Remembering Alvar Nuñez
This is actually a fairly common argument among American conservatives. And, to be fair, it is a particularly naked and acute example, but that's a matter of tact. You know, like sometimes you absolutely have to fart, and the question is to let it rip in company or be surreptitious in venting your pollution. And, quite like flatulence, it often stinks less if you just let it bark like a gecko.
The underlying premise is that the only fair, non-racist thing to do is to allow racism to flourish, exploit, and victimize.
It goes kind of like this: Yes, we know that the terrible history of bad mistakes made by good people trying their best ended up with a result that looked racist. And racism is terrible. That's why we shouldn't do anything to fix the situation. Programs designed to raise minorities out of bad conditions are still racially/ethnically oriented, which is why they are bad. Because all racism is bad. Therefore, the only just thing to do is to stop trying to fix the problem.
Some might also make the point that this argument is put forward by people who also reject the non-ethnic, non-racial solution. And in that light, we see that it is a class issue more than anything else. There are plenty, today, who actually resent that class and race issues overlap, because they end up being viewed as racist, which is terrible, when all they really are is classist, which is ... less terrible.
In the end, it's probably subconscious, or even unconscious to a certain degree.
Abstractly: Imagine that in our society, you have wealth that equals 10 times your living necessity. I have wealth that equals 1. The way our society is structured, it is most likely that your children will have 15-20 apiece, while my child will have <1. Somebody decides that this is problematic, and sets out to equalize the situation somewhat.
At the end of that effort, my grandchildren have wealth that equals 5-6 times living necessity. Your grandchildren will still have 15-20. Maybe even a bit more, like 22 or 25 times living necessity.
What is unacceptable, then, to your grandchildren is a matter of proportions. It isn't enough to simply have more. If their wealth equals 25 times living necessity, they are only 4-5 times as wealthy as my grandchildren. Back in your day, you were ten times as wealthy as me.
The only acceptable outcome for your grandchildren, then, would be if their wealth equaled 50-60 times living necessity, so that they could still be ten times as wealthy as other people.
That's the underlying equality of various conservative laments. They don't want equality. Their worldview is, fundamentally, competitive. People can only achieve their potential through fighting with one another.
So the idea that anything should disrupt their competitive advantage is bad. And if that happens to fall along racial or ethnic lines, of course they're going to fight to keep their perceived advantage, and how dare you suggest that makes them racist. After all, you're the racist for wanting to make people equal.
That equality violates their expectation of a competitive environment. The fact that equality must at some point address questions of race and ethnicity only means that equality itself is a racist idea.
Thus, we come back to black history month, or whatever. If we don't have an equal celebration of white power, the white advantage, such as it is, will erode. If white people have x advantage over black people, maybe in five years it will be x/2, or 2x/3, or something less than x. And if white people have to give up that advantage in order for black people to be equal, well, you're a racist for saying so. The only just solution is that X[sub]w[/sub] remains proportionally greater than X[sub]m[/sub]—that white people retain a certain advantage over ethnic minorities. It's the only real, fair equality, you know.
I would also note as a related side issue that in the past some have criticized me for not extending enough sympathy to those I disagree with. I would hope people understand the problem with asking me, such as it is, to write the opposition's argument. That is, if anyone who actually believes that black history month is a gross injustice against white people would like to step up and explain it in similar detail, I'm quite sure the argument will read considerably differently.
Furthermore, I would suggest that perhaps we ought to have a white history month in which schools celebrate the accomplishments of Columbus, Cromwell, Hitler, and others. I would love to see the comparative essays in the Euro-American Perspectives 101 final: Identify and explain the differences between Columbus' outlook on indigenous peoples in the Americas and that of Cabeza de Vaca. How have these outlooks influenced later generations?
It would, I admit, be interesting to see how the culture dealt with such a straightforward proposition. After all, the outlook that said, "Whoa! Wait a minute, these are people," is the one that lost. And for good reason: Look at what we have built in America. If heroes like Columbus had been overcome by sniveling, wimpy liberals like Cabeza de Vaca, we'd all be eating Vichy cheese. Or rice. Or drinking vodka. Or fill in the blank. I'm not sure who would have taken us over and made us into a nation of their prison bitches.
Of course, if Columbus' convenient cruelty hadn't won our philosophical hearts, such as it is, nobody can promise that there would have been Nazis, or a Pearl Harbor raid, or any evil Soviets to have a Cold War with.
It's a complete mess.
Just remember, though, that at its heart, the outlook demands that everyone and everything be in competition with one another. And in the end, what they're telling people is, essentially, that, "Your right to live through this says nothing about my right to win."
And anything else, to these people, is simply unjust.
