking-class whites aren't "looking for a scapegoat", as much as they believe that the Democrats are just indifferent, if not hostile, to their interests.

    •  I hear you. I'm a white American male, (31+ / 0-)

      and I have experienced the bizarre phenomenon of male-white privilege my entire life.

      I see Future-Shocking older white folks and conservatives panicking because in small ways that privilege, that assumption that being white puts one at the top of the hill, as it were, is lessening.

      And they freak the frak out. I simply don't get it.

      So he says to me, do you wanna be a BAD boy? And I say YEAH baby YEAH! Surf's up space ponies! I'm makin' gravy WITHOUT THE LUMPS! HAAA-ha-ha-ha!!!

      by Cenobyte on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:14:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It does happen... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue aardvark, Sychotic1, wblynch

      I've seen it happen in the DOD defense contracting.  When layoffs came around, minorities were often spared, even if they had less experience than white males.  I'm not saying that it is wide spread, but I have seen it.

      [F]undamentalists pretty much fall under the same banner ie. "we cant control our junk" - LaFeminista

      by RichM on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:21:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes. Sometimes there are quotas even if (7+ / 0-)

        nothing is written down.

        I've also seen people taking care "of their own" who weren't white males. Or white males taking care "of their own" by some subdivision of white maleness, e.g., a "Mormon Mafia" where Boss is Mormon, appoints Mormon B as Supervisor, who makes Mormon C a lead engineer.

        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

        by blue aardvark on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:38:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is more of... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wblynch

          The DOD offers financial incentives to hire minorities.  If a DOD contractor hires a minority, they get to take advantage of those incentives.  I'm not saying 'being white sucks'.  But to pretend like no one is ever discriminated against because the are white is wrong.  BTW - I don't really see this same dynamic in the private sector.

          [F]undamentalists pretty much fall under the same banner ie. "we cant control our junk" - LaFeminista

          by RichM on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:46:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For the purposes of those incentives (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            RichM, mikejay611

            white women count as "minorities".

            Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

            by awesumtenor on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:01:23 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I can sympathize with white people (1+ / 0-)

            feeling that they've been discriminated against because of quotas or diversity mandates, but at the end of the day I think that the focus on diversity and equal opportunity in the public sector is moving us in the right direction. As a doctor working at a county hospital in Houston, I can tell you that prioritizing diversity improves patient care. When med school and residency admissions boards are meeting to select applicants, they're hoping to find people that will understand the population they're treating. I can't tell you how many times we've had patients that only speak Vietnamese, or a particular dialect of Mandarin, and how much easier it made our jobs to have a Vietnamese student who could translate and/or educate us about their culture. That's not to say that a white guy couldn't learn vietnamese or treat the patient equally as well, just making the point that it's an asset to have people of all backgrounds in any work environment, especially public service.

        •  Applies to All "Minorities" (8+ / 0-)
          "...I've also seen people taking care "of their own" who weren't white males. Or white males taking care "of their own" by some subdivision of white maleness, e.g., a "Mormon Mafia" where Boss is Mormon, appoints Mormon B as Supervisor, who makes Mormon C a lead engineer..."

          I suspect that, if one were to do an intensive analysis of this phenomenon, one would find that the same thing happens among all "minorities" and has happened through almost all history.  Minority religious groups (Mormon, Jews, Catholics in some circumstances, Sikh, etc.) racial and ethnic groups (African-Americans, Irish, Italians, Slavs, South Asians, East Asians), and just plain weird personalities (geeks and nerds come to mind) all tend to pick folks who mirror themselves.  I believe it's one of the factors important in the whole migrant experience, wherein a family member helps another member of the clan to find a job in their organization.

          "Love the Truth, defend the Truth, speak the Truth, and hear the Truth" - Jan Hus, d.1415 CE

          by PrahaPartizan on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:09:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The point is balance. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        RichM, TomP, Nulwee, Exquisite, Tonedevil

        The attitude charts show both the cause and the effect.

        Both races agree that things are getting better.  Whites think "we're there", Blacks realize we're not.

        I expect that the steady-state will still show this disagreement.  Whites will be content with "much less discrimination", and Blacks will still say "this sucks".

        -7.75 -4.67

        "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose."

        There are no Christians in foxholes.

        by Odysseus on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:53:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That is why anecdotes never add up to data. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil

        http://www.commondreams.org/...
        the link shows actual unemployment data, 8.8 for whites 16.9 for blacks.

    •  From dumbf*ck losers unwilling to accept any (7+ / 0-)

      responsibility for their failure at life. Easier to blame those dang black folks.

    •  This survey is not surprising at all to me. (14+ / 0-)

      I think the views of whites come from anecdotal information, rather than some overall empirical evidence.  

      Many of the whites who believe that will have an anecdotal story where a racial minority was given a "preference" over a "better qualified" white.  These stories often involve situations where race or ethnicity is taken into account in awarding limited "spots" to a pool of candidates.

      For example, many of the better colleges take race/ethnicity into account in admissions.  So, every year you will have instances of where a white student with better qualifications (better SAT scores, better high school records) is not admitted, but a student with a racial/ethnic minority background, and lower qualifications (in terms of SAT scores and high school records) is admitted.  Ironically, a lot of this kind of discontent in places like California comes from parents of Asian students, who (if admissions were totally "blind" to race or ethnicity) would be even more overrepresented in the best schools.  You see this kind of discussion all the time.

      The parents of the white students with these steller records, who were not admitted but saw peers with lesser records admitted to tier 1 colleges, are pretty bitter about their kid not getting into the school of his/her choice.  They perceive that as "white discrimination" and will tell you "if my child were [insert racial/ethnic minority here] he/she would have been accepted."  And they may well be correct, since many of the top tier schools do take race/ethnicity into account into admissions.

      That sometimes happens in hiring as well. Some large employers are concerned about the racial/ethnic makeup of their workforce, so it happens that a white candidate with a better record "on paper" is passed over for a minority candidate.  

      And, of course, there are those instances that make the papers (often in terms of lawsuits) where, in the public sector (such as firefighters) race or ethnicity is taken into account in promotions such that a lesser-qualified (on paper or test scores where that is applicable) minority candidate will be given a promotion over a white candidate.  

      I think the whites who see this as a "zero sum game" view resources such as school admissions, hiring, promotion as limited (there are only so many slots) and so they perceive that, when race or ethnicity is taken into account to give an opportunity to a minority candidate, it is "discrimination" against an arguably "better qualified" white candidate.

      Given that view (which I hear pretty often, especially by parents of kids trying to get into the most competitive schools) I am not at all surprised by the results of this study.  For example, I hear parents say -- all the time -- that college applications should not have a space to indicate race or ethnicity, that admissions should be totally blind to that.  

      Unfortunately, when you are dealing with limited resources (like admissions, hiring, or promotions), any attempt to give a preference to minorities in the name of diversity is going to be perceived by those who didn't get the position as racial discrimination against them.  

      •  I was on the short end (9+ / 0-)

        of the preferential treatment stick.  I got over it and excelled anyway.  I didn't use it to hate on minorities the rest of my life.

        Goddamn people are just weak.  W-E-A-K.  Especially bitter suburban white kids.  Those fucks wouldn't last two hours doing some of the shit I do.

        Obama's wallet is the one that says Bad Motherfucker on it.

        by Uncle Chigurh on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:24:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  I've thought of it more (9+ / 0-)

        as not "better qualified" but minimum qualifications in these situations.

        I had a professor in college who really transformed my views on this issue. He talked for about 90 minutes (for a 75 minute class!) straight, without notes, and with so much passion I don't think a single student took 1 line of notes - we were all transfixed.  His argument essentially boiled down to the whole notion of "better qualifications" is an illusion because it involves value judgments.

        Why is a student with 10 more points on the SAT "better qualified" for Harvard then a student with 10 less points but worked a part time job?  My professor argued that white privilege allows whites to define "better" in a way that always gave them an advantage.

        Instead, he concluded that we should think of these issues as meeting minimum qualifications.  If you set out a bar that students must meet X,Y and Z to be admitted  then that's the standard.  So all students going to college A must have at least a 1200 SAT, 3.5 GPA, etc...

        After that point no one student is more or less deserving of a spot than another who meets the minimum qualifications.  The white student didn't deserve the spot anymore than the african american student.

        It is hard though - I've been passed up for jobs by people who I felt were "less qualified" than me for positions. It's easy to think it was probably their race/gender/age that gave them the advantage over me (white/male).  

        But then I remember that college lecture and think - well, did the person meet the same minimum qualifications as me?  Yes. So, I didn't "deserve" the position any more than he/she.

        "The Commonwealth requires the education of the people as the safeguard of order and liberty." -- Board of Trustees, Boston Public Library

        by debaterdanny on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:24:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I cannot see this view being widely accepted (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mindful Nature

          We as a society like to think that our goal (we certainly do not always achieve it) is meritocracy.  That involves making value decisions, not simply minimum qualifications.  And we like it when those value decisions are based more objectively.

          Take sports, by way of example.  Tens of thousands of high school athletes each year dream of becoming millionaire pro athletes.  We don't say, everybody who meets some minimum standard is "qualified" to play major league baseball, so we don't make value judgments about ability beyond that.  No, we operate by way of competition.  Even if an entire group means minimal standards, we make value decisions about who is better qualified.  

          The same applies to almost everything we do.  When I hire an employee (I'm a partner in a law firm) I have minimum standards for getting an interview, because there's no hard and fast limit as to how many people I interview.  But, if I have 2 associate spots to fill, and 10 candidates who meet those minimum standards, I make value decisions and it's often based at least substantially on things like law school record.  We keep track, and statistically a better law school record translates into a greater chance of long-term success at our firm.  Colleges keep such stats as well, and have found that the greatest predictor of first-year college success is high grade point average and SAT scores.  It is fruitless to argue that colleges should simply set some minimal standard rather than evaluating students based on a comparison of their academic records when those academic records are the strongest predictor of success in college.  When the spots are limited -- i.e., when it's a 'zero sum game" and accepting one means rejecting another -- then yes, we are going to compare rather than just setting minimums.  

          •  But a lot of it is arbitrary. (5+ / 0-)

            College admissions for elite colleges have a giant pool of students who truly are qualified and as they admit (I heard one from Dartmouth on NPR recently saying so), admissions are to some degree random.

            My colleague does some admissions work and she gets tons of students who are all extremely qualified and who all look great in a myriad of ways. Any one of them would be a fine addition to the school. Obviously there are some who fall below the admissions line, but selective universities are not forced to choose from among those ranks; their problem is a surfeit of highly qualified students, not a deficit.

            •  The problem is that when you make decisions (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              NearlyNormal

              based on an inherent characteristic - like race or ethnicity -- that is naturally going to breed resentment by those who are not of the preferred race or ethnicity.  

              If you have a surfeit of highly qualified students, and you give preference to Native Americans over Asians because at your college Asians are statistically over-represented, that clearly will be perceived by the Asian applicant as racially unfair.  That Asian applicant was disadvantaged by her race.  

              I agree that there is a surfeit of highly qualified applicants.  But decisions need to be made on the basis of something that the applicants had some control over, that seemingly is the basis of merit.  Major League Baseball has that same surfeit of highly - qualified athletes (it's called the minor leagues) but if they made decisions as to who was called up to the minors based on race or ethnicity, there would rightly be a tremendous outcry. They can't say, well, we have three good shortstops here, two black and one Asian, but our team is 60% black and no Asians so we'll go with the Asian shortstop.  But that's the suggestion as to what colleges should do in race-based diversity/affirmative action programs.  "We have 10 qualified applicants and four spots -- 5 applicants are Asian, 4 are white, one is black.  We'll take the black applicant, 2 white applicants, and one of the five Asians, because our college population is heavily Asian already."  You don't think those other four Asian students know that their race was a disadvantage to them?  And you don't expect them to resent that?  

              Frankly, if you took those 10 applicants and did a lottery, that would be perceived as more fair by the rejected applicants than having their race act as a disadvantage in the process.  

              I would prefer to take socio economic status into account in selecting among those 10.  It is much harder for a poor kid of whatever race from an underperforming school to get qualifying SAT scores, so taking into account that it was harder for them to get to that level -- it took more work, determination, intelligence -- makes sense to me, regardless of race.

              •  But the constant harping (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                burlydee, Deep Texan, Tonedevil

                on this one factor (which I for one think is legitimate; I don't think it would be beneficial to, say, the state of Michigan to graduate a class that was in no way representative of the population of Michigan) is I think a bit disingenuous.

                Maybe your child doesn't get admitted because she plays French horn and they already admitted 4 French horn players and really needed a cellist for the music department. Maybe he doesn't get in because 5 stars from his high school got in already and they want more geographic diversity. Maybe she didn't get in because her essay wasn't as poignant as that student who wrote about her experience of racism. Maybe he didn't get in because he's interested in major X and they need more in major Y.

                The fact is you can't just point to one single factor as the defining issue. There are a large number of criteria that go into every up or down decision about each student.

                •  Race is a unique issue (0+ / 0-)

                  It is a hot-button issue, I think.  

                  When a person's race is a clearly and openly a disadvantage to them in decisions that are supposed to be based on an evaluation of the individual (not the group to which that individual belongs), I think the person affected is going to be resentful, whether the person is white, black, Asian, or Native American.  We, as a nation, don't think race should be used to disadvantage people.  And people who are on the wrong side of programs that take race into account are almost always going to believe that their race was a disadvantage to them.  

                  That's racial resentment -- the subject of this diary.

                  That's far more noxious than someone who believes his French horn playing, or his major, was used against him.

                  My belief is that by basing affirmative action programs on things like socio-economic class, you would generally benefit those most in need of extra opportunity while lessening the racial resentment.  

                  •  I dunno. (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    blindyone, burlydee, Deep Texan, Tonedevil

                    I think it's kind of BS and a copout to look at your kid who didn't get in and the kid in the next neighborhood over who did and say, "That kid got in and my kid didn't because of race."

                    There are lots of factors that students bring to the table that are group-based. Geographic diversity, for example. Or maybe your kid at his high-income suburban high school has a teacher who graduated from that institution and wrote one of his recommendations, and that carries more weight than the letter from the unknown teacher at a rural school. There are all kinds of things playing into the decision.

                    The reason nobody is suing because the French horn player got in over the cellist is because they can't identify the cello families as "other." It's not because it has any more merit as an idea than allowing race to be a factor in admissions. I'm fine with including SES too (which colleges already do) but attempting to represent the diversity of one's state is in my view a legitimate goal among many for an admissions committee.

                    •  Look, when California stopped using (0+ / 0-)

                      race as a factor in admissions, the percentage of Asian students on those campuses grew dramatically.  

                      You don't think that's at least some support that, prior to eliminating race from the criteria, California's admission policy disadvantaged Asians?  And you don't think that Asians were maybe just a little justified in resenting the fact that their race was, in effect, used against them in deciding whether they got into the best colleges?  

                      •  Justified? (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        blindyone, Deep Texan, Tonedevil

                        Not really, because as I wrote above, representing at least to some degree the population of one's state is, I believe, a legitimate goal of college admissions.

