Tag: racism

By on 1 Comment

The Conservative Press is agog at Jacob Savage’s the Lost Generation. Savage details the trials and tribulations of White men trying to break into Academia or Cultural positions right now. It is all DEI and racial discrimination. I am afraid they are emphasizing only one aspect of his argument while downplaying and missing some of his more salient points. They are going on about how lesser candidates who are women or people of color are getting the jobs that should rightfully being going to White men. This was not Savage’s point at all.

Savage points out that this problem exists for young white men and not older white men. Older White men already have their jobs in Academia and in Cultural institutions while younger White men are vying for open positions. The problem for younger White men is that these positions, in the past, skewed disproportionately to White men. This past discrimination worked against women and people of color. So if you presently have a staff of 10 and 7 of them are white men, what happens when a position becomes available and your institution is interested in diversity. The young white men are at a disadvantage. Not because of women and people of color but because the institution already has too many white men.

Is this unfair? Yes, absolutely. But how can you achieve two varied goals — a diversified work force and being absolutely fair to everyone. Conservatives say that diversity shouldn’t be considered a factor at all. The only thing that matters is who is the better candidate. Well, that would be nice but how exactly does the best candidate always get the job?

For example, Savage discusses the hiring of television writers. How does one determine who is a better writer? Particularly if one of your goals is to broaden the stories you tell to include more stories about women and people of color. Who better to tell these tales than women and people of color? White men can, of course, write women characters but then I am betting than women can write even better women characters. So, then, who is the best candidate for the job? The man or the woman?

How does one determine the best candidate in Academia? Is it teaching? Is it research? Or is it the old tried and true old boy network where connections with the people who make the decisions help you get the job? Why should groups who have been discriminated in the past, trust that you are hiring the best candidate? The word of the person making the decision? After how many white men are hired does one question the process? Five? Ten? Twenty? Never. And after twenty or so white men are hired and discrimination is determined, what happens to all of those candidates that were overlooked? Tough luck.

By the way, there isn’t only one perfect person for the job. Indeed this is rarely true. The difficult decision comes generally because there are several people who could do the job well. This is particularly true with jobs that everybody wants. Jobs in Academia and Culture have always had stiff competition. They carry salary, prestige, and power. In the past, a lot of white men vied with other white men for these positions. And a lot of white men were disappointed. Now the competition has expanded to include women and people of color. This means that the competition is fierce and there is even a bigger chance of not getting your dream job. Savage writes at the end of his essay: “The truth is, I’m not some extraordinary talent who was passed over; I’m an ordinary talent—and in ordinary times that would have been enough.”

The sad story is that talented White men are used to getting the job and they aren’t anymore. Their expectation did not match the reality of our present world. It is a difficult lesson to learn but life, as we are constantly being reminded, is unfair. Is it fair that some parents can afford private tutors for their children who may have fallen a step behind in class while poor parents with a child in the same situation can not? Is it fair that some schools are direct conduits to Ivy League Universities while other schools are not? Is it fair that some parents make a significant donation to a university which gets their children into an elite university while a poorer parent with an equally gifted child can not? Is it fair that some children are well fed when they arrive at school and poorer children are not?

I could go on but you get the point. Life is unfair in a lot of different ways. Why this particular unfairness is so important while other unfairnesses can be ignored is informative of the motives of the people complaining right now. I mean if the unfairness in the education a person receives throughout their life can be equalized as best we can then we wouldn’t have to discussing the unfair treatment of White men now. It wouldn’t be a problem because everyone would believe that everybody had a fair chance from the start. But we aren’t talking about the differences in education that people receive, are we? I wonder why?

We do not live in a perfect world. There are plenty of bigoted people in important position making employment decisions. Processes devised to protect groups who have suffered discrimination in the past skew the process against the people who did not suffer discrimination in the past. So maybe we look at how to do the process better as we learn more. But, please, please don’t talk to me about the loss of our meritocracy. Because it is bull shit and you know it is bull shit. We never had one and we never will. All we can do is continue to work at making it better. And we will never ever succeed.

By on

I can’t believe I find myself in the position of defending Piers Morgan but such is the world we live in that a pompous ass like Morgan has become the voice of reason. Tucker Carlson tried to get Morgan to use the word faggot. Morgan politely declined which didn’t satisfy the feisty Carlson as he fired off a round of faggots. He then wondered why he couldn’t say the N word.

Interestingly Carlson used the N word instead of the actual word. The repercussions for the N word were too much even for him. He knew enough not to say the actual word which also means he knows why he shouldn’t say faggot. Free speech comes with repercussions. He thought he could get away with faggot but knew enough not to gamble on saying the N word. And he has the balls to complain he doesn’t understand. He understands all too well.

