Part 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by CorpMediaSux
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.
|
Yes, things were bad, unfair, unjust, and simply horrible back then, but prior to the Civil War it was really more of a problem of one group seeking to protect their economic security than a situation of racism
as we have come to know it today.
Quote:
I wrote: Quote:
What happens if an individual cannot meet the bottom line? What happens if an individual cannot deliver the goods in a timely manner? What happens if they lose? Will it matter what school or frat they belonged or went to? Will anyone care who their family happens to be? Does it matter who they play golf with or the cocktail parties they go? Not one bit. Sure who you know or who your family happens to be may help you get in the door, but once your in you got to prove your merit. The first lesson of business school is learning the importance of meeting the bottom line and making a profit. Even if Dad owns the corporation, if the son cannot deliver the goods he will be moved into a job with perks, but no power to harm the company. If such a person does gain control then the company goes out of business.
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.
|
You cannot "prove" it, because it is a myth. An unproductive businessman goes out of business. He may be able to "play" the game or the odds or cheat the system for a while, but eventually the business goes under. Remember Enron? You could not have found a better connected group of white men (connected to both Dems and Repubs), it helped them not at all.
Quote:
|
One thing, however, must be said. Affirmative Action doesn't ensure you KEEP your job.
|
Because of Affirmative Action the white guy will be fired due to lack of performance faster than the minority or the women. Why? Because the white guy cannot claim that he was fired because of his race or gender. On the other hand, if a minority or a women is fired due to lack of performance they can claim that it was really due to their race or gender and it is required by law to take that charge seriously. Do you think the HR and legal departments of a company take that into account when considering the hiring and firing of personel?
Quote:
|
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?
|
Yep, Affirmative Action does help create feelings of resentment. And with Affirmative Action there will always be a sense or a feeling of do they "deserve" it. Which is probably why the creators of South Park named the child of the one African-American family living in South Park, "Token." No, Affirmative Action is not a meritocracy.
Quote:
I wrote: Quote:
One of the sadder aspects of identity politics is the segregation of our education system into separate study groups. We see this in literature, the arts, the humanities, and in history. We read and learn in American literature a bunch of white guys, but if I want to read any of the African-American authors I have to take a Black literature course. If I want to learn about the contributions of African-Americans I have to take a Black History course. But what about women or Latinos or fill-in-blank, I must take a course in feminist writers or Latino literature. The hyphened-American is the worst thing that happened for race (or ethnic or sex) relations. I understand framing a course around "American History," or "English History," "Russian History" or "Asian History," or "African History," or European History" -- they are separate geographical spheres and individual nations. I understand framing a course around specific time periods or events "Middle Ages," or "WW I" or "Vietnam War." But when you separate the histories of the races, or ethnic groups, or of the sexes at the undergraduate level you create the impression that these events or these works of art happened within a vacuum and encourages the identity politics of separation. It ends up doing a disservice for each individual group and does harm to the whole of society. How many white people (how many any people) know the profound thanks we owe to Charles Drew and the sad irony of his tragic death?
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.
|
And it had nothing to do with feminism, the Black Power movement, the Student's up raisings of the 60s, or the silliness of extreme postmodernism?
The feminists demanded that they be allowed to teach their "Women Studies" programs without being under the thumb of the evil patriarchy of evil white men. The same happened with "Black Studies" and Latino in literature, humanities, and history. Everyone screwed it up. Most of the white academics did not fight against, they caved in. Expanding the narrative was not acceptable since then Women Studies would still be under the thumb of the evil patriarchy and Black Studies would still be under the thumb of evil white oppressors.
Quote:
|
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?
|
In American Lit. 101 class you teach the literature of America.
Quote:
|
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.
|
You don't use a quota system or some "equal weight" system. To keep courses from becoming too large you create sections based on time periods. Colonial American Lit. would be largely about the writings of a bunch of white guys. Early American Lit. would still be largely about a bunch of white guys, but it would include the writings of Frederick W. Douglass, Booker T. Washington. Also the teaching of literature, especially Colonial and Early, should included both fiction and nonfiction. When you get to Modern American Lit. or Postmodern American Lit. (even though its arguable if there has been a postmodern
periodin American Lit.) there would be large sections dedicated to minority and feminists writers. I believe this would show how over time America has become much more inclusive and would raise the academic standards of all students. It would make American Lit. a much more demanding subject. I believe this should be the approach at the undergraduate level. At the graduate level it makes sense to offer courses that specialize or narrow the subject being studied. A course on one event, or in the case of Lit. one writer makes complete sense at the graduate level.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Sadly women and African-Americans also look at a white guy taking African America x or women's history with suspicion or as an oddity. Many of the gender studies or black studies courses are based on partial truths taken to the extreme. For example, your assertion that American history is only a white male narrative.
Quote:
|
More to the point. Have you ever tried to construct one of these courses? Speaking from experience it is NOT easy.
|
I agree with you there. The degree of sensitive needed and the scope of knowledge required would require the full Prof. to do some actual teaching rather than an assistant doing it for them.
Quote:
|
Every professor of “American history” would love to have a truly integrated and enmeshed narrative that included everyon’s contributions. This is impossible.
|
Difficult, not impossible.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Don't you think everyone would benefit from learning about the perspectives of all of the above.
Quote:
|
While some people were super excited about Revolution, others were like “yeah…I’m still a slave.”
|
No, you are not still a slave. Some guy 200 plus years ago
was a slave, not you.
Quote:
|
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?
|
No. That's on our education system. It is important for all Americans to learn the perspectives of all historical events. Since you are so keen on questioning the hidden agenda, reread your words in the above quote. Do you notice how you create a duality that is inherently based on race and the premise that white men are evil oppressors, even today?
mourned the loss of the south vs. holiday around emancipation
white vigilante soldiers protecting southern femininity vs. fear of the KKK and cross burnings
Unspoken, but implied is the premise that only a white guy of today would mourn the loss of the south and cheer the white vigilante soldiers of the KKK. Well, the great majority of white guys today are just as offended by slavery, the KKK, or of cross burnings as any black guy. Both should take such things and such events personally.
Quote:
|
I'll get to MLK and Wright tomorrow.
|
tashi deleks,
M
I'll be waiting.
tashi deleks,
M