                        Would it be good for the University of California, which is in a state that will be majority Latino in the next 5 years, to graduate very few Latino undergraduates? I don't think so.

                        •  Do you think people will accept (0+ / 0-)

                          losing that college slot, job, or promotion based on their race in the name of a greater societal good?

                          Do you think most people will say, that's ok, use my race against me if it is for the greater societal good? If you think the majority of people will take that view, we have a serious disagreement.  I think that people who perceive that their race was "used against them" are always going to resent that.  In other words, racial resentment is always going to be a part of any program that gives preferences based on race. I don't think you can have one without the other.  You and I may well agree that such diversity is a legitimate goal for the University of California.  The student who lost one of the limited slots in the college of his choice -- and his family -- are going to resent the fact (if it is true) that his race was used as a disadvantage to him. Telling him, yes, it's true, you didn't get in, at least in part, because of your race but that's ok because it's for the good of California is not going to eliminate that racial resentment.  

                          I think there are ways of accomplishing the same goal of providing preference to those most in need of opportunity without overt racial preferences and the racial resentment that necessarily accompanies that.  That's what I advocate.

                          •  Well (4+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            blindyone, burlydee, Deep Texan, Tonedevil

                            if you stick to SES, then you still have the same issue, of the more privileged resenting the less privileged.

                            Will people accept it? Clearly this diary indicates they do not. They resent it. And they probably drag it out every chance they get as part of the Privileged Person's List of Grievances Detailing How Hard I've Had It Compared to Those Lesser People Who Are Bringing Me Down.

                            I don't really care though.

                          •  I found this exchange interesting (2+ / 0-)

                            because both of you are arguing on the basis of what the diary finds as negative - that the distribution of some resource (like a certain job or education slot) is a zero sum game. And you're both looking for solutions within that zero sum framework.

                            Most people on any side of the issue take the same point of view - they're fighting over who gets what slice of a fixed size pie. It's rare that anyone advocates a solution that, in the words of our former President, makes the pie higher.

                            Instead of trying to make a system fair by worrying about what percentage of admissions are Asian or Latino, why not fight for a system that's capable of providing sufficient resources to all Asians, Latinos, and anyone else?

                            But in terms of the current political system and the range of solutions almost anyone considers, the idea of a zero sum system isn't, as the diary seems to imply, a symptom of racism. It's a feature of the existing political reality.

                            We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

                            by badger on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:20:24 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I would love a higher pie (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Deep Texan, Tonedevil

                            when it comes to university admissions. Unfortunately in this constrained funding environment increasing class size is not likely to happen any time soon.

                          •  I can see that as a rational point of view (0+ / 0-)

                            Staying on thread, I'm just pointing out that the thesis of this diary - that viewing gains by blacks as losses to whites is evidence of racism - probably isn't a very good thesis, unless you consider your point of view to be racist (I wouldn't label it that).

                            Sometimes you try to fix something that's broken or inadequate rather than replacing it with something better, and sometimes that's the best strategy.

                            Getting off thread, the "constrained funding environment", which is a fiction we use to limit progress in a host of areas, isn't going to magically disappear if we spend all of our time trying to accommodate it, rather than attacking it as the basic cause of many of our most serious problems.

                            And I'd point out that over 50 years of the same approach to inequality hasn't changed the fact that if you look at almost any set of socio-economic stats with a white column and a black column, you don't need labels to know which column is which.

                            We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard. - John F Kennedy

                            by badger on Thu May 12, 2011 at 01:14:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Well (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Deep Texan, badger

                            I like your big-picture idea that we could theoretically have more, perhaps even "enough," money if we as a society really wanted to. The idea that we wouldn't face these kinds of choices if the legislature would only vote for new taxes is a wonderful idea of which I highly approve, but here in California it's not happening.

                            A constrained funding environment is a fiction in the sense that in theory we could repeal Prop 13 and/or raise other taxes and generate more revenue. But we need a 2/3 majority to raise taxes in this state, and there's nothing fictional about the fact that getting 2/3 of the state legislature or the population to vote for taxes is extremely difficult to do. State budget cuts aren't a fiction, they're reality in 2011.

                          •  pat, badger, danny, coffetalk! (1+ / 0-)

                            I want to compliment you all on an enlightening and civil discussion.  A rarity to be sure.  Thank you!

                            For my part, I have to think that whites gain a huge amount when there are more minorities in positions of power or admitted, even if there is a finite supply.  The more diverse educational experience is a huge plus, and even for those of us who aren't in the pool at all, we gain from the increase in the moral standing of society.  

                            I would have to agree with badger that ideally we devote the resources to promote the well being of all, and "make the pie higher" as it were.  As long as the socio economic columns need no labels, we are still all of us in trouble.

                          •  Some things are always going to be (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            badger

                            a zero sum game.  College admissions.  Some job openings.  Promotions. Government contracts.  As long as there are more people seeking these than there is availability, those kinds of things will be a zero sum game -- when one person gets admitted to the top notch school, another doesn't; when one person gets the great job, another doesn't.  

                            I agree with you that there are ways to grow the pie so that the instances of zero sum game are less acute.  But I don't think there's going to be a way to eliminate that.

    •  2 Terms: "Busing" and "Affirmative Action." (6+ / 0-)

      Many whites had direct personal experience of minorities being introduced into circumstances and opportunities where the free market would never have done it. Add that to ownership's war on the common people genuinely degrading opportunity for the middle class, whose rise stopped when the Beatles were still dominating, and it's a certainty that many whites were going to see opportunity flowing from them to the minorities.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:32:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wouldn't it make more sense, given your views (0+ / 0-)

        on class, for affirmative action programs to be based more on socio-economic class and less on race or ethnicity?  

        Put another way, should President Obama's daughters be the beneficiaries of an affirmative action program when they apply to college?  Or should such programs be focused more on students who are economically disadvantaged, regardless of race?

        Wouldn't affirmative action based on socio-economic class (1) target those people most in need of opportunity, while at the same time (2) lessening racial resentment?  

        •  Yes. At some point that transition (8+ / 0-)

          has to happen.

          I knew a kid in med school who came from a family worth millions who still got free tuition and preferential academic treatment simply because of his ethnicity.  Somehow I don't think that's the intent of affirmative action.  Just a guess.

          Another minority kid in med school had to go to some bullshit pre-session prep course due to his minority status...and this dude was wicked smart and from a well-heeled family.  I thought that was pretty damn offensive for him to be stereotyped like that.

          At some point we need to move past race in this area while still recognizing that racism still plays a negative role in America.  That is a difficult nuance but one that needs attention.

          Obama's wallet is the one that says Bad Motherfucker on it.

          by Uncle Chigurh on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:30:17 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Busing (0+ / 0-)

        I can see why many people would resent busing. I'm not sure I would want my kid to have to ride a bus across town to another school that isn't nearby to achieve "racial balance".

        •  From my own experience (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Exquisite

          with "busing" from the 80's is that it was very sloppily enacted, as if simply busing minorities to lily-white suburban schools ( and vice versa) would "solve" racism.
          The result was mayhem and police all over the place, while groups continued to form along racial lines. What a pity.

      •  Yup. Race based affirmative action=HUGE vote loser (0+ / 0-)

        for us on the left. You simply cannot convince the majority of white people that they have to be held back in order for the black applicant to advance.

        Also  -speaking as an asian, I can tell you race based affirmative action has driven a lot of asians away from the left.  They perceive it as nothing more than a racial spoils system. A lot of asians are already familiar with affirmative action in places like Malaysia and Indonesia. These are policies specifically designed to discriminate against the chinese minority in those countries.

        Also- there is the problem of affirmative action (set-asides) in government contracting. The beneficairies of these programs are generally a small handful of very well connected rich individuals, many of whom are just fronting for a white contractor anyways.

        You cannot talk about the white perception without mentioning the history of affirmative action.

    •  well, as a white woman' who entered the work force (18+ / 0-)

      in the 1960's in the embryo television industry and film business in NY City I was certainly discriminated against as a woman - 'get me a cup of coffee, honey, when I was the equal - but discriminate against because I was white?  who the hell knows, there were NO black women in the field at all in those days except those who cleaned the offices when we all went home, as for black men, mighty few and as the unions pretty much controlled the industry they were scare as hen's teeth as well.

      By the late 70's there were a few black men and women  directors and copy writers but very few workers, as partly working as script girl on commercials in the down times I don't' recall ever seeing a black woman model for a hair product or beauty product or household product.

      Besides which this survey studies perception and not reality.

      To still deny as a white person that white privilege is NOT inherent in the system is to be totally dishonest with oneself and the reality of the past sixty years.

      Deal with it!

      That's how we change it by dealing with it. And by now the brown and yellow elements have entered the equation. These studies are largely toilet paper.

    •  Where does this victim complex come from? (6+ / 0-)

      From people who fly into conniptions and palpitations whenever they don't get what they want.

      Toddlers masquerading as adults, in other words.

      One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on

      by slippytoad on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:04:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Female discrimination (6+ / 0-)

      I was verifiably discriminated in my work many years ago and it severely cost me financially.  But my discrimination was not because I was white, it was because I was female.

      I am having trouble wrapping my thoughts around this "winners and losers" concept of race so many white people seem to have.  It is like this is some sort of football game.

      My greatest hope is in our youth, for whom race seems much less of an issue.

      More tax cuts would be gluttony in a time of starvation. That is not America. That is a nation about to be plundered, and a people laid to waste. - Charles Blow

      by gulfgal98 on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:26:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Note (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        gulfgal98, Exquisite

        this is not the experience of Gen Y-dominated workplaces, because our generation grew up with working mothers. I in no way doubt your experience. Fortunately, our generation will be more or less inured to gender equity in the workplace.

        I notice that many recommends are given to the person who has a good answer, with hardly any given to the person who asks the right question. That is backwards to me; without that question, the good answer might never have come.

        by Nulwee on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:01:29 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  To clarify (5+ / 0-)

          I am on the front end of the boomer generation.  My experience was in the early 70's.  We had no blacks in the workplace and the few women there were all secretaries.  I was a low level professional, one of the first there in an office of white males.

          While I had an experience in which I was discriminated in pay and promotions against the favor for white males, I simply cannot understand how bad it was for blacks in that era and earlier.  At least I was hired, while blacks were not being hired in similar positions.  White males screamed about being discriminated against when our workplace became integrated as a result of a court order.  

          There is white male privilege and there is white privilege.  I only had to deal with the male portion of it.  People of other races had to overcome both.

          More tax cuts would be gluttony in a time of starvation. That is not America. That is a nation about to be plundered, and a people laid to waste. - Charles Blow

          by gulfgal98 on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:25:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  On the surface, at least (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Deep Texan, Tonedevil

          but at the end of the day, those working women are still making less money than their male peers for the same work, in the overall...

          some parts are far more entrenched than others... and with the whole "discussing one's salary is verboten" policies becoming ubiquitous, while everyone knows pay inequity happens, proving it is far more difficult.

          Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

          by awesumtenor on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:06:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Many people who complain (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cdreid, foufou

      have serious issues with equality, being that they do not want to recognize the benefit had by being white or male.    

      That is my theory at least.

      ...someday - the armies of bitterness will all be going the same way. And they'll all walk together, and there'll be a dead terror from it. --Steinbeck

      by Seldom Seen on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:04:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  they believe it comes from the gov't (0+ / 0-)

      and academia, and that the goal is not to create equality, but rather to reverse the old structures of privilege and discrimination in favor of non-whites.

      I know some of these people.  None of them believe in individual face-to-face racism against whites, not like what non-whites deal with.

    •  In certain contexts, individual white people (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Tonedevil

      may experience discrimination. But that's not evidence of a larger problem of anti-white racism.

    •  definitely (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pager

      I'm not even sure what it means.   It seems utterly nonsensical and unfounded in reality.  Sure, there are people with biases, but actual discrimination?  You have to be kidding.

      but since I'm white, the headline suggests that I must feel like I'm "losing" and think that there is such a thing and that it's prevalent.

      Who knew?  I didn't.

  •  Great Graphs... (29+ / 0-)

    Easy to read and tell the story.
    I think the saturation of FOX & right wing radio talk has catapulted the white victimhood and zero sum game.

    Excellent diary.

    Action is the antidote to despair---Joan Baez

    by frandor55 on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:07:59 AM PDT

  •  numbers sort of lie (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pinto Pony, Mindful Nature, cdreid, badger

    The races are not homogeneous.  Among all races are an element who are racist.  The racist element will view equality as a zero sum game.  This is what is responsible for the numbers that you see.  So the fraction of the white population that is racist will view the gains by blacks as coming at the expense of whites.  And racism has lots of different flavors.  All the way from the Kansmen who burn crosses and drag people behind cars to the sweet little old ladies who wouldn't harm a fly but are convinced that "everything is about the coloreds".  

    •  I disagree with you (11+ / 0-)

      in the sense that the numbers do what they are supposed to do. They give us a general view of how we feel about who is winning and losing in society when we consider race. Of course there are differences between individuals but, in general, these numbers seem to make sense.

      •  not really (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cdreid, badger

        because they portray both groups as homogenous groups, these graphs push a narrative that all whites are equally racist.  A more honest approach would be to show the distribution of responses in both groups.  

        This presentation runs the risk of becoming the same kind of narrative that drives the "more blacks commit crimes, so therefore blacks are criminals" fallacy that we all recognize as pretty heinous.

        Personally, any time I see people throwing around terms trying to refer to entire groups of people as having one characteristic as a group characteristic I get very uneasy and suspicious.  It does not matter whether the sentence starts:

        "Muslims think...."
        "blacks believe that...."
        "Jews want to ...."
        or whatever.  It is this notion that groups can be said to be homogenous by race that I find objectionable.

        •  It happens (0+ / 0-)

          It's a side effect of using imprecise words to describe precise statistics.

          Those who support banning cocaine are no better than those who support banning cheeseburgers

          by EthrDemon on Thu May 12, 2011 at 02:35:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not necessarily (0+ / 0-)

            After all, the labels we apply to the groups involved reflect the notion we bring to it.  THe fact that the researchers divided groups into "white" and "black" tells us that they essentially conceptualize these groups either as homogeneous or they are not concerned with variation within these groups (which there may be good justifications for).

            Any researcher tests for what they are investigating and are not going to uncover what they do not conceptualize to include in the model.  Here, for example, I can easily imagine that this result is driven by a segment in the white community, and not by the community as a whole, but this approach masks that.  Why might the researchers either want to do that or not care?  Not sure.  I am going to guess that this is roughly for preliminary demonstrational purposes, really.
            In any event, as a former biologist, I can tell you that the "precision" of your statistics is only as good as your model and the methods to acquire the data.  Here, the test is fairly simple, but even so there are minor methodological differences.

            •  Well (0+ / 0-)

              If your point is that demographic groups as broad as "whites" or "men" or "Christians" paint a blurry picture because of their heterogeneousness, then I agree.

              My point was just that too many people see a statistic like:
              "On average, (Group X) people tend to believe..."
              and think
              "All (Group X) people believe..."