When people complain that they can’t use words like faggot or the N word, they are being incredibly disingenuous. They understand the meaning of these words. They are derogatory and hateful words. People use them to hurt people and that’s why most people avoid using them. People know that and choose their words carefully as a way to manage their way through civil discourse.

In the good old days, say 50 years ago, a White man could say the N word without much of price. Thankfully this has changed. The audience for people willing to hear a White man say the N word without repercussions has gotten infinitesimally small. You are free to say it but there will definitely be a price as there should be.

But, why then do Blacks get to use the N word and he can’t. Well, hmm, let me think about that one. Maybe, and I am just guessing here, it might be that for a good portion of American history that whites used the N word as a way of putting Black people down. A White person carries some historical baggage for racism so it becomes important for them to avoid using the N Word to avoid looking racist. Blacks, on the other hand, do not bear this same historical baggage so are better able to get away with using it. Yes, it is unfair but then life is unfair.

The annoying thing about this whole kerfuffle is that Carlson understands perfectly well why he shouldn’t say faggot and the N word. Pressing Morgan to partake in it was a childish attempt to undermine Morgan’s good manners. To Morgan’s credit, he refrained from getting pulled into Carlson’s nonsense. But if it is so darned important for Carlson to say faggot or the N word without social cost, I suggest he attend a KKK meeting, I am pretty certain he could get away with it there.

By on

My book club read Ernest Hemingways’ The Sun Also Rises this month. It was a book I loved when I was 20. The vivid descriptions of Paris and Spain, everyone drinking way too much and never seeming to work, it all seemed wonderful. It’s funny how 40 years later I see something that I missed on my first reading.

There is still much to like but I was only a few pages in when Hemingway’s casual bigotry began to grate on me. He uses the N word to describe a drummer in a jazz band. And not in using the N word was important for understanding the character way, but in trying to let you know that the drummer was black way.

Robert Cohn is a Jewish character. Hemingway uses a lot of Jewish stereotypes to convey his personality. Jake Barnes, the hero of his story, complains about the number of words he uses in a telegram in order to save money. Or how Cohn has this superior Jewish attitude. None of the other characters seem to like him. There are various reasons other than being Jewish that create this animus toward Cohn but an important and frequently mentioned problem for his friends was that Cohn was simply being Jewish.

Oh, you have to forgive Hemingway. He was just a man of his time. That is the way everyone talked back then. It doesn’t make him a bad person. No, it doesn’t but it certainly make him a racist. So then, it becomes an important factor in discussing his writing.

This is a big problem I have when examining history and literature before the Civil Rights Era. Modern readers are supposed to forgive racism as unimportant because everyone back then was racist. It is meaningless to the story. This is very much the attitude people take when an old person slips into making racist’s statements. They are old. They grew up before they knew it was wrong.

But, saying the N Word, has always been wrong. If Hemingway had used colored or Negro, I could forgive him because they were acceptable terms to describe Black people in the 1920’s. But the N word wasn’t supposed to be used in polite company even in the 1920’s. That Hemingway used it matters greatly.

He knew he could get away with it. His mostly White readers wouldn’t blink an eye when they saw it and, more importantly, they would form an opinion about that character based on the use of the racial slur. It also gave readers a look into Jake’s friend – Lady Brett who was friendly with the drummer. What kind of self-respecting White woman knows a Black Jazz drummer? It helps Hemingway’s characterization of Lady Brett as a promiscuous woman. Racial slurs, then, are not neutral even in the 1920’s.

Furthermore, it isn’t harmless because everyone is doing it. If everyone is doing it then it calls into question the entire White population who either use the word or dismiss it as inconsequential. Why is everybody using it? So, if you are talking about The Sun Also Rises, it is a relevant point of discussion.

This also points to a bigger problem with how we address racism when discussing our past. A lot of people want to say racism is irrelevant to present day America because nobody would do this today. I would argue differently but let’s give them this point.

We aren’t talking about 2025. We are talking about a book written a hundred years ago when a man like Hemingway could safely use racial slurs and still be considered one of the great American writers of the 20th century. Why is that and what does this say about America during this time?

You can’t explain what was going on back then by ignoring racism. The past was far from perfect. Not everything can be tied in to nice little bow. One of those lessons might be that racism was pervasive in 1920’s America and how did this racism affect literature written during this time. But it isn’t meaningless.

By on

Trump wants to resume using racist names for Washington’s football team.

