Capitol Hill Blue Forums Life and Moral Issues Morality & Society Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege

An interesting piece written by Sen. James Webb of Virginia worth reading, particularly given the recent debacle surrounding the Sherrod situation.

Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege
By JAMES WEBB

I think it is overstating his case to call it the "Myth of White Privilege". While it is absolutely true that it is an issue of economic status, it is also true that until quite recently the upper classes economically were white. So for most of our history, it was a white only privilege -- I mean our Constitution built that in.

One of the key roles of government should be to moderate the over-reaching influence of the oligarchy and those who hold privilege because of economic status.

Indeed.

One of the phrases that caught my eye was My first thought was that not much has changed in that regard. The rich elites of this country maintain power over the rest of us, regardless of ethnicity.

Divide and conquer. One of the oldest tricks in the book. Nothing new to see here--now move along folks.

Another Dem talking point thrown out there under the cover of class sympathy. What business is it of your who is rich and who isn't? More importantly, what business is it of the government to regulate who is rich and who is poor? This is the danger in a classist domestic policy, the Government creates boogie men and the sycophants and true believers perpetuate the myth that the government only has our best interests at heart, unless your rich. As an example of how misguided a domestic policy this is one only has to look at Zambabwe today. When Robert Mugabe took over he was an international star. He had negotiated a peaceful transfer of power from the UK to a government headed by himself. Look at Zymabawe today, inflation at 1,000,000% and on the brink of civil war after forcing all white farmers out of the country and killing the one who wouldn't leave. Not only that, he has decided to kill all of the black farmers who do not support his government. His argument for for redistribution? They had too much while the majority didn't have enough.

The government should encourage the accumulation of vast wealth! They should take every opportunity to foster the growth of personal income and create opportunity for people