              Those who support banning cocaine are no better than those who support banning cheeseburgers

              by EthrDemon on Fri May 13, 2011 at 01:22:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  Not exactly lying, but there is a factor (14+ / 0-)

      that the authors didn't look at. They didn't use any kind of measures of racial prejudice to see if there were differences between high and low prejudice people.

      There is a valid methodological reason for having done it this way. When we use such measures in the lab, we prefer to separate the measures of racial prejudice from the primary task (in this study, the questions about anti-black/anti-white discrimination). We do that by embedding them into larger surveys and separating them by time. That works well if you are in a university setting recruiting college students (as many psychologists do). In this study the authors tried to recruit a more representative sample which meant using an online service to recruit adults from around the country. The trade-off is that you really can't scales that measure racism to separate low and high racists. Unfortunately, researchers often have to make such trade-offs.

      I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. I'm one of the Angry Gays. Deal with it.

      by psychodrew on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:19:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, this data already has it (0+ / 0-)

        For example, they could simply break out the proportions in each group came up with the various possible patterns of responses.  That would show you how many people think, for example, that there is not now nor has ever been anything that really constitutes "anti-white discrimination" (i.e. a flat solid line) vs those who feel there's a downward slope there.  That would be far more informative.

  •  Some Whites are Blind to "Equality" (5+ / 0-)

    of opportunity; they only think that there's loss of opportunity for them when blacks gain.  That must mean that they have capped opportunity with a finite number and don't see opportunity for all as infinite, as long as the chance and access are equal.

    How sad to believe that your chance and access to opportunity depends less on you and more on the "other."  How illogical to believe that opportunity for you depends on lack of opportunity in the "other."

    Opportunity is like the toys in nursery school.  None of them belong to you; everyone gets to play with them; all must share fairly.

    Opportunity is not like the toys in your chest at home that belong to you and don't have to be shared if you're stingy.

    Somebody needs to grow up and out of the idea that all the toys belong to him. And the person with the most toys wins.  

    Readers & Book Lovers Pull up a chair! You're never too old to be a Meta Groupie

    by Limelite on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:15:44 AM PDT

    •  hard-core racists all for monopolizing opportunity (0+ / 0-)

      In their minds, they're advocating what's best for the white race and especially straight white Christian men ... just as they believe blacks, Latinos, gays, women, Jews, Muslims, etc. each advocate what's best for their group without a shred of guilt or fear of attack.

  •  Only because "losing" to us means... (70+ / 0-)

    "Don't get to cheat as much".

    Story time!

    http://www.thetrainofthought.com/...

    I remember back in the late '90s when Ira Katznelson, an eminent political scientist at Columbia, came to deliver a guest lecture to an economic philosophy class I was taking. It was a great lecture, made more so by the fact that the class was only about ten or twelve students and we got got ask all kinds of questions and got a lot of great, provocative answers.

    Anyhow, Prof. Katznelson described a lunch he had with Irving Kristol back either during the first Bush administration. The talk turned to William Kristol, then Dan Quayle's chief of staff, and how he got his start in politics. Irving recalled how he talked to his friend Harvey Mansfield at Harvard, who secured William a place there as both an undergrad and graduate student; how he talked to Pat Moynihan, then Nixon's domestic policy adviser, and got William an internship at The White House; how he talked to friends at the RNC and secured a job for William after he got his Harvard Ph.D.; and how he arranged with still more friends for William to teach at UPenn and the Kennedy School of Government. With that, Prof. Katznelson recalled, he then asked Irving what he thought of affirmative action. "I oppose it", Irving replied. "It subverts meritocracy."

    I'm gonna go eat a steak. And fuck my wife. And pray to GOD - hatemailapalooza, 052210

    by punditician on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:17:01 AM PDT

  •  Everybody's been getting screwed since 1980. (30+ / 0-)

    Everybody but the top 5%.

    Meanwhile the whole collection of GOPer propaganda orgs -- commercial networks, think tanks, Christian right, etc. -- have been selling the Whites that it's illegal immigrants and the Blacks.

    The pure propaganda orgs get $500-million a year.

    That's tax deductible, mostly.

    DKOS search [ Powell System ] for the structure and what they have accomplished for their masters.

    What you've relayed, here, was achieved by design and long-term investments.

    Financial criminals + Angry White Males + Personality Disorder dreamers + KKKwannabes + George Will =EQ= The GOPer Base (-4.38,-3.74)

    by vets74 on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:17:24 AM PDT

  •  Good stuff Drew. (16+ / 0-)

    This info is useful if we want to understand how to make inroads with the R's base, the south, etc.

    •  I think we have to convince people (12+ / 0-)

      not to be afraid. And that is hard to do when we have unemployment at such high levels and wars and constant reminders that immigrants want to steal our jobs.

      I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. I'm one of the Angry Gays. Deal with it.

      by psychodrew on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:25:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it goes beyond fear with some (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        psychodrew, tardis10, poligirl, Exquisite, zett

        whites in the US. I think some accept it as the truth that when blacks or other minorities win, whites lose. This has been hammered into people's minds since at least the 80s. It won't be easy to undo. That's what makes me so frustrated.

        •  It may be more "true" in some contexts (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nulwee

          when spots are limited, as in college admissions or job promotions.  Those anecdotal examples are what is feeding this feeling, I think.  

          •  But it's an ongoing narrative (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slinkerwink, poligirl, Exquisite

            coming from the GOP. It's become "accepted fact" that whites will be the minority and will be discriminated against.

            •  Because it is true, in some contexts. (0+ / 0-)

              It is true that, in many of the top tier colleges, minority applicants with lesser credentials are admitted over white (or, in California, Asian) students with better credentials.  

              That's affirmative action or diversity considerations for the ones admitted.

              That is an instance where race is a tangible, measurable disadvantage for the white student who is passed over.  

              That's why I tend to agree with President Obama that it may well be the time to shift the focus of diversity and affirmative action programs from race/ethnicity to socio-economic class.

              •  yeah, but many colleges, the ones in California... (3+ / 0-)

                as well, don't run their admissions as a simple straight meritocracy with an affirmative action quota.

                they evaluate a great number of factors, including the student's past performance, their situations at home, their potential, which is based upon another number of factors, including extracurricular activities, volunteerism, their essay, etc...

                it's not simply a quota thing, but the people who are promoting the zero sum game are trying to paint it as such cuz it furthers their goals.

                "When it is dark enough, you can see the stars." - Charles Beard

                by poligirl on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:38:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  It is, however, very true that (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nulwee, Criticalfrimmel

                  if you are a middle-class African American student with a very good (not off the chart stellar) record, you are more likely to get in than an Asian student with exactly that same record.  

                  That's because, in an admissions process heavily dependent on standardized testing and high school record, Asians are statistically greatly over-represented.

                  Given two students with virtually identical records and middle-class backgrounds, one African-American and one Asian, the African-American has a better chance of admission, because of race, and the Asian has a less chance of admission, because of race.   In some cases, the Asian has less of a chance of admission than a comparable white student, because in some schools the Asian over-representation is more acute.  In those schools, being of Asian descent does hurt your admissions chances when compared to students with comparable records and backgrounds.  

                  It's not hard to see what some would say that the Asian was disadvantaged because of race.  And have a problem with that.  

                  Again, that's why I would prefer affirmative action programs would be focused on socio-economic class rather than race.  

                  •  I agree with focusing more on socio-economic class (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Deep Texan

                    another thing that would help, IMO, would be removing such hard focus on test scores and grades.  If education was about producing a well-rounded student instead of a bunch of rote memorization, then it would be less competitive based on how one "looks on paper" and therefore less open to interpretations of reverse discrimination.

                  •  I think the California university system (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Deep Texan, radmul, Tonedevil

                    has stopped using affirmative action in their criteria.

                    Ningun ser humano es ilegal.

                    by opoponax on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:21:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  True. And the Asian population grew signficantly (0+ / 0-)

                      when they did that.  Which led a great many Asians to believe that consideration of race in the prior criteria worked to disadvantage Asians.  

                      It's hard to argue with that.  

                      •  Yes, but you're still arguing as if (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Deep Texan, Tonedevil

                        it was in effect.  It's interesting to see what people focus on in these comments, like busing (also no longer in effect).  Kinda proves the point the diarist is making.

                        Ningun ser humano es ilegal.

                        by opoponax on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:56:30 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Race-based preferences (0+ / 0-)

                          have not been eliminated, of course.  

                          I have a good friend whose daughter (4.0 undergrad, outstanding LSAT, all that stuff) is applying to a number of top notch law schools.  She has a job, so if she doesn't get in to one that she wants, she is going to wait a year and try again. She knows that for her, demographics (what the school needs to meet its diversity goals) will matter as much as anything in where she gets accepted.  As her father put it, "It's a matter of whether Harvard or Yale needs another Caucasian female from the South."  They don't like it, but they accept that reality.    

                          I would expect that, as we move away from race-based preferences, we would see the kind of numbers in the diary will move as well.  

                          •  One anecdote doesn't prove (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Deep Texan, Tonedevil

                            any sort of point.  You would have to compile all the incidents of rejecting a deserving white person from a college and put them up against all the incidents of rejecting a deserving black person, including someone putting aside an application from a student named Jamal for some reason they can't explain to themselves.  Also, you would have to include all the legacy students who are automatically accepted to colleges.  Point me toward that kind of study, showing white kids are rejected more often than black kids, and then we'll talk.

                            Ningun ser humano es ilegal.

                            by opoponax on Thu May 12, 2011 at 01:53:17 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  My point is not that it happens often (0+ / 0-)

                            just that it happens.  And whenever it happens, the person disadvantaged is resentful.  

                            I sincerely hope and believe that it is happening less and less as we move forward.  As I have said, I would far prefer socio-economic based preferences, which come without the racial resentment  baggage.  I think the racial resentment that accompanies race-based preferences hurts our progress toward the kind of racially equal society that we all want to become.  

                          •  Well, when you talk about "race-based (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Tonedevil, foufou

                            preferences" you seem to be talking about bias in favor of blacks.  Or do you agree that bias in favor of whites hurts our progress too?  Because that happens too (remember W.?), and causes resentment too.

                            Ningun ser humano es ilegal.

                            by opoponax on Thu May 12, 2011 at 03:07:56 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I absolutely agree that (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            VClib

                            any race-based preference causes resentment and hurts the long-term progress toward the kind of society we all want.  

                            Race-based preferences are harmful in that they cause racial resentment regardless of the race that is preferred or the race that is disadvantaged.  

                            The fact that, for some time, California's consideration of race in its admissions for preferred college effectively disadvantaged Asians was a cause of resentment at the time by some Asian families.  (When California stopped considering race, the percentage of Asian students admitted went up significantly.)  That was obviously harmful overall.

                            I agree that the long-standing pervasive history of discrimination in this country against blacks was the worst, most harmful, most toxic by far.  By far.  And dramatic steps had to be taken to address that. But I do not think that, at this point in time, a remedy that causes racial resentment in other groups is the best way to go.  I think that we have reached, or are reaching,  a point where we can accomplish what we want by the other means such as socio-economic preferences that don't have the racial resentment baggage.  

                          •  Glad to hear it. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mahakali overdrive

                            Looks like we don't disagree that much, just in how racial biases are addressed.

                            Ningun ser humano es ilegal.

                            by opoponax on Thu May 12, 2011 at 03:59:15 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Outlawed in CA, but still legal in some states (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          radmul

                          It was outlawed in CA due to an ballot initiative. But that was only limited to CA and limited to government institutions.

                          Even now, private institutions can still have affirmative action as long as they don't exceeed the federal guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court.

      •  No the challenge is to convince them that (0+ / 0-)

        the Democrats care about their needs and interests. The challenge is to convince them that they are part of the Democrats' vision and that the Democrats offer them something.

      •  it would probably help also (0+ / 0-)

        for you to recognize that not all white people think they way your particular depiction appears.

  •  apparently (18+ / 0-)

    They believe there is a sort of fairness rationing, where there's only so much fairness to go around, and when you give more fairness to black people you take it away from whites.

    I'm sure political polarization over the last few decades has a lot to do with viewing the world this way.

    "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." - Benjamin Franklin

    by CaptUnderpants on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:20:30 AM PDT

  •  Great analysis, psychodrew. (16+ / 0-)

    The findings don't really surprise me, which is sad. As someone said above, I think spreading misconceptions and lies about affirmative action -- as well as concepts like "reverse racism" -- have served conservatives very well. They have helped a considerable portion of the white population down the path of paranoia, and nothing benefits the GOP more than fear.

    Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative. - William S. Burroughs

    by sricki on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:21:06 AM PDT

  •  The problem is the evil rich keep playing this (11+ / 0-)

    card. Because the evil rich oppressor looks like "whites" they keep falling for their line of BS.

    Until non-rich people realize who the enemy is namely the evil rich and their employees, overseers namely Wall $treet, and the evil radical Republicans and anyone else who thinks that money is more important than people, we are going to continue to have problems.

    They own the evil MSM. They own our congress. They own our legislatures and governships; they own everything except our minds. The evil rich have better messaging. They own the messenger.

    The other way to fix this is one person at a time. The evil R's have gone too far with the assault on the middle class but they are not done by a long shot. Now it is white against white.

    As long as I hear the evil oppressor language of
    "we can't afford"
    "wer'e broke"
    "I don't want some other working person to make more money than I do"
    "tax cuts create jobs (fore evil radical R's)"
    "welfare queen (we got plenty like British Petroleum"
    "Stop whining"
    "Be happy you have a job".
    "At least I'm not Black"

    Until people stop voting for evil rich people, we are stuck with evil and evil is unrelenting it its pursuit.

    Here comes the Confederate States of American without a shot being fired.

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear and loathing.

    by a2nite on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:26:14 AM PDT

  •  Well Actually It's Half True. The Middle Class Has (12+ / 0-)

    been losing ground and opportunity since Carter, and that includes the period of Clinton's imaginarily good economy.

    Of course it was a global and class exchange, not an internal ethnic exchange. The corporatists propaganda campaign to blame it on minorities and their liberal intellectual patrons begun with Nixon was a primary tool for building the white rank & file of the conservative revolution.

    In the absence of a political party to call and work for restoring the proven solutions to this long decline of most Americans, that were established in the past by the Democrats, there just doesn't exist a credible message that could convince mainstream whites to see the picture clearly.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:27:18 AM PDT

  •  This explains why many whites feel so (12+ / 0-)

    put upon. Everyone seems to be operating under the illusion that taxes are higher under Obama, that the stimulus was reparations. The casual racism of the country club is so out in the open.

    No, America is not post-racial, just because Obama was elected. White middle class males have been hit hard with this recession. There has been a disruption--whites can't count on blacks "knowing their place": a comfort in rough times.

    Hasn't this country learned that every move for equality for blacks has benefited everyone else?

    It will be interesting how many more dog whistles the GOP is willing to put out there in 2012.