I never understand why people clung to the Redskins name. It is obviously a racist name. Now, Donald Trump may not view it that way — mostly because he is White, and even if some Native Americans view Redskins as OK, other Native Americans do not. The only reason to resume the argument regarding the Redskins is to piss off people which is Trump’s whole game.

A sports team’s name would seem to be a low priority item to piss people off about but that is rarely a problem for Trump though he has an incredibly weak case to make. Tradition. Jesus. Americans used to have slaves. Women didn’t have the vote. Would tradition be a justifiable case to keep these two practices? Just because people have been calling the team a racist name for 100 years doesn’t mean we should continue — particularly when people have a problem with it.

But Trump wants to rumble about this and when he wants to rumble, there is no stopping him. It seems like a big waste of time. What harm occurs to the people who can no longer call the team the Redskins? None as far as I can see. The team still plays. The fans still watch. The only thing that is different is the name. “Go, Commanders” instead of “Go Redskins.”

Why not avoid aggravating people who object? But Trump doesn’t have an ounce of grace in him, he enjoys pissing people off. He has one speed — bull in china shop. At the end of his term, Trump will stand among the broken shards, gleefully proclaiming look what I have done. Quite an accomplishment — breaking everything. Quite another to build and to repair.

In the meantime, forget about Gaza, or tariffs, or healthcare, or immigration or homeless people or any one of a million more important things facing the country, let’s reopen an argument about the name of a football team.

By on 1 Comment

Heather MacDonald writes that Donald Trump took “the most important step it can to restore meritocracy. to American society” by eliminating disparate-impact. When exactly was there a meritocracy in the United States? Certainly no time before 1964 when discrimination against people of color and women was legal. Not directly after the passage of Civil Rights laws in 1964 when White resistance to the new laws was so fierce it required the implementation of Affirmative Action in order to ensure that Whites complied with the new law. Since MacDonald finds any tool that aids people of color a boost is an affront to meritocracy, it certainly isn’t the recent past So MacDonald needs to identify the golden age of meritocracy in USA because from the evidence I can see, there never has been a meritocracy.

MacDonald glosses over 200 years of American History. She assumes that the 1964 Civil Rights ended discrimination and nothing more needed to be done. For her racial prejudice is obvious, racists are obnoxious assholes in a Ku Klux Klan robe screaming the N word. It certainly couldn’t be nice middle class whites who hire employees or admit students to Ivy League colleges. They wouldn’t be caught dead in a Ku Klux Klan robe, so how could they be prejudiced.

The advantage of the public bigots is that they are easy to identify. The problem is the more prevalent form of racism that Blacks encounter is from polite and powerful White who, just the same, might be disinclined to hire someone different from them. They don’t say we are picking a White over a Black. They know the game. They say that the White guy is just more qualified for the job than the Black guy. For this reason, discrimination is difficult to prove. This is the barrier that Blacks face. MacDonald doesn’t appear to be bothered much by this more subtle form of racism or even acknowledge that it might exist.

Disparate-impact was one of the tools that the government used to show discrimination. If an employer has never hired Blacks, year after year, in a community where the population is 25% Black, then the government can see that there might be a problem with discrimination in hiring. Without disparate impact, how does MacDonald propose to identify non-compliant businesses and schools?

She doesn’t. She views discrimination as a phantom problem that doesn’t occur any more so there is no reason to investigate. People are only looking for the best – Black, White, Man, Woman. Race and Gender don’t matter only quality. Well, maybe, but how do we know this is happening unless we evaluate?

Finally, for the record, there will never be a meritocracy as long as rich families hand over their businesses to their children. It is never going to happen as long as some people have connections and others don’t. It never is going to happen as long as people with money can buy their children’s ways into universities. It never is going to happen when White middle class people can avoid “bad” school districts. It never is going to happen as long as poor Black children are given a second rate educations while White middle class children are given a first rate one.

How does MacDonald feel about those problems? Until she addresses them, I don’t believe that she gives a damn about meritocracy.

By on

There is nothing more annoying than a white man whining about how badly white men are treated. So I don’t encourage reading Matt Walsh’s cri de coeur about how people should be thanking white men for all the good that they have brought to the world. But, if you must, the rundown can be found below:

” I am proud to be a white man. I think that if anyone’s writing an article singling out white men, it should be to thank us. After all, as I said recently, this country could not exist without white men.”

“The vast majority of the greatest pioneers, inventors, thinkers, leaders in the history of Western civilization have been white men.”

