And the moment in American history when the "new elite" were not white men is...when again?
Um, I'm sorry. Did you just put Frederick Douglass, a man born into bondage, in the same catagory as Rush Limbaugh as people who "made it on merit despite the obstacles." Please bring that back. And while I'm pleased you know some African American history I don't know what this list of extraordinary people is meant to prove. To me, the proof of America being a meritocracy is not that spectacularly gifted and talented African Americans were able to force whites to acknowledge (in limited ways) their abilites to acheive. The evidence of America NOT being a meritocracy is that they had to be overwhelmingly, spectacularly gifted and talented in order to acheive what they did. It's not a coincidence that many of your examples are athletes or entertainers. You can't really deny such visibly public gifts and talents and therefore white society really had not choice BUT to accept Jackie Robinson and Marian Anderson. And even then, we all know that Jackie was chosen to integrate baseball because he wouldn't respond to the virulent racism he was subjected to day, after day, after day. It's a common theme in American history. If you're black and successful, you have to suffer racism silently, quietly and with dignity. Actually showing anger or responding is somehow unacceptable, no matter how violent or brutal the attack on you actually is. As we know, Jackie was physically abused by opposing players and received constant death threats from baseball "fans." In fact even articulating a principle of black self defense gets you labelled a "militant" who wants to "disrupt the social order." Yes a social order built upon the premise that white on black violence is acceptable and black on white violence is unnacceptable. You seem to have this hilarious sense that 400 years of cultural history and ingrained ideas about white supremacy were somehow immediately overturned between 1964-1965. Could a set of laws undermine capitalism? Do away with representative government? Destroy Christianity? Make you a vegetarian? Then why on earth do you imagine that white supremacy, something people fought and struggled and KILLED to maintain, would be wiped away?

Let's also think about Marian Anderson. A spectacular mezzo soprano who didn't make her debut as Ulrica in Ballo in Maschera until well past her vocal prime. Perhaps Leontyne Price would have been a better example.



Well yes, if you decide you only want to talk about class inequality then you can sort of make that claim (more on that later). Is there more to your decision to discuss structural inequality only in terms of class structure other than it makes it easier for you to claim that America is a meritocracy. But you and I know that early American society was not just divided along class lines, it was divided along race and gender lines and while you conveniently frame that as an "identity issue" we know that, in early America it was much more than that. Racial and gendered hierarchy was, very clearly, built into early American legal codes. Here's just one example of what you would describe as early American "meritocracy." In the case of African Americans, the british colonies and early American states reversed centuries of western european tradition and stripped African Americans of the rights of male inheritance. Because African American men were much more likely to be free than women (because women were often unwilling to leave their children behind and escape, also because there were a variety of trades African men could learn and eventually use to purchase their freedom) slave status was passed from mother to child, rather than father to child. A spectacularly ingenious bit of law that meant that the very few African American men who were able to acheive freedom were only able to pass on property or land to their offspring if they first bought their wife AND the kids from bondage. Was that an economic hurdle faced by any white yeoman farmer before 1865? Compare the children of white indentured servants for example. While not from wealthy families, they were born with the assumption of freedom and often had access to either an apprenticeship or had the freedom to strike out and start a small family farm. What "meritous" act did those individuals do to deserve their freedom the children of black slaves did not? If you can answer that I'll concede that early America was a meritocracy.



And like, I'm just talking about ONE of the restrictions on black economic success for the minority of Africans who were able to free themselves before 1865. As you know, the franchise was denied, employment in most skilled trades was denied, travel from state to state was denied, property ownership in many states was denied and often contested, black men were subject to lynching and violence if they attempted to horn in on "white jobs" and had zero redress with the courts or local law enforcement even in the northern states. The list goes on and on and on. And I say all that because your rather lame attempt to list successful African Americans does nothing to speak to the systematic way economic success was limited for the vast majority of African Americans in ways that it wasn't limited for white yeoman farmers in the 18th and 19th centuries. Let alone getting into the 20th.
I don't know what fantasy land you live in, but unproductive well connected white businessmen are everywhere in the businessworld. I really can't "prove" it to you. I can only speak from the personal stories I know of friends and family members in the business world. One thing, however, must be said. Affirmative Action doesn't ensure you KEEP your job. It only opens the initial door. In fact, in my experience, it RAISES scrutiny of women and minority employees to prove they "deserve" it. Another example of "access" that's begrudging and highly contested and something white men who "make it" don't have to be concerned with. But it's a "meritocracy" right?

OK. Must try and not blow my stack. The reason you have “ethnic” and “gender studies” is because white academics fought against expanding their narratives of American cultural, intellectual and social history Tooth. And. Nail. If your issue is that you don’t hear about non-white authors in “American literature” classes, shouldn’t you be taking up that issue with the people who TEACH “American literature” classes. And ask them why they don’t integrate more non-white voices/narratives into their courses. How exactly do you propose this be solved? Make every course give “equal weight” to non-white history/literature, etc. Isn’t that a “quota”? Isn’t that academic affirmative action? You can’t have it both ways. Frankly, what your describing is a problem that white students have with signing up for a course entitled “African American x” or male students have with signing up for a course in “women’s history.” African Americans and women, yeah we HAVE to take American history so we get the white, male narrative. It’s compulsory. But far be it from us to dare to have a course focused on other contributions to the American legacy.

More to the point. Have you ever tried to construct one of these courses? Speaking from experience it is NOT easy. Every professor of “American history” would love to have a truly integrated and enmeshed narrative that included everyon’s contributions. This is impossible. What’s actually spectacular about going over the same period in history/literature in a class exclusively devoted to some other group, is that you get to see the way they interpreted that moment. While some people were super excited about Revolution, others were like “yeah…I’m still a slave.” While some people mourned the loss of the south, others created a holiday around emancipation. While some people cheered the white vigilante soldiers who protected southern femininity, others feared the KKK and cross burnings. The very point of the other courses is to open you up to those perspectives. If you chose not to take them, that’s on the student isn’t it?

I'll get to MLK and Wright tomorrow.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008