    Never underestimate the ability of the Right to over reach.

    by never forget 2000 on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:28:50 AM PDT

  •  The only place it even vaguely makes sense (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dmh44, Nulwee, Joe Bob, Exquisite, cdreid

    is in college admissions - and not writ large but at a specific institution. By that I mean that if there are only 10 spots open at the prestigious law school University of Privilege and those 10 spots used to always go to Whites, then an affirmative action program where 1 slot at UPriv has to go to a Black means that one white guy lost out. Not that he couldn't go somewhere else, but he lost that specific privilege.

    Of course this is asinine but as the only concrete example I can think of it is probably why they hit academia so hard with it since they can come up with specific examples. Lily White had a 162 LSAT and Joe Black had a 155 LSAT and Joe got in but Lily didn't.

    Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

    by jam on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:31:03 AM PDT

    •  It's not silly if you are the parent of (4+ / 0-)

      Lily White.   They see their child who has worked his/her ass off in high school so he/she can get into University of Privilege, and then is rejected while another child with lesser credentials gets in.  I can tell you that admissions to tier 1 colleges are often so competitive many families like that are focused for years in doing everything they can to increase the likelihood that the child gets admitted, and they are resentful that their child's race, in effect, works against them in the admissions process.  (Frankly, in California, some of the most resentful such parents are Asian, as Asians are greatly overrepresented in the California college population, and many Asians are denied admittance to the best schools in the name of admitting more minority -- or white -- candidates and trying to keep down the Asian over-representation.)  

      As a parent, you don't look at the fact that diversity is good for society as a whole at that point.  You look at the fact that your child's race played a role in the fact that your child was not admitted -- that if your child were a minority, it is much more likely that your child would have been admitted.  

      It is true that the goal of diversity is important in the long term for our society as a whole.  It is also true that the parents of that one child is going to be very resentful of the fact that race or ethnicity is taken into account in denying that child a spot.  

      We just don't have the perfect solution for given advantages to certain racial/ethnic minorities without creating resentment among individuals who lose limited spots in the name of that racial/ethnic diversity.

      •  overstating the case (1+ / 0-)

        I think you go a little too far when you say if your child were a minority, it is much more likely that your child would have been admitted. Much more likely? I think it’s more like a tie-breaker. When you look at schools that are admitting under 20% of applicants, they are rejecting a lot of excellent students who would be perfectly capable of doing the work at the institution in question. Those benefiting from racial preferences are still very highly qualified.  

        The way I see it is: Let’s say White, Jr. has an LSAT score 0.5% better than young Mr. Black. Can you really say that White, Jr. is a better student than Mr. Black? After all, Mr. Black has achieved almost identical credentials, while laboring under the disadvantages of being a racial minority.

        Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

        by Joe Bob on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:38:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the problem is, individual circumstances vary a (0+ / 0-)

          great deal. A black kid, whose parents are doctors and lawyers,  who attended a private day school like the Friends Schools, is still immeasurably more advantaged than an asian immigrant who came to this country at age 13, whose parents were illiterate rice farmers back in Vietnam. Yet the affirmative action policy would put the black kid ahead of the asian kid.

      •  if this is the case (8+ / 0-)
        They see their child who has worked his/her ass off in high school so he/she can get into University of Privilege, and then is rejected while another child with lesser credentials gets in.  

        Why is it always the minority student they assume took the spot their child earned when there are utterly unworthy legacy admissions, a la W at Yale, or even john mcCain at the Naval Academy ( does anyone really think that he'd have even gotten considered if his father and grandfather had not been Admirals? ) that in all likelihood are more likely, if less acknowledged, reasons they didn't get in?

        A minority student that scored 7 points lower on the GMAT or LSAT or MCAT is the reason their child didn't get in when well connected and well heeled alums can get their utterly unqualified children in with a phone call, regardless of poor testing and worse grades ? Seriously?

        That's exactly the racism the diarist is referring to. Even when it would make more sense to say "my kid didn't get in because Mr Moneybags' kid who is dumber than a bag of hammers got admitted as a favor to his father" they immediately assume it's because of some minority student.

        Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

        by awesumtenor on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:21:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your daughter (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        foufou

        gets the bulk of the money from the local school board (a LARGE part of black inequality is because lilly white school boards in Large districts make certain resources are divided by class and race) so she started off with a better education. You got a better job because youre white and thus could dedicate more time and resources to your childs education. Your child had more resources to work with from extracaricular activities to everything else. And the tests are even openly biased towards your middle or upperclass white child..

        and youre hurt your child, with every opportunity and advantage in the world could still barely outcompete a severely disadvantaged child whom even the measurements are biased against...

        That sounds to me like a terror of admitting your child is inferior. And of course theres the implication the black child didnt "work their ass off".

        Ive seen this stuff, still see it in some good friends  (this side of which Disgusts me and they know it) who have a very selfserving and selfish view of the world in a few ways. Its the mark of an undeveloped mind and soul. Lower stage personalities who must target others for their inferiority rather than admitting they werent willing to pay the price. That they werent adult/responsible/mature enough to advance farther. That they just werent smart enough/ capable enough.

        Lack of moral and intellectual development like that are the core causes of racism combined with the human minds need to stereotype/categorise.

        A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

        by cdreid on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:24:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Hmm, who said Lily White had those advantages? (0+ / 0-)

          maybe, Lily White here in New Orleans came from working class parents and went to public school (Ben Franklin High School here is very racially balanced to reflect the population and is outstanding).  Maybe Joe Black's dad was one of the many prominent black business leaders here in New Orleans and he went to one of the expensive private schools (most are diverse) or he went to St. Augustine, a historically black high school for men with a long history of producing outstanding black leaders for the city.    

          Why do you assume that the white child is always going to be economically advantaged?  That may well  be true in many -- even most -- instances, but in others it is not true.  

          As I said, my preference would be for preferences for people  who are economically disadvantaged.  So, if Lily White had those advantages you speak of, and Joe Black did not, Joe Black would have the economic preference, without the racial resentment that comes along with race-based preferences.  

          I think you can work toward the same goal without the baggage of racial resentment. I think that race-based preferences engender racial resentment in the group that sees themselves as disadvantaged in that one instance by their race, and I think that is toxic to our society and, more importantly impedes our progress toward being the kind of society that we want to be, where race is neither an advantage nor a disadvantage.  

          •  Oh please (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            foufou

            youre doing what every racist ive ever heard has done...
            youre setting up a scenario based on emotionbased bs then when its' falsehood is exposed you change the details to "win". What you are saying has been said by right wing racists for years. "So what if blacks have been enslaved and disadvantaged for 500 years! We should start acting as if we're an equal society right now!! Oh.. but um i want my white priviledge and the cops to keep the darkies off the streets".

            Why do i assume the black person would be disadvantaged? Science? Statistics??? Do i have to break out 1000 social science studies to show you that Yes america is racist as fuck, Yes it is ongoing, Yes it is at every level  and every crevice in our society.  So you want to make it economic. Even our supreme courts allow our political districts to be gerrymandered specifically to keep blacks out of political power. Looked at a voting map lately? Theyre a joke and 90% of it is based purely on race. Checked the entrance qualifications for top schools lately? Note that having a parent in the school gets you in as a legacy.. over that person who didnt qualify (you know.. like when the school could be legally all white).

            Despite there are huge numbers of schools, companies and other institutions who find ways as we speak to hire/enroll me over my black friend who is much more qualified? Tell me.. do you think in 99% of companies a black person more qualified and skilled than i am could outcompete me for a job? Because i can tell you they cant. I have that white skin thing... no resume can beat that out.

            What youre suggesting is EXACTLY what the right wing racists are. We just go from this moment onand pretend racism doesnt exist. Pretend that everything is wonderful. Get rid of bussing. Get rid of affirmative action. Bootstraps i tell ya!!!

            I guess its easy when its not your pain. When you dont see amazing people condemned to a life of jail, minimum wage jobs, abuse, terror of police. AFter all youre all good why cant they just suck it up like your ancestors did! (who ill bet werent black, native american, hispanic, chinese..)

            A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

            by cdreid on Thu May 12, 2011 at 04:56:49 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Really? ALL blacks are economically disadvantaged (0+ / 0-)

              economically?  to imagine that there might be a scenario otherwise is racist?  When I said that you might be correct in many situations but that there are SOME situations here in New Orleans were blacks are economically successful, that was racist?  

              You really believe that ALL blacks are economically disadvantaged?  I don't think my black law partners view themselves that way.  I didn't know it was racist to suggest that the children of my black law partners (who attend some of the best private schools in this city) may not be economically disadvantaged.  

              •  Youre using the Insanely rare exception (0+ / 0-)

                and arguing it as the norm in order to set global rules.

                50% unemployment for black males. 33% incarceration rate for young black males. Whats so hard to understand about that. You want to compare the one case in 200,000,000 of a rich priviledged black male (who STILL faces radical barriers in everything he does) to the One in 2,000,000 whites who came from poverty?

                Its a false dichotomy. You know it. IT's also a gop and Stormfront talking point and you seem far too intelligent to believe anything that stupid.

                A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

                by cdreid on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:39:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I am not arguing that it's the "norm." (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  VClib

                  I have never, ever, ever said that it's the "norm."  

                  What I said is that some black families are middle class, and some are even upper class.  Not that it's the "norm."  Not that it's even the majority.  Just some.

                  And my point is that programs designed to provide economic opportunity -- like preferences for college admission, jobs, promotions, and government contracts -- should be focused on economic disadvantage, not race alone.  In that way, what you call "the norm" -- the economically disadvantaged -- would clearly, clearly benefit from such programs, and indeed would be the FOCUS of those programs.  The exception -- middle and upper class black families like the families of my law partners -- would NOT be the focus of programs to provide additional economic opportunity because they are less in need of additional economic opportunity.

                  By focusing on economic disadvantage as the basis for programs of economic opportunity, we can provide economic opportunity to those that you point out-- the economically disadvantaged -- without the racial resentment baggage that accompanies economic programs that are focused primarily on race without consideration of economic circumstances.  We deprive those that are the focus of the survey in this diary (whites who have anecdotal stories of being "disadvantaged" by racially-centered affirmative action or preference programs) of the notion that they are being disadvantaged because of their race.  We can point out that the programs are focused on those who are economically disadvantaged who need the opportunity.  That absolutely will help the very people that you focus on in your comment.  It will say that the "exceptions" I point out -- like my law partners -- do not need additional economic preferences as the economically disadvantaged do.  

                  It's pretty much the same position as President Obama took -- that Sasha and Malia (who clearly, clearly are the "exception") should not be the beneficiaries of affirmative action programs merely because of their race.  

                  •  The discrimination is not all economic (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    foufou

                    in fact id say it is rarely economic. Which i understand is your point. Also that your goal is to begin putting racism behind us by focusing more on the horrific class distinctions.

                    The thing is this country is still rampantly racist. At the moment im middle class and im pretty well educated. There isnt a club, building, business, bar etc in this nation i cannot walk into unmolested. No neighborhood i cant walk unmolested. No job i apply for that im qualified for i wont be considered for . That is simply NOT true of the richest black or hispanic person in america. In fact being rich and black or hispanic in america is "suspicious and reasonable cause for to stop and search them and their vehicle".

                    A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

                    by cdreid on Fri May 13, 2011 at 06:24:06 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Also Government hiring and Government (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Onomastic

      Contracting.  As a bureaucrat for 25 years I have heard the kvetching about quotas and affirmative action.  We do not have quotas for hiring, but we used to and it was a source of much anger and frustration.

      If you think education is expensive, wait until you see how much stupid costs

      by Sychotic1 on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:56:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I second that (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sychotic1, Onomastic

        As a lawyer (and a woman lawyer) I can tell you that there was a period of time where the federal government would give strong preferences to hiring law firms that were 51% minority or woman owned.  There was even a term for it:  "MWOLF."  (Minority or Woman Owned Law Firm.)  Rather than promoting women or minority inclusion in long-established firms, women or minorities left those established firms and formed their own smaller firms with "ownership" of 51% (even though profits may have  been divided differently, a fact that the government did not ask about and was not told)  for the sole purpose of getting the coveted "MWOLF" designation.

        Say "MWOLF" to any lawyer who did any government work in the late 80's or early 90's.  They'll know EXACTLY what you are talking about.  

    •  People tend to forget another major factor (11+ / 0-)

      That John Knox III, who got a 150 on his LSAT also got in.  He's also white, but his father, grandfather and great grandfather attended the school, and that grandfather donated a library.

      I never hear the parents of Lily white complaining about that guy.

      •  Exactly why affirmative action should be based on (0+ / 0-)

        socio economic class more than race.  John Knox had the advantage because of his parents' donations to the school.  

        In most admissions to Ivy League schools, Joe Black's chances of admission (given the same record) are better than Lily White's, and that is because of race.  John Knox's chance of admission are better than both of them, and that's because of money.  

        •  That's not true at all. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou, Onomastic
          In most admissions to Ivy League schools, Joe Black's chances of admission (given the same record) are better than Lily White's. . .

          It depends on the school and the year.  And unfortunately, many of the Ivy's aren't providing that information.  Though many other top tier schools do.  For instance, according to research by JBHE  in 2007 UCLA, and UC Berkeley, both top tier schools, had a black admission rate of around 16.5% while their general admission rate was well over 20%.

          UNC Chapel Hill accepted blacks at the same rate as the overall admission rate, while University of Virginia accepted 50.5% of blacks who applied compared to the 33.9% overall admission rate.

          In my own experience, when I was accepted to Harvard I was told that for every black student there were at least 6 white students of equal caliber or worse.  Now I don't know how many black students applied to the school that year so I can't comment on the acceptance rate.  But I do know that the ones who were accepted were as qualified to be there as anyone else.

    •  NO IT DOESN'T (20+ / 0-)

      Sorry to yell, but this is another myth that needs to die once and for all.

      Unless you are in the Admisssions Office, any argument that "a qualified white lost a slot to an affirmative action Black" is racist myth.  (We used to have a Kossack that ws hell convinced that her son was deprived of a slot at UoM so some unqualified minority could go and every time I asked her to name the student that took her son's place, or name the admisssions officer that told her this information, she just started sticking and moving.)

      As the evidence submitted at trial in the Grutter case (Michigan Law School) showed conclusively, whites with so-called "inferior qualifications" were admitted over Barbara Grutter.  Yet those students were invisible to her and even when the evidence was given to her she still insisted that an "unqualified minority" benefitting from "affirmative action" deprived her of a slot.    This happens all the time.  Colleges and universities do NOT rely exclusively on scores to determine who is deserving of an admit slot.  Never have, never will - and they tell you that.

      Moreover, the difference between a 155 LSAT and a 162 LSAT when it comes to intellectual ability is minuscule.  Either student can effectively use logic (which is primarily what the LSAT measures, which is why it is correlated only with 1st year law school performance, in which students are trained to "think like lawyers" yet is unable to be correlated with either later school performance or professional success.)  This is true for many of the so-called measures of merit that whites upset about "affirmative action" carp about.  The facts about the inability of anyone to prove that they are dispositive on the question of "merit" have been given to them as it has to all of us.  They choose to ignore it, since it's easier to claim being victimized by unqualified Black folks than to own up to the fact that the culture sold them a bill of goods (work hard and you will "succeed".)