Isn’t that a mouthful of bullshit? There are so many juicy targets here, I don’t know where to begin. His basic premise is both wrong. All you have to do is google inventions by Blacks, then change Blacks to Asian, then change Asian to women, and you will find significant inventions from members of all these groups. So what exactly does he mean when he writes “Nearly every good thing you have in your life — everything that makes your life safer, more comfortable, more enjoyable — was given to you by a white man.” Walsh has written a tricky sentence here both allowing him to acknowledge that non-white men may have contributed something to civilization while, also, allowing him to repeat his false assertion of “everything.”

Then there is White Men tend to tell stories that make White Men the heroes. So, when he talks, for instance, of the pioneers he is failing to acknowledge that these White Men followed paths that the Native American population already travelled and, in some cases, they were assisted by a Native American guide. This changes the story significantly. Lewis and Clark didn’t just wander into the woods and find Oregon. Non-Whites told them where to go. But Lewis and Clark got to tell their story in a way that it looks very much like White Men found the pathway across the continent when they were traveling paths used for centuries by non-Whites.

Most importantly, since White Men have been the most powerful people these past few centuries, it also stands to reason that they are responsible for every bad thing that has happened too — like industrial pollution, World War I, World War II, Racial Prejudice, and the subordination of Women. When you are in charge you have to take the good with the bad. Walsh wants you to thank white men for the good while ignoring the bad. It is a much more complicated legacy than Walsh would have you believe.

Which makes his whining so irritating. Poor White Men. No one appreciates them. Get out your handkerchiefs.

By on

Marko Elez, one of Elon Musk’s young DOGE stooges, resigned for making clearly racist comments. A day or so later, Musk rehires the poor thing as he shouldn’t have to suffer for his racism. What? Am I hearing this correctly?

This would have been perfect situation for Trump to prove his concern for racism. Elez is a low level employee who would be easily replaced by another young more discrete racist. Trump wins for not putting up with racist assholes. Musk gets to carry on cutting jobs and government agencies.

And for what? They didn’t want to ruin the life of a young man. What? How is Elez life ruined? He would have surely gone on to some other job where he could lay off people. Corporations are chockablock full of these dudes.

Now Trump is stuck rehiring a racist asshole. Everything Elez does will have a taint. As it should. Trump is more interested in showing he is in charge and he doesn’t care what other people think. He is so obsessed with showing his macho-you-can’t-tell-me-what-to-do side that he misses these opportunities of showing some grace to his critics.

Elez is an asshole. There was no reason to hire him back. His life won’t be ruined by leaving Musk’s DOGE budget cutting fiesta. This was no great matter and a missed opportunity for Trump to show he actually cares about a real display of racism. He blew it.

By on

I can’t help myself. I try to ignore Donald Trump as much as I can but since he is now president it is impossible, so here goes.

Donald Trump wants to prioritize White South Africans as immigrants. Does this have anything to do with native South African Elon Musk? No, it couldn’t. Musk would never use his influence in the Trump Administration to ask for something so egregiously racist.

Immigration give priority to people who are in immediate danger. Trump’s focus is on South Africans of European descent. So this applies to mix raced South Africans as long as one of the two parents were of European descent. What if only one of the grand parents is of European descent? What percentage European descent is he talking about?

Then, why do White South Africans get priority? Are they in any more danger than women who want out of Iran? Or Sudanese rebels? Or just plain poor folk from Central America who want to escape drug lords?

The troubling aspect about Trump’s order is that it is so transparently racist. This order comes while he is trying to shut down the border from non-white immigrants. So Trump isn’t really opposed to immigrants, just non-white immigrants.

By on

I think most conservatives will agree that Kathleen Ryan, an Oakland County Michigan judge, needs to be removed from her position. The headlines are pretty cagey about why she got canned. It sounds like she is getting the ax for racism when actually it is for sexual harassment. Her racism is just the icing on the cake and I am sure will come into play if she eludes removal for sexual harassment.

Ryan’s problem, as a judge, is that her impartiality has been impinged beyond repair. She also appears to be a bit of an idiot which I think everyone, Right, Left and Center can agree on. Most smart public figures, in this day and age, know that it is unwise to speak this way unless they absolutely know for certain the other person agrees with them because her opinions are flagrantly racist. She was bound to piss off someone sometime and she did. Ryan was talking with an employee. If nothing else, this shows an amazing lack of good sense.

She could have relayed her opinions through a coded racist cant that lets everyone know what she was thinking without exposing her to racist’s complaints. Ryan gleefully and unapologetically cuts loose with her racism. Worse still, she is unaware that what she is saying is racist which is troubling. How is she supposed to rule in a case where racism is involved, if she has an inability to identify what racism is?