Bells said:
This is actually a fairly common argument among American conservatives. And, to be fair, it is a particularly naked and acute example, but that's a matter of tact. You know, like sometimes you absolutely have to fart, and the question is to let it rip in company or be surreptitious in venting your pollution. And, quite like flatulence, it often stinks less if you just let it bark like a gecko.
The underlying premise is that the only fair, non-racist thing to do is to allow racism to flourish, exploit, and victimize.
It goes kind of like this: Yes, we know that the terrible history of bad mistakes made by good people trying their best ended up with a result that looked racist. And racism is terrible. That's why we shouldn't do anything to fix the situation. Programs designed to raise minorities out of bad conditions are still racially/ethnically oriented, which is why they are bad. Because all racism is bad. Therefore, the only just thing to do is to stop trying to fix the problem.
Some might also make the point that this argument is put forward by people who also reject the non-ethnic, non-racial solution. And in that light, we see that it is a class issue more than anything else. There are plenty, today, who actually resent that class and race issues overlap, because they end up being viewed as racist, which is terrible, when all they really are is classist, which is ... less terrible.
In the end, it's probably subconscious, or even unconscious to a certain degree.
Abstractly: Imagine that in our society, you have wealth that equals 10 times your living necessity. I have wealth that equals 1. The way our society is structured, it is most likely that your children will have 15-20 apiece, while my child will have <1. Somebody decides that this is problematic, and sets out to equalize the situation somewhat.
At the end of that effort, my grandchildren have wealth that equals 5-6 times living necessity. Your grandchildren will still have 15-20. Maybe even a bit more, like 22 or 25 times living necessity.
What is unacceptable, then, to your grandchildren is a matter of proportions. It isn't enough to simply have more. If their wealth equals 25 times living necessity, they are only 4-5 times as wealthy as my grandchildren. Back in your day, you were ten times as wealthy as me.
The only acceptable outcome for your grandchildren, then, would be if their wealth equaled 50-60 times living necessity, so that they could still be ten times as wealthy as other people.
That's the underlying equality of various conservative laments. They don't want equality. Their worldview is, fundamentally, competitive. People can only achieve their potential through fighting with one another.
So the idea that anything should disrupt their competitive advantage is bad. And if that happens to fall along racial or ethnic lines, of course they're going to fight to keep their perceived advantage, and how dare you suggest that makes them racist. After all, you're the racist for wanting to make people equal.
That equality violates their expectation of a competitive environment. The fact that equality must at some point address questions of race and ethnicity only means that equality itself is a racist idea.
Thus, we come back to black history month, or whatever. If we don't have an equal celebration of white power, the white advantage, such as it is, will erode. If white people have x advantage over black people, maybe in five years it will be x/2, or 2x/3, or something less than x. And if white people have to give up that advantage in order for black people to be equal, well, you're a racist for saying so. The only just solution is that X[sub]w[/sub] remains proportionally greater than X[sub]m[/sub]—that white people retain a certain advantage over ethnic minorities. It's the only real, fair equality, you know.
I would also note as a related side issue that in the past some have criticized me for not extending enough sympathy to those I disagree with. I would hope people understand the problem with asking me, such as it is, to write the opposition's argument. That is, if anyone who actually believes that black history month is a gross injustice against white people would like to step up and explain it in similar detail, I'm quite sure the argument will read considerably differently.
Furthermore, I would suggest that perhaps we ought to have a white history month in which schools celebrate the accomplishments of Columbus, Cromwell, Hitler, and others. I would love to see the comparative essays in the Euro-American Perspectives 101 final: Identify and explain the differences between Columbus' outlook on indigenous peoples in the Americas and that of Cabeza de Vaca. How have these outlooks influenced later generations?
It would, I admit, be interesting to see how the culture dealt with such a straightforward proposition. After all, the outlook that said, "Whoa! Wait a minute, these are people," is the one that lost. And for good reason: Look at what we have built in America. If heroes like Columbus had been overcome by sniveling, wimpy liberals like Cabeza de Vaca, we'd all be eating Vichy cheese. Or rice. Or drinking vodka. Or fill in the blank. I'm not sure who would have taken us over and made us into a nation of their prison bitches.
Of course, if Columbus' convenient cruelty hadn't won our philosophical hearts, such as it is, nobody can promise that there would have been Nazis, or a Pearl Harbor raid, or any evil Soviets to have a Cold War with.
It's a complete mess.
Just remember, though, that at its heart, the outlook demands that everyone and everything be in competition with one another. And in the end, what they're telling people is, essentially, that, "Your right to live through this says nothing about my right to win."
And anything else, to these people, is simply unjust.