      If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

      by shanikka on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:19:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But race based affirmative action was indeed a (0+ / 0-)

        reality. Are you trying to say that there was never any race based affirmative action?

        You are right that college admissions is not solely a meritocracy. Some students are admitted because they are football stars. Some are admitted because their parents donated the new library. You are right that white people tend to overlook these other unfair admissions. But that still doesn't justify using race to determine admissions.

        •  No (7+ / 0-)

          I'm saying there isn't now, as I noted in other comments.  It's largely illegal because the requirements to impose it are so onerous thanks to the Courts that almost nobody can meet them any more.

          You can thank all the discrimination cases brought to the US Supreme Court in the past 25 years, right on up to Parents Involved (the case that gutted, even if it did not technically overrule, Brown v. Board of Education), for that.

          As far as your opinion about whether race plays a valid role in admissions at this time in our country's history, we can just agree to disagree.  

          If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

          by shanikka on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:22:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  clarification (0+ / 0-)

        I was trying to say that the only place I could even mentally construct a plausible scenario where the "zero sum" game might make sense in a logical person's mind was in admissions. As you and others rightly point out, it isn't true.

        I didn't mean to offend, I was looking at it in a purely mathematical way and that was the only example I could think of where the reward (admissions) was absolutely fixed such that a finite number would be distributed. To my mind, any other interpretation of a zero sum game is just bat shit crazy. This interpretation is just plain wrong, not crazy.

        Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

        by jam on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:52:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  white middle class male opines (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Odysseus

    Using the language of the diary regarding race.

    Some black people do have power.
    Not all black people are color blind - that is, free from racism.
    Therefore there are instances where blacks discriminate against whites.
    As more black people gain power this will happen more often unless black people become more color blind at a faster rate.

    AWD=Anti White Discrimination
    BP=Black Power
    BRR=Black Racist Rate
    AWD≅BP*BRR, if BP is increasing AWD will also increase unless BRR decreases proportionately more.

    Now, anti-black discrimination by whites is still a much more serious problem. The issue is how to decrease both BRR and WRR. I think the easiest way is for whites to go first and set an example.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:33:21 AM PDT

    •  Black people do not have power (5+ / 0-)

      by and large. Where one is talking about affirmative action, while black people may benefit from such programs, they do not devise, nor do they administer said programs. White folk created them and white folk run them... so it's white folk admitting a black or brown student rather than a white student... it's something white folk are doing that affects other white folk, yet the black and brown folk are accused of discrimination when they are not the ones making the choice.

      Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

      by awesumtenor on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:26:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Barack Obama has power (0+ / 0-)

        Power no longer correlates 1-1 with race.

        As the number of black people with power increases, black on white discrimination could increase in proportion.

        In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

        by blue aardvark on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:59:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  really? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FreeStateDem, LucyandByron, Onomastic, pot

        The dean of my law school is African American.  The Dean of Admissions is Asian American, and when I was there the Dean of Students was hispanic.  

        Of course, all of them were fantastic at their jobs and like most successful minority professionals are there 100% on merit.  

        However, this idea that there are no minorities in positions of authority is simply no longer true, and a lot of (white) people have gone to considerable lengths to make it that way, in the face of stiff opposition from (other white) people.

        •  Having a position (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          foufou

          does not mean one has power... see Steele, Michael.

          Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

          by awesumtenor on Thu May 12, 2011 at 01:38:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  sometimes (0+ / 0-)

            but one clearly has more authority in the lead role than not being in the lead role.

            In any event, my pupose was (as always) to raise the issue that these things are more complex than the easy caricatures would suggest.  In fact, there are large numbers of minorities in positions of real authority who have all kinds of complex decisions to make (as white people do as well).  Of course, they are not present in numbers proportional to the population as a whole (were that it were so!).  We know this.  But let us now pretend that there is any kind of pure division to be made here.

              It may be rhetorically satisfying to pretend that only white people are in authority and every minority individual is powerless, it does not really reflect the reality of America.  In fact, we are not starting from the situation in the 1950s, but the decades of efforts by people of good will of all races have produced a good, but partial, result.  

            I don't understand why some people try to elide that fact.

            •  if you are going to (0+ / 0-)
               It may be rhetorically satisfying to pretend that only white people are in authority and every minority individual is powerless, it does not really reflect the reality of America.

              insist on reading your own preconceived notions into what I've said, dialogue is impossible. I never said there are no black persons in positions of authority. I noted that the presence of those black persons in positions of authority do not extend any particular power to the 30 million black citizens in the US in the overall. The fact is, despite the existence of black persons in authority, the AA community remains largely marginalized politically and continues to face a choice between a party of overt racist antagonism on the one hand and a party of more benign racist paternalistic demagoguery on the other. One side is too busy making us the source of what ails america to even be bothered trying to get our vote and the other takes our vote for granted because the Armstrong Williams and Michael Steeles and Clarence Thomases of the world notwithstanding black folks aren't voting for the candidates whose racist ideology forces them to demonize us.

              Only if AA's can build coalition with hispanics and others can we have enough clout to force the political world to pay attention to us... standing alone, however...not so much.

              Fear doesn't just breed incomprehension. It also breeds a spiteful, resentful hate of anyone and everyone who is in any way different from you.

              by awesumtenor on Mon May 16, 2011 at 08:30:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  You're overthinking this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      burlydee, foufou

      There isn't much evidence to say that so-called "reverse racism" or anti-white prejudice exists in hiring, admissions, or anything else.

      Far more likley is that blacks actually have some of the same anti-black prejudices as white decision-makers when it comes to employment, admissions, and similar situations.

      There is a general white resentment that comes with the gradual decline in systemic white supremacy over the past 50 years.

      White person benefits from white supremacy for years, but thinks that the playing field is actually equal because, well, supremacy is the way things have always been for them. They just chalk it up to normalcy.  Gradually, white person starts to see African-Americans gaining some of the same institutional advantages that they had always seen as 'their accomplishments' (going to the better schools, getting the better jobs, etc).  But because supremacy is winding down and equality of opportunity is increasing, the results feel worse for the whites who have always had unnatural advantages but never realized it.

      In this environment, they're going to resent the changes.  And they're going to be extra hostile to anyone pointing out that they benefitted from racism for years.

    •  well when Anti-White discrimination becomes (4+ / 0-)

      widesparead and systematic maybe you will have a point.  Otherwise you are comparing Mt. Everest to a foothill and declaring we have a lot work to do to make the earth flat at both sites.  Sure we do, but one problem has haunted us for 400 years, the other problem is based on antedotal evidence and in areas other than college admissions, simply has not been an issue.  

  •  Racism is bad for ones health (7+ / 0-)

    If whites who are racists would give up their belief, they could focus on other issues and not have to be demonized by the thoughts that they will treated the way they treat current minorities.  

    Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity. Horace Mann (and btw, the bike in kayakbiker is a bicycle)

    by Kayakbiker on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:34:56 AM PDT

  •  The key is not to over generalize. (17+ / 0-)

    Some whites feel this.  43% of white voters voted for Obama.  I bet if we took out southern whites, there would be a majority of white voters for Obama.

    Thee election of Obama did not end racism.  It's not that easy.  But his election both reflects and causes racism to disapate over time.

    Rs have fed the hatred and fear.  That and class stratification.  

    I remain optimistic.  Malcolm X believed, at least up to his last year, that whites would nbever allow equality.  Malcolm X supported Goldwater in 64, arguing that Goldwater was at least honest.  

    Yet, 44 years later we elected an African American President.

    Keep hope alive that whites, blacks, latinos, asians, Native Americans, all colors of the rainbow will come together.

    WWRHD? What Would Robin Hood Do?

    by TomP on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:38:39 AM PDT

    •  I agree. (7+ / 0-)

      As I wrote upthread, there are probably methodological reasons that the authors didn't include scales to measure racism (implicit or explicit) in this study to separate high and low racists. This doesn't mean that all whites feel this way, but this is a very striking finding.

      I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. I'm one of the Angry Gays. Deal with it.

      by psychodrew on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:42:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yeah, But this is Irrelevant (7+ / 0-)
      43% of white voters voted for Obama.

      This is largely irrelevant, as the anecdote of the voter who when asked his preference replied "I'm voting for the nigger." demonstrates quite clearly.  That Obama voter most decidedly was a racist.  Yet he voted for President Obama anyway.  Why? Because for whatever reason he felt the alternative was less palatable to him.  But that doesn't mean he had a Kumbaya moment at all - quite the opposite.  He managed to successfully rationalize voting against his true feelings.  Our mistake would be to pretend that his true feelings actually changed just because of it.

      If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

      by shanikka on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:09:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I do not think (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        psychodrew, effervescent

        your anecdote makes the 43% vote irrelevant.  One anecdote is not evidence of much, if anything at all.

        43% of whites voting for an African American is evidence.  You can seek to rationalize it away, but it is a sea change in American history and life.

        Barack Obama is president and that does mean much.  It does not mean racism is over, but it does mean much.

        Your anecdote does not devalue Barack Obama's achivement and the coalition he created.  Nor does it make all whites racist.  Indeed, I have no doubt that many white McCain voters are not racists.  

        WWRHD? What Would Robin Hood Do?

        by TomP on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:28:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm Not Devaluing Anything (6+ / 0-)

          I'm pointing out that until 2008 we never had the opportunity to determine whether whites would vote for a Black man for President after Jesse Jackson's second run (in which, I remind people, he was the mathematical front runner until people in our own party did the math right before Wisconsin and realized that God help us he might actually enter the convention with the majority of delegates and the national "OMG a Black man might win" hue and cry went up as well as the party's decreased support for the Rainbow Coalition.

          Yet even with President Obama's "coalition" only a minority of whites voted for a Black Democratic candidate, in a year when frankly anyone who voted Republican should have had their head examined given what had occurred in the preceding 8 years.  

          But again, I'm not going to argue about it.  Racism is far more complicated than who someone votes for, or who someone hangs out with (and yes, even who someone marries.)  Superficial signals like that have done as much to drive racism underground where people can't actually reach it to cure it as good.  We don't have to agree, though.

          If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

          by shanikka on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:29:04 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I suspect we agree on much (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raina, Matt Z, effervescent

            and disagree on a few things.  Take care.

            WWRHD? What Would Robin Hood Do?

            by TomP on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:46:59 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  P.S. This concept is (0+ / 0-)

            interesting:

            Superficial signals like that have done as much to drive racism underground where people can't actually reach it to cure it as good

            My first reaction is negative, but I will give it some thought.  

            This, of course, is true:

             

            Racism is far more complicated than who someone votes for, or who someone hangs out with (and yes, even who someone marries.)

            On the other hand, all life is complicated and we talk about it.   In the end, racism is a concept.  People who act on racist views impact others.  But it is not all powerful.  It's an idea, a bad one, but one that can be defeated.

            In my lifetime I have seen great changes.  A black Prresident is one of them, but there are many more.  

            I think I need an explanation of "racism driven underground" to understand it better.  My first inclination is that is a good thing.  But maybe I misunderstand.

            WWRHD? What Would Robin Hood Do?

            by TomP on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:59:21 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  WHen equal rights are viewed... (8+ / 0-)

    ...as a limited resource by so many people in this society, the results are not surprising.

  •  It's fear, of course (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Uncle Chigurh, shanikka, Exquisite, Matt Z

    Fear of losing control of the society that the non-melanin enriched feel that they, alone have created.

    Equality for these people means,

    I will not overtly say that minorities are inferior.  I will not openly espouse that they should not enter my country club, my favorite restaurant or bar, my sporting event.  I will not do these things because some members of my set or even worse, one of those minorities who got affirmative-actioned into a position of authority might not buy my products or promote me, or make me an elder of my church or give my kid a job.  Those of my set who would act this way towards me are weak race-traitors.  Those minorites who are in a position of authority got there because of some mis-guided belief that they actually belong there instead of me.  But I won't speak or write of this out loud. As long as I don't let on to anyone what I really think, that should make everybody equal enough.  I will keep this message burning in my heart.   And I will make sure my children learn my truth.  

    Our promises are made in proportion to our hopes, but kept in proportion to our fears.-LaRouchefoucauld

    by luvsathoroughbred on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:48:03 AM PDT

  •  Everyone not in the top 1% is losing (8+ / 0-)

    Whites less so than blacks, of course.  But to get them to blame the right people,  someone is going to have to actively oppose the top 1%.

  •  This is one reason why some (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    icemilkcoffee

    (including me) think that we may be at the point where diversity programs, and affirmative action programs in areas where slots are limited (like schools, hiring, and promotions) should be based more on socio-economic class and less on race or ethnicity.  

    It kind of follows up on what President Obama said at one point -- that there's no reason his daughters should be the beneficiaries of affirmative action merely because of race or ethnicity.  

    I think that if such programs -- especially in areas like college admissions -- were based more on socio-economic class (giving additional consideration for children who come from families without economic advantages) rather than race or ethnicity, there would be less resentment by the white population and a more target way of providing opportunity to those most in need.  

    •  When Ivys end legacies, I'll support this. nt (7+ / 0-)
      •  But legacies have more to do with class than (0+ / 0-)

        with race.

        Few Ivy League schools (well, none that I know of) will give preferential treatment an applicant just because his/her parent went to that school.  Having a parent that went to the school -- that alone -- does not leap you over a better qualified applicant.

        What DOES make a difference is if the parent donates money to that school.  The more money, the less likely that the school is likely to reject that child and dry up that source of funding.  That WILL leap you over a better qualified applicant.

        In other words, it's not about the fact that parents simply attended the school.  It's all about how much financial support the parents gave to the school.  That's not a "white privilege," it's a "rich privilege."  At Princeton, a middle class white kid does not benefit at all from being white in the admissions process.  A RICH white kid whose parents give zillions to Princeton DOES benefit in the admissions process.  

        That's a class/wealth issue, not a race issue.  If a very very rich minority -- say Will Smith --  starts giving $1 million a year to the USC film school, whether he went to USC or not, you can be that his kids get into USC film school.   You can put money on that.  

        The fact that rich white kids' parents are big donors to the school does not justify, for example, giving preferential treatment to Sasha and Malia on the basis of race.  It DOES justify giving preferential treatment to a poor kid from an economically disadvantaged family, regardless of race or ethnicity.  

        •  Legacy admits reduce diversity (7+ / 0-)

          Class still has a lot to do with race in this country.  Yes, Will Smith, Barack Obama, and a host of other minorities are part of the rich class in America.  But the vast majority of legacy admits are white (and rich).

          According to The Chronicle of Higher Education a new study shows that legacy admits to selective schools can gain as much as a 41% bump to their admission chances.  Meaning someone who would normally have a 30% chance of gaining entrance to the school could have a 70% chance simply because they are a legacy.

          So if you now entirely remove race from consideration (which I agree is the ultimate goal) without removing legacy admits, you will end up with fewer minorities on campus with admissions by those minorities being crowded out by legacy admits.

  •  The biggest (5+ / 0-)

    problem is that the political class has pitted race against race instead of class against class. I would rather have parties representing classes instead of demographics. For example, let's be honest: there are frankly a lot of wealthy African Americans to which the GOP is really their natural home and there are a lot of working class whites whereas the Dem party is more in alignment with many of their issues. That being said, the political class has been so successful at pitting the middle class against each other that no one has noticed that who's really running away with the money is the wealthy in this country. Many people have bought into the plantation mentality that we have to make the "plantation owner" happy because they are the "job creators" completely ignoring the fact that there would be nothing for them without the people who did the work for them.  Workers have become expendable I guess.

    It's the policy stupid

    by Ga6thDem on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:59:07 AM PDT

  •  When I was trying to help my kid with chess (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Deep Texan, Matt Z, Onomastic

    One of the mental concepts I read about is that if you are winning a game, but then your opponent pulls even, then it seems to you like you have just started losing.  

    I think when we look at race as a win/loss sort of situation, then we see momentum swings and changes in score.  We see it like it's a game to be won or lost.  

    It's too bad.

    Missing from the Republican presidential debate? Anyone who can win.

    by otto on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:59:34 AM PDT

  •  No shortage of things that can be done... (5+ / 0-)

    I was reading this report last night, 2011 State of Black Los Angeles, which I mention as an example of a tool for measurement, communication, and correction of myths.

    Sorry if I missed it but does your data cover the tension between struggling working class people (blacks, whites, Latinos, and Asians) and the poor (blacks, whites, Latinos, and Asians)? I wonder to what extent the misery factory supersedes racism or is misinterpreted as racism. My guess is it may be a low but non-zero factor and higher in this economy than in better times.

    What do we do about it?
    Plenty, depending on who we are.
    1. As a hiring authority in LA I used the excellent channel of the LA Urban League for new hires. It's really quite easy to make a difference with intention (i.e., we can compensate for the abandonment of affirmative action laws by simply taking affirmative action in our communities).
    2. Fix the economy.
    3. Communicate. Measure and inform people of the data like in the report I linked above.

    Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

    by kck on Thu May 12, 2011 at 07:59:44 AM PDT

  •  I was told as a high school senior (6+ / 0-)

    that my grades were just good enough to get financial assistance if I could figure out some way to claim an ethnic heritage (I guess bohemian didn't count). Now I already understood the dynamics of race in this country, while as a white kid in a black school I had literally stood in front of a history class (unwillingly) as an example of the evil white man I also had literally marched with the Black Panthers (the Panthers didn't turn out so well in the end but that's a different thread) and the struggle for racial equality seemed like part of a larger struggle. My aunt, however, who also believed that the lottery was rigged for the inner city (wtf?) went on an incredible rant that lasted for days. It was my first encounter with the Reagan strategy of fracture the Democratic coalition by making us the party of, well, Willie Horton.

    Jay Gould said: "I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half".

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:01:25 AM PDT

  •  I think for one thing..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Criticalfrimmel

    ...that we should condemn comments on this site that suggest that white men are the root of all evil.

    I didn't intend the above as a factual statement.

    by Bensdad on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:01:59 AM PDT

  •  Well (33+ / 0-)
    Whites See Racism as a Zero-Sum Game That They Are Now Losing

    The researcher should tell us something we don't know.  I don't know any Black person who is descendent from slavery that didn't know this was the issue - in a world where rewards are sparse (and despite the Horatio Alger myth not tied to "hard work") there is not enough room at the table for whites and their former slave race.  After all, hundreds of years of training for all of us has left everyone with the notion that almost anything us barely-human Black folks (do you really think folks of any race here in America have completely unlearned that message?  Think again) get comes not from our own deserving, but at the expense of true Americans, whites, who the culture trains us to believe are deserving as the default rule for everything they have, in contrast to us lazy, shiftless, trifling Negroes who don't work, who whine, who want something for nothing, and can't get over what was done to us even though the country has been so good to provide us with everything from welfare to government cheese as compensation for hundreds of years of free labor.

    I wish folks would stop researching what is known and start listening to those who already knew it.  Just training folks to listen to Black people about our experience here in America nearly 150 years after we were supposedly emancipated would get to some solutions.

    But alas, white supremacy prevents even that for most people, to this day.

    If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

    by shanikka on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:03:37 AM PDT

  •  Capitalism is failing and to blame. (12+ / 0-)

    There is a zero sum game going on, but it's not Black vs. White in the terminology of the paper, but Capital vs. Labor.  And Labor has been losing battle after battle for 40 years.  And now, Labor is without real representation in the political system.

    The perception among working class Whites that their standard of living is falling is an accurate one.  It's a great tragedy that racism, fueled by the sources the diarist identifies, causes them to blame their Black brothers and sisters rather than those who oppress workers of all races (though Black workers have always born the worst of it).

    The solution is to start speaking the truth about the causes of the decline and lay the blame where it belongs.  This will not be coming anytime soon from Establishment politicians of either party.  They will continue to praise Capitalism and "free markets" while genuflecting before the Great Invisible Hand.

    But we must speak this truth about a system that is failing the vast majority of those in this country while building our own alternative structures to replace it.

  •  I wish I could read more (9+ / 0-)

    comments but my time is limited. Just wanted to thank you for writing about this study. I only have anecdotal experience to draw from but I have been getting the feeling that a few white people have lost their minds. Crazy convos that go like this (irl and the internet);

    "Blacks are too lazy to...(blah blah)....affirmative action bad!"

    "OMG that's so racist! WTF is wrong with you?"

    "Why do you hate white people?"

    What in the...??? Pointing out bigotry is hating white people now?? They've gone fully delusional.

    "Warm smell of Moulitsas rising up in the air..." -seanwright

    by GenXangster on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:08:07 AM PDT

  •  My extended fam feels the same way. (10+ / 0-)

    My parents are normal and awesome, but the extended fam is slightly broke ass and thus rambles about nonsense like the blacks are taught how to apply for welfare in church's and such.  My basic and relatively effective attack to this complaint goes something like this (pardon the embedded racism and foul language that follows, it helps with connecting with the people.  Seriously, I have this conversation on a quarterly basis).

    "So your telling me that the broke ass black folks are rich, or have to much money?  I don't know man I don't see it, they seem pretty broke ass to me.  I live around tons of black folks, black folks everywhere, and their broke asses are broke asses.  So your telling me the broke ass folks have too much?

    If you're telling me the poor have too much and the rich don't have enough I think you're a f*cking idiot, no offense, please explain how the poor are too rich and your broke ass would be less of a broke ass that broke ass black guy was more broke.  Put it in numbers if you can, I'd love to see it, because right now I think you're a sucker."

    This gets people fired up, which usually is exactly the wrong thing to do when talking politics, but people know me and know I mean no harm.  Plus I smile when I say it.

    Generally the road goes to "but they aren't working for it", which comes to my reply of "so you think the broke ass black guy is doing less than everyone else?  I don't know man, I see plenty of rich white kids not doing sh$t.  I live next to them too.  They mock the sh$t out of your broke ass but you don't even know it."

    Follow it up with:

    "Would you have enough money if taxes were 0?  Because I think you'd still only have 40k a year, and you'd still be broke, but you tell me buddy, is it because the govt takes 10k of your 40k that your broke, or maybe if you were being paid 60k and bossman was making say only 2.2M a year instead of 2.26M a year life would be better.  You know what, think what you like, I want to see how this squeezing a juiceless orange works out for you.  Want to bet you and the broke ass black guy will still both be broke asses?"

    "This isn't rocket science, it's simply who has what, and if you think the people who don't have sht have sht I can't help you man."

    Through in more curses, I'm a fan of moving from "ain't got sh$t" to "sh$tless" when describing the broke.  

    It's not poetry, but my broke ass friends get a clue a lot quicker if you break it down simple and dirty.

    I'm going to get trolled rated for this aren't I?  Let me apologize now, sorry for the above, it just works.

    When we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.

    by genethefiend on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:10:38 AM PDT

    •  Sometimes you have to go with what works. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      genethefiend, Matt Z
    •  I get it (6+ / 0-)

      I have had similar conversations with my family about people "living it up" on welfare. My usual reply to them is: If welfare were so fabulous you would think more people would be trying to get on it.

      Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. - Groucho Marx

      by Joe Bob on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:48:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Generally (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      genethefiend

      i find if you stop the bullshit when it starts you kill it. People have very common methods for their idiocy. First they test the waters with codeword comments. If they find those are ok they'll state flat untruths in hopes that they become the social norm. If that is allowed to happen they then bully anyone  not swallowing the coolaid.

      If you stand up to them, even your friends even when it sucks to do so.. the bullshit never starts.. and they grow as humans as you help them move Away from the petty low grade sociopathy that this immoral emotionalisam leads to

      A man is born as many men but dies as a single one.--Martin Heidegger

      by cdreid on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:27:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Equality means "equal" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psychodrew, Exquisite

    This is actually what's also wrong with the third way crowd.
    People who want to get theirs first, then are ok with sharing after that, are not participating honestly.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. - Poor Richard's Almanac 1755 The government exists to protect us from the thugs who got rich ripping off our ancestors. - Mungley 2011

    by mungley on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:12:51 AM PDT

  •  man... (18+ / 0-)

    I really just wish those of us that live the results of studies like this were listened to more on this site, and not treated like agitators because we see it more places than not, including RIGHT on dkos.

    I'll tell the truth:  my eyes are hurting from rolling and narrowing.

    "Wake the town and tell the people!" ~Ewart Beckford, O.D.

    by mallyroyal on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:17:52 AM PDT

  •  Say what? (0+ / 0-)

    This cracker feels like he's winning.  With tiger blood in his veins.  Especially now that a (half...let's be accurate here) black man is POTUS.  Fucking finally.  What took so long to break that shitty mold.  

    This cracker never liked a society where people who looked like him lorded over fake superiority just because they looked like him.

    This cracker campaigned for, voted for, and even choked back a tear for the election of Barack Obama.

    Anyway, this cracker believes and has always believed that racism is for stupid weak p*ssies who can't make it on their own merit.  So fuck those racist crackers who give this cracker a bad rap.  This cracker may look like those crackers, but this cracker hates those motherfucking crackers with atomic fury.

    Obama's wallet is the one that says Bad Motherfucker on it.

    by Uncle Chigurh on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:21:07 AM PDT

  •  The reality (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Criticalfrimmel

    I can understand why White voters feel that way. Although not all White voters are Republicans, the majority support the GOP because they believe that the Democrats are either indifferent--or at worst--hostile to their interests. They think that the Democrats care more about the interests of poor minorities in the inner-city than their own issues. To them the Democrats seem to offer them nothing but higher taxes for social programs that offer them little benefit, while enabling and rewarding pathological behavior.

    Think of one major issue here that the the majority on this board loves: in-state tuition for illegal immigrants at public universities.

    Now put yourself into the shoes of a white-working class family. You and your wife work hard, earn enough to be part of the middle class, and "play by the rules". You have saved some money. And you have two kids who are in high school. They both want to go to the state university.

    Yet you then see that there are Hispanic activists DEMANDING that the children of illegal immigrants get the same benefit that your children have legitimate earned from being US citizens and residents of your state. In your mind you see a group of people who has no legal right to be here DEMANDING the same benefit that you and your children have earned.

    Furthermore, it becomes more grating because the state university is raising its tuition. That means your family will have to scrounge up thousands more to pay to send your kids there. Also financial aid budgets have been cut and there is less grant money available for your children.

    You're supposed to have no problem with it. And if you do, according to many of those activists, by default, you must be a horrible "racist".

    Too many people are dismissive of concerns like that. And that is why many White people feel victimized and think that the Democrats don't offer them anything. To some extend I can understand why they vote Republican, though I don't agree with the reasoning myself.

    And that's "why Whites think they're losing".

    •  Add in that 30% or more are foreign students (0+ / 0-)

      California born and raised kids can't get into state college because over 30% of the seats are filled by foreign students.

      It's easy to see the resentment.

    •  I am a white California parent (5+ / 0-)

      with two children who will be applying to colleges in the next several years. I fully support children of undocumented immigrants who have gone to school here in California having the same rights of admission and in state tuition as my kids will receive.

      It's not the kid's fault that their parents moved here. Talk about resentment ... it really makes me mad when people want to hold back children who are in a situation through no doing of their own. A lot of them were babies or toddlers when they arrived and they are just as American as you or me.

      •  Yes I can appreciate that (0+ / 0-)

        That's why I support some parts of the DREAM Act because, even though I am no fan of illegal immigration, I don't think children should pay for the sins of their parents. But I also think they should be charged the out-of-state rate.

    •  I appreciate your perspective. Some thoughts... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zett

      Social programs don't only benefit target minorities or economically disproportionately affected whites (because as long as we're being honest here, white people use social programs too). Social programs allow and encourage more participation in the overall economy, which means they result (indirectly) in more money flowing, more demand, and more jobs to satisfy demand.

      Social programs don't operate in a vacuum.

      And while I understand the pressures of getting in a university of your choosing, having graduated college in this decade myself (and not from my preferred institution), I can't accept the immigration framing you've put forth here. Children don't "earn" anything by virtue of being born here except citizenship, and given that natural-born citizenship is granted constitutionally, I think it's legitimate for children born here to undocumented workers to want an opportunity to be recognized as citizens. They didn't have a say in where or under what terms they were born. Should they be penalized for the actions of their parents? It's a legitimate debate.

      Your frustrations are completely valid. I understand the pressures you've felt, but I'd offer to you that it isn't the children of undocumented workers that you should be concerned with, nor diversified admissions programs at colleges and universities.

      The cause of your pain is the greed of the wealthy in this country who exploit the desperation of foreign people both here and undocumented and in poor labor conditions abroad to undermine your economic opportunities, and then tap your on the shoulder to say:

      "Hey, that (insert minority here) is stealing your spot in line."

      White people are hurting just like many minorities are, but until they see that they're suffering with minorities, instead of because of minorities, they'll continue to vote for the very people who have continued to undermine their economic opportunity.

      You should be mad, but it's important to be mad at the right people.

      •  Why this message doesn't work (0+ / 0-)
        The cause of your pain is the greed of the wealthy in this country who exploit the desperation of foreign people both here and undocumented and in poor labor conditions abroad to undermine your economic opportunities, and then tap your on the shoulder to say:

        "Hey, that (insert minority here) is stealing your spot in line."

        This statement doesn't work because it's inherently patronizing. The other thing is that most people don't hate the rich the way some people do here.

        •  Patronizing? It's true. (0+ / 0-)

          Demonstrably so. The Tea Party is just the latest in a long line of efforts to keep the middle and lower classes at each others throats while the greedy among our wealthy conspire to take even more of the nation's wealth without giving back anything of value.

          It's not about hating "wealth". It's about realizing that we share common interests in the fact that the greedy are systematically dismantling the means available for the middle and lower classes to grow their own wealth.

          Hence this statement which followed your blockquote:

          White people are hurting just like many minorities are, but until they see that they're suffering with minorities, instead of because of minorities, they'll continue to vote for the very people who have continued to undermine their economic opportunity.

    •  Those illegal immigrant children are also state (1+ / 0-)

      residents. Many of them have been here since grade school. It's not like we are giving in-state tuition status to a foreign student from Mexico.

      I do, however, echo your earlier comment that race based affirmative action engenders white backlash.

  •  To quote Chris Rock.. (11+ / 0-)

    .."[I]f white people are losing America, who the hell is winning?"

    "That's quite a jump. But you keep it up, I'm sure one day you'll clear that shark."

    by Steve In DC on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:26:20 AM PDT

  •  I think we begin (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psychodrew

    by acknowledging the way that race in general, and the idea of reverse racism in particular, have been used by the ownership class to divide and distract those of us in the peonage. The first graph you posted, showing how Americans view the march to equality, is pretty much the mirror image of what the owners of this country want -- they'd like to bring middle- and lower-class whites down to the level of political and economic power that African-Americans and other minorities have historically had in this country. And they have come to understand that the best way to do this is to (1) degrade the intelligence and critical thinking skills of the voting public by compromising the quality of public education and steering parents toward sending their children to private parochial schools, which for the most part are little more than right-wing indoctrination centers; and (2) pollute the feeble minds of low-information white voters against social spending programs that have not only served to help reduce the gap between whites and minorities, but have also served to improve the quality of life for poor and working-class whites.

    AKA Big Tex *** If Barack Obama is the only adult in the room, then it must be his fault that the drapes are on fire and the cat's been shaved.

    by Maikeru Ronin on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:26:24 AM PDT

  •  Did people catch yesterday's NYT story on the (10+ / 0-)

    Neo-Nazi figure (who was murdered by his own 10 year old son) and his network, the leader of which is,

    "Jeff Schoep, a suit-wearing spokesman for what he calls a 'white civil rights movement,' which he views as no different from other groups that defend minorities.

    'If we’re a hate group,' said Mr. Schoep in an interview, 'then Martin Luther King is a racist or a bigot also.'"

    He's absolutely the personification of what your data points to, the utterly astonishing sense of white victimization. It's an outrageous distortion of what MLK represented (hint: "judged not by the color of their skin" means exactly that! It is very much a rallying cry that is inclusive to white people!!) And it's a phenomenal distraction from the real issue victimizing the vast majority of white (and black and brown, etc.) people, namely the ever expanding inequality of wealth perpetuated by a small number of white overlords. Their victimization is absolutely real, but they can't fucking accept that it comes from within their own race, from a class their never going to be allowed to join.

    •  It reminds me of an argument I once (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      PhilJD, samanthab, sethtriggs, Matt Z

      had about Rev. Al Sharpton. I told a conservative that I really admired Rev. Sharpton and he went on a tangent about he only cares about black people. No evidence that Al Sharpton is a truly fierce advocate for the LGBT community (supported marriage equality in 2004 presidential race) and for the working poor. Yes, he does stuff on civil rights and that stuff gets him on the news a lot, but he does work that benefits middle class whites as well.

      I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. I'm one of the Angry Gays. Deal with it.

      by psychodrew on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:35:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  LOL @ (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs, zett, Matt Z

      Neonazi being capped by his 10 year old son.

      Spectacular!

      Obama's wallet is the one that says Bad Motherfucker on it.

      by Uncle Chigurh on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:43:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  These nuts always bring me back to Archie Bunker (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zett, Matt Z

      Archie was a prototype for two kinds of white man, concurrent realities we all lived/live through - Archie the villain and Archie the victim of his own self, albeit incapable of introspection or self-awareness.

      Everyone except "Archies" laughed at Archie Bunkerand there was an Archie at the top of most white families sitting around the TV:  

      He is a veteran of World War II, reactionary, bigoted, conservative, blue-collar worker, and family man, played to acclaim by Carroll O'Connor. The Bunker character was first seen by the American public when All in the Family premiered in January 1971....

      Archie was the head of a family consisting of his wife Edith (Jean Stapleton), his adult daughter Gloria (Sally Struthers), and his son-in-law, college student Michael "Mike" Stivic (Rob Reiner), (with whom Archie disagreed on virtually everything; he frequently characterized Mike as a "dumb Polack", and usually addressed him as "Meathead" because, in Archie's words, he was "dead from the neck up"). During the show's first five seasons, Mike and Gloria were living with Archie and Edith, so that Mike could put himself through college....

      All in the Family got many of its laughs by playing on Archie's bigotry, although the dynamic tension between Archie and liberal Mike provided an ongoing political and social sounding board for a variety of topics...

      Archie Bunker... is a WASP....he mocked the British and referred to England as a "fag country," because of their English accents. He also referred to Germans as "Krauts", the Irish as "Micks", the Japanese as "Japs", the Italians as "Dagos", the Chinese as "Chinks" and Hispanics or Latinos as "Spics." He often used the word "colored" in reference to African-Americans, although the term was outdated by the 1970's.

      Besides that Archie, the company-man version of Archie was being rejected, pushed out, and left behind in business and corporate American. At the same time as Affirmative Action programs started to pick up we as a total culture were viscerally, frankly and assertively shoving our Archies out not wanting to be reminded of their embedded nature in our culture. This was a massive and viciously implemented corporate phase of "growth" producing great bitterness. These guys did have pensions and health insurance at least...

      Think about the tragic modern Archie Bunker'esque dockworkers in The Wire. Archie is not merely an historic character. Archies are still very much alive and vote in high numbers.    

      Of course there was/is a backlash. As usual, black Americans take the brunt of the backlash and remain the ubiquitous target of convenience for all of our sins in the US. And of course, this is all on top of the racism inherent in the African American experience.

      Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

      by kck on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:55:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  not surprising and some thoughts. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Criticalfrimmel

    first i'm a white guy. -disclosure and such

    1)is it really surprising when you have policies like affirmative action? This is one policy which very well may give opportunity to blacks over whites even if less qualified. This concept has a very strong psychological impact on white people.

    2. Then there is talk of social or economic justice. This entire concept to white people rings of repreations for slavery. They do not understand why they should be punished for things that no one is still alive to blame.

    3. Diversity education. Whether you like it or not, the way most white people see diversity is that diversity ALWAYS comes at the expense of white people, and sometimes males. For example, all white colleges had to integrated in the name diversity whereas all historically black colleges must remain segregated for the same reason.

    4. Progressives using phrases like, and getting excited about, the "Browning of America". You can't expect for white people not to see black power in america rising at white people expense when race as a proxy for future electoral wins.

    5. What's going on in south africa and etheopia also has an impact.  In south africa the end of apartheid was a giant win. What replaced it went from oppression of the majority to oppression of the white minority. They have enacted insane affirmative action laws that are forcing people who have been in jobs for decades out and replacing them with black people. any black people. In Etheopia laws have been made that the government can just take land away from white people and give it to black people without any due process. Even when a white person buys land after the transfer of power and has documents signed by the government this is still the case.

    Should white people see it as zero-sum game? I don't know. This has played out in a couple countries and hasn't turned out good for white people. It also doesn't help that white men, who were the power of the economy, don't have jobs in this economy whereas blacks(particularly black woman) largely haven't lost their jobs in the man-cession.

    •  One Day (22+ / 0-)

      I am going to write a diary about the "affirmative action myth."  Meaningful affirmative action has not existed in this country for 20 years  It was gutted quite quickly by the courts right on up to the US Supreme Court after Nixon started implementing programs.

      Yet this idea that somehow folks of color are benefitting from "affirmative action" still persists.  Why?

      If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

      by shanikka on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:32:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it doesn't matter (0+ / 0-)

        it still weighs heavily on white people view of race relations in this country.

        •  I Disagree (20+ / 0-)

          If whites are continuing to believe in a myth and construe that myth as harmful to them, it matters very much.  Both for whites, and for Blacks, who are perceived as having advantages that legally they have not had for more than 20 years and only had for a very brief time at that (in other words, contrary to all perceptions Blacks continue to get ahead based on merit -- actually beyond merit, since it still remains true that we have to be twice as good to get 1/2 as far in the professional world -- and continue to be hindered by racism despite merit.

          If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

          by shanikka on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:55:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Agreed (13+ / 0-)

            Affirmative Action seems to be construed by Whites as a chance for Blacks to get a boost - a ten-yard head start in a footrace. That would be true, if you were starting out on an equal footing.

            There is no equal footing here. When you're starting from thirty yards back, giving you a ten-yard boost doesn't put you at parity - it just gets you a little closer. Truth is, if you give an employer two resumes that are exactly the same except for the names - if one of those names sounds "White" and the other sounds "Black"... the resume with the White-sounding name gets chosen more often than not, and by a fairly large margin. People automatically make assumptions about things like that, even if they don't realize they're doing it.

            Look at Donald Trump, and his assumptions about President Obama... asking "how did he get into Harvard" when Trump says he "heard" that Obama had bad grades at Occidental. No proof of this, just his "some people say" argument.

            The automatic assumption Trump was making (and thus pushing on the viewer) was that since Obama was Black, he couldn't possibly have gotten into Harvard on his own merits. Had to have been affirmative action, since "everyone knows" that Blacks aren't smart enough to get in on their own. And that's the problem with White society and affirmative action - the assumption that ANY Black person who gets ahead MUST have gotten (and needed) that little extra push from those extra-specially nice White guys, as a huge favor.

            If you're Black, you can't possibly be intelligent enough to get into a college like Harvard on your own, right? You MUST need a little help from the Big White Father. It's a demeaning and ridiculous attitude.

            And it doesn't end there. Trump and so many like him are peeved because this Black man (who must have needed OUR help to get there) is now President, and is the man in charge. How DARE he? How DARE this Black man who needed OUR help to get into college presume to be in charge over White people??

            And how dare he put a Latina on the Supreme Court?? Why, she must have been an affirmative action case too, because Lord knows no non-White person could EVER get an education without OUR HELP! So how could this "Wise Latina" (and now we insert the appropriate eyeroll) ever judge good White Folk?

            And when it comes to the Supreme Court, that Barack Obama might want to fill it up with all Black Muslim women! Heavens forfend! Nine Muslim Black American women? They couldn't POSSIBLY represent all Americans adequately, now could they?

            Oh, no, of course not!

            And yet, we seem to think that nine rich White Christian men could represent all Americans without bias... oddly enough.

            I don't think we'll start to heal as a nation until we can at least get rid of the idea that the societal "norm" is a Christian White Male. Or that the "norm" is White, period. Whites NEED to be a minority for a while... a long while. Maybe then we'll grow up a little bit.

            And I say that as a White woman myself.

            "We have only the moral ground we actually inhabit, not the moral ground we claim." - It Really Is That Important

            by Diogenes2008 on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:28:48 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  I think a lot of people (7+ / 0-)

        don't even understand what "affirmative action" means or requires. They believe that it entails giving jobs/college admission/etc. to minorities and women who are underqualified for the positions they're applying for and/or significantly less qualified than white/male applicants, when that's not how it actually works.

        AKA Big Tex *** If Barack Obama is the only adult in the room, then it must be his fault that the drapes are on fire and the cat's been shaved.

        by Maikeru Ronin on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:47:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  It was not dismantled outright by courts (0+ / 0-)

        For example, here in CA, race based affirmative action wasn't ended until the 1996 initiative spearheaded by Ward Connerly. The same man subsequently also launched successful initiative drives in several other states. While it is certainly less prevalent now than 20 years ago, it certainly didn't end 20 years ago.

        Also- college admissions is not the only place with race based affirmative action. It also exists in government contracting and hiring. You remember the New Haven firefighter case? That was just a few years ago.

        •  1996 (7+ / 0-)

          Was nearly 20 years ago, wouldn't you agree? (2011-1996=15 years)

          If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

          by shanikka on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:31:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Yes, that part is right (0+ / 0-)

            I was just saying that was the real "beginning of the  end" of the affirmative action era. Since that CA initiative, a number of other states have gradually followed suit. But it was a state by state change. It's not like the Supreme Court ended it once and for all. The Bakke case put some limitations on it. But the Grutter case explicitly upheld the "race as a factor among many" style of affirmative action.

            That's why It's not really correct to say that supreme court decisions have ended affirmative action 20 years ago. Court decisions have defined boundaries for affirmative action; but popular backlash has ended it in a number of states.

            •  You (5+ / 0-)

              Should go read the cases.

              For example, you cite the New Haven firefighters case as involving "affirmative action."  It didn't.  It involved an allegation that the City of New Haven engaged in "reverse  discrimination" when it threw out test results on the stated grounds that the results were so racially lopsided that the city was in danger of being sued for discrimination against African-Americans because it was not clear that the test was a racially-neutral test of qualifications for the job within the meaning existing anti-discrimination precedents.  Nobody was the beneficiary of affirmative action, nobody raised the issue of affirmative action in Ricci.

              Yet in your mind, that's an "affirmative action" case.

              I stand by what I said, as it relates to the law of affirmative action.  It largely no longer exists, because it is virtually impossible to create a legal affirmative action program anymore, under the lengthy string of precedents starting, yes, since Bakke.

              If you don't stand for something, you will go for anything. Visit Maat's Feather

              by shanikka on Fri May 13, 2011 at 04:11:48 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      slinkerwink, terrypinder, sethtriggs

      Your first two points seem to largely be about perception. Whites don't understand these concepts--affirmative action and diversity. I agree. They don't.

      I really disagree with what you wrote about South Africa. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has done a great deal to heal racial tensions.

      I'm gay and I'm pissed. I'm not giving up, I'm not giving in, I'm not backing down, and I'm not going away. I'm one of the Angry Gays. Deal with it.

      by psychodrew on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:40:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Historically black colleges... (8+ / 0-)

      ...are so named because they were so historically...in other words those were the ONLY places black folk could go to college in the vicinity and south of the Mason-Dixon line. Blacks were excluded from every other university.

      For example, look at the admissions criteria for Clark Atlanta University:

      http://admissions.cau.edu/...

      People of other races and ethnicities can and DO attend HBCUs. Check out the stats here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      I think people need to learn more about things like this. Such discrimination would be illegal. An institution being named a historically black college or university is simply a classification, not a regulation.

    •  may give opportunity to blacks over whites even if (11+ / 0-)

      even if less qualified".

      that is a plaint of the right wing.

      S.Africa:

      What replaced it went from oppression of the majority to oppression of the white minority

      um - no.  What do you know about SA really?

      The majority of wealth in SA is still held in the hands of a tiny white minority.

      "If you're in a coalition and you're comfortable, you know it's not a broad enough coalition" Bernice Johnson Reagon

      by Denise Oliver Velez on Thu May 12, 2011 at 12:19:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  On Point #5, aren't you talking about (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sethtriggs

      Zimbabwe? Robert Mugabe has been doing that, but I haven't heard that going on in Ethiopia.

  •  Can I get a race change? (1+ / 0-)

    It's almost embarassing to be a middle-aged white American these days with these other "representatives" of my demographic around.

  •  The problem is, the concern over the (8+ / 0-)

    decline in standards of living is real, but it's not because of race. It's because of neo-liberal economic policies as pursued by every President since Carter, and the morons in Congress that enable them.

    When people see themselves working more hours at more tenuous jobs with more fleeting benefits just to tread water, they're going to blame someone. They've blamed the wrong people.

    That's why progress on gender/race/sexuality equality must go hand-in-hand with broad-based prosperity. The "socially liberal, economically conservative" Democrats have self-destructed their own agenda, because the two are not mutually compatible.

    Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

    by Robobagpiper on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:30:16 AM PDT

    •  I just finished re-reading... (0+ / 0-)

      ...The Strange Career of Jim Crow and it is clear that as in the past, it is lower income whites (Northern or Southern) that through history tend to see a threat in the process of assimilation of African Americans into society and the economy.

      To the degree that only the rich have any increase in wealth, as has happened over the last 30 years, low income whites will feel that black assimilation is a threat to their standard of living.

      Dailykos.com; an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action -1.75 -7.23

      by Shockwave on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:10:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Black peoples standards has always been lower (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blindyone, foufou, ribletsonthepan, sberel

      And from people like yourself I get the impression once it improves for you, the Blacks can just stay the fuck where they have always been.

      You people get all neo liberal and making up new economic paradigms because it's now your ass in pain, and when it's not since you didn't give a shit before and now that Blacks are you will most likely continue.  This shit started for us before Jimmy Carter, and white people started hating social programs the minute somone told them Blacks would get it.

      Every moment in life contains an off ramp. Never be afraid to use it.

      by Adept2u on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:24:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Your impression appears to be rectally (0+ / 0-)

        extracted, as it can not be honestly derived from anything I've said.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:28:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'll quote (7+ / 0-)

          the (6+ / 0-)
          decline in standards of living is real, but it's not because of race.

          So, when you say shit like it's not because of race allow me to call you a delusional person.  From a straight line from when we were stolen from Africa we have been oppressed and it is all about race.  White peoples living standards have declined so its a hair on fire emergency, black people have never had what white people have in this country, and the minute we seem to achieve anything white people think its out of their asses.

          So when you say that Black people are in the positions they are and have historically been, and it's not because of race I consider thoughts like that the most vile kind of eyes closed apologia for the issue that has cursed this country from the start.  It is about race for us, and when the economy improves for the white folks and you don't care anymore it will apparently still be for us.

          Every moment in life contains an off ramp. Never be afraid to use it.

          by Adept2u on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:52:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "...people like yourself..." (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        slinkerwink

        How can this be helpful?

        Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

        by kck on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:36:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Helpful? (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blindyone, foufou, ribletsonthepan, sberel

          You know a real issue in America is White people get molly coddled.  They get to believe the President is a Kenyan and get major media organizations to back their delusions.  So when I say people like Robo there assume I have some prior knowledge of the person, and as this country is about as big a racist hole as the world has ever had to suffer, why don't you listen to the Black man and heed his words as opposed to looking to get helped.

          Every moment in life contains an off ramp. Never be afraid to use it.

          by Adept2u on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:46:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Helpful, like in keeping personal views... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            slinkerwink

            ...of another person out of the thread, moving it into email.  Personalizing to the commenter is irrelevant to the rest of us and unhelpful. Irrelevant and impolite, IMHO.  

            Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

            by kck on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:52:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Lol you must be joking (4+ / 0-)

              So, you think your reputation and previous comments are to be erased with every comment you make.  Non fracking sense.  My comments carry validity without regard to the individual nature of the person I was responding to and express things that I feel need to be said and again because you don't feel helped by it doesn't mean anything to me.

              Every moment in life contains an off ramp. Never be afraid to use it.

              by Adept2u on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:55:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Of course everyone's "comments carry validity" (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                slinkerwink

                ...except where they wander into gossip, slander, insult, or ad hominem or some other anti-social disruption.  

                Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

                by kck on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:07:34 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Cause the Black man is anti social (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  mallyroyal, foufou, ribletsonthepan

                  Thanks and don't give a fuck I'd jump on your table and piss in your punch bowl.

                  Every moment in life contains an off ramp. Never be afraid to use it.

                  by Adept2u on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:15:45 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I'm not commenting to "the Black man" (0+ / 0-)

                    I'm pointing out to you that this phrase - "...people like yourself..." - made that comment anti-social.

                    Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

                    by kck on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:26:25 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh yes you are (9+ / 0-)

                      "people like yourself" were people I absolutely meant to highlight and attach the comment to, however as happens often around here although I wasn't speaking directly to you the bait was real tasty so you felt like I was speaking to you.  I answered in great detail what those people were.  They were people who attempt to make racism a class issue, and they are doing so ever so convieniently only in a time when white people are hurting.  Never giving a shit that Black people have always been in pain which was the actual point of the original comment.

                      Again that's a sweet delusion white people get to have.  They really will look a Black person right in their face and say no, its not the racism its the classism,

                      Well check this out partner.  I'm not poor.  I'm 3 generations not poor and yet racism touches me on a daily basis, so for those "people like yourself" who want to boil this into a class issue because they are in the soup too, there are 2 pots, and one has been simmering for 350 fucking years.

                      Every moment in life contains an off ramp. Never be afraid to use it.

                      by Adept2u on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:31:07 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Look, I know who you ... (0+ / 0-)

                        ...and the commenter you replied to. Irrelevant. I clarified as much as possible.

                        Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

                        by kck on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:38:59 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  Adept, you're an ass... (0+ / 0-)

                        but you're not Miles Davis, who in this 1989 interview for 60 Minutes, conducted by the clueless Harry Reasoner, said exactly the same thing you did.

                        I remember how I winced when Reasoner was asking his goddamned utterly ignorant questions of Miles re: race.

                        Miles, who was well known for losing it got through that interview. Don't ask me how. Miles was one bad ass genius. Frankly, I don't know how they got him to do the thing in the first place.

                        I interjected this simply because your answer reminded me of Miles. Don't want no part of this thread.

                        Bye.

    •  Problem is... (0+ / 0-)

      ..."progress on gender/race/sexuality equality" never does "go hand-in-hand with broad-based prosperity" nor on an equal basis.

      If the country grows at, say, 3% and that growth is somehow equal for blacks and white, as extraordinary as that would be, then there would always be inequality with blacks of the short end of any practical measurement.  

      No matter how much progress is being made, progress is being made by all parts so there's never a sense of "catching up".

      Recognition of the inequalities has to be a part of productive dialog, especially when assessing how to allocate precious resources.

      Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

      by kck on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:35:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Never said the two track linearly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zett

        Only that one is impossible without the other.

        Progress can, in fact, run faster for disadvantaged groups - but as long as the privileged groups perceive themselves to be prospering, they're less inclined to begrudge it, then when they perceive themselves to be struggling.

        You can't have a zero-sum game when the sum is sufficiently growing.

        Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

        by Robobagpiper on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:46:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I said elsewhere here that that's probably a small (0+ / 0-)

          ...though non-zero factor that hasn't been measured here.

          Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

          by kck on Thu May 12, 2011 at 11:10:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  These numbers will improve (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psychodrew

    with the death of a couple of generations of the people who, by and large, functioned satisfactorily enough with the zero sum game mentality, and probably cannot change at this juncture.

    "At some point we must stop thanking God for rain when, in fact, we're getting urinated on by mainstream America." --D. Omavi Harshaw

    by Bendra on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:41:52 AM PDT

  •  In a narrow sense, they're right (0+ / 0-)

    By 2041, white Americans will be the new minority, and non-whites tend to vote for Democrats.  And we won't have to wait nearly that long for Republicanism to be in severe jeopardy.

    All that might be some people's idea of a zero sum game.

    Fuck with the truth at your own peril. -Anonymous

    by thenekkidtruth on Thu May 12, 2011 at 08:58:14 AM PDT

  •  Try being a white American make in today's job mkt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bigtimecynic

    It's bad enough trying to get a job as a white male, but in computer engineering, you're dead meat if you're American.

  •  Competition for resources: The Human Monkey (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terrypinder, Superpole, EthrDemon

    This is the way it works with monkeys.  

    We are hardwired for most of what follks here call "racism!"  What they really mean is "ethnic or cultural discrimination!"  Humans have only one "race," the Human one and it is divided into cultural and ethinic divisions.  We all belong to the same race.

    Other primates discriminate and compete for resources in the same manner.  Skin and other physical and cultural markers are just a way of distinguishing competitors for perceived limited resources be it food, females or habitat. All primates use all the same tools we do to claim their rights including politics and violence and discrimination.

    This is just who we are.  Monkeys.

    •  I've yet to encounter a species of monkey (4+ / 0-)

      that enslaves and strictly segregates other monkeys. White supremacy is the descendant of the crazed practices of 16th century colonists. Who were not only brutal toward their fellow humans but also eradicated many species of wildlife in an incredibly short period of time once they had discovered their hitherto unknown habitats. Brutality was the air they breathed. On one level the shocking willingness of Europeans to engage in mass murder and genocide probably had to do with fears for their own immediate survival, being badly outnumbered as they were. But again, only human intelligence made possible the ghastly efficiency with which they sought to establish dominance.

      There's something about human brutality that suggests it had at one time to do with the survival of the species. I don't think there are too many parallels to the animal kingdom that provide sufficient explanation as to why humans are so horribly exploitative of their fellows, whatever physical differences describe them.

      •  We are no better or worse than the other primates. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        EthrDemon

        The same patterns emerge in other primates when studied in depth.  

        The history of Human Monkeys can be characterized as the exploitation of one group by another as far back in history as you would care to research.  

        What you say here is the only difference:

        But again, only human intelligence made possible the ghastly efficiency with which they sought to establish dominance.
    •  the color blind argument (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sberel

      I disagree completely...there isn't some mythical "one race" of human beings...not by a long shot, yet anyway.

      New courses in ignorance available! Bagger 101: If it is good for the corporation, it is good for me. Bagger 201: I never got a job from a poor man. Bagger 301: Regulation inhibits free markets.

      by rexymeteorite on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:35:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  For your consideration: (0+ / 0-)

    There are, in actuality, TWO "white races" in the world today-------------on the one hand, we have the craven, hatemongerish, supremist white race who are doing everything in their power to put off their extinction event---and there is the big-tent white subset of the overall human race who can see themselves as merely within a well-stirred pot of stew.  It doesn't matter if you're the broth, the meat, the potatoes, the carrots, or whatever else might be in the mix; it all comes out hearty and good for you.

    That first group?  They're just an outlier....

    I count even the single grain of sand to be a higher life-form than the likes of Sarah Palin and her odious ilk.

    by Liberal Panzer on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:14:32 AM PDT

  •  What do we do about it? (0+ / 0-)

    What Obama has done is speak to exactly these issues and try to educate whites that progress isn't a zero sum game. His Philadelphia speech took exactly the right approach. We may not be able to measure the progress for a while, but I hope we see the impact that I expect to see over time from Obama and others among us talking about race the way he has done. We'll see.

    E Pluribus Unum: Out of many, one.

    by Ian Reifowitz on Thu May 12, 2011 at 09:20:18 AM PDT

  •  Whites ARE losing, they know it and the inability (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Superpole

    of my side of the political aisle to break out of a racial paradigm from the 1960's civil rights era is what prevents many white people from making common cause with liberal/leftist issues.

    White people, like all human beings, have tradition and instincts that tend to cause them to feel an affinity to others who share, not only their skin color, but also cultural, religious, ethnic similarities that make it easier to make common cause based on a perception of shared goals or ideals.

    So, whites have gone from thinking about the US as a country inhabited overwhelmingly by whites to contemplating their own minority status in a period of (difficult to pin down), for sake of argument, 40 years-that's extremelly traumatic. Instead of trying to understand the legitimate concerns of whites and helping to separate those from actual racism, my liberal political side of the spectrum seems to prefer to scream racism, in what has become a knee-jerk fashion.

    That's a big part of why many working class whites have no affinity to Democratic or leftist causes or issues. They don't count and we love to remind them how their children will count even less because as Kos recently wrote "Lilly white 'murka" is becoming a thing of the past.

    The only slightly concealed joy of this by many on the left is perceived by many white people, believe me.

    What assurances do we give these people that they have nothing to fear? They are losing and they know it.

    •  Hahaha (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      doroma, Superpole, moonpal, Matt Z

      Oh no!  The country we stole from dark skinned people is re-darkening!  Everyone feel sorry for us because we aren't privileged anymore!

      Most leftist - white, black, red and brown - are concerned about equality in economics and in social life.   That means equality between the forces of labor and capitol as well.   Your description of the left makes me believe you don't actually understand the left you claim to be a part of.   You cry about Dems seeing things through a racial paradigm than write 3 paragraphs about whites are losing their grip on power.  Give me a break.  

    •  Meaningless commentary! So I guess blacks are (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      foufou, moonpal, Matt Z

      winning and they know it. Would love to see any evidence of this though!

      open your mind or someone else will open it for you, but be careful you don't open it too much for you brain to fall out.

      by carlos the jackal on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:08:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh jeeze (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      moonpal, Matt Z

      "If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened-that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death." - George Orwell, 1984

      by Moon Mop on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:09:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Implementing change always means real loss (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      zett

      Some embrace that loss while others resist it. You raise an important point, that there's real authentic loss that comes with positive, albeit slow, change. Even if it gets  neurotic, people mourn loss.

      To make change the pain of not changing must be more than the pain of changing. That equation will be factored differently by ideology as well as demographics, financial security, etc.  Some people are constitutionally unable to make the transition and will be left behind, creating consequences and additional losses that have to be factored in up front.  

      We all have different roles. Beyond our own personal experience, some people with actual responsibility to implement change in whatever their capacity is, must know that success depends on reflection of just the issues you raise.

      For people only suffering the existing circumstances day after day they can be excused for being more reactive.  

      In corporate change implementations one step is to paint this picture realistically, coax people to see their own place in the movement accurately and help those who will not be successful to leave gracefully and as soon as possible. Culturally, this is not quite so graceful or systematic and more reliant on generational shifts.

      Eliminate the Bush tax cuts Eliminate Afghan and Iraq wars Do these things first before considering any cuts

      by kck on Thu May 12, 2011 at 10:23:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You needed research to find this out? Typical. eom (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    foufou, doroma, ribletsonthepan
  •  very good diary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    psychodrew, sberel

    Thanks for writing it.

  •  This is what fuels the tea party. (5+ / 0-)

    I never believed the tea party new found concern for deficits or anger at "Government run healthcare".
    It all boils down to race.

    Very malicious as well in that they'd rather go without rather than see the "those people" get something for "free".

  •  Glass half empty? (5+ / 0-)

    What a strange way to look at the world, to think that if other people have opportunities that we are harmed rather than enriched.

    I work with a diverse group of people, in fact I am the only white person in my immediate office and one of only a few white people who works on this floor of the building. And I don't see that as a loss at all. I am enriched to have the opportunity to work with a group of people who, as Bill Clinton put it, "look like America."

    What would be a loss would be if I were surrounded by people who look just like me.

    I have a hard time getting into the heads of a lot of other white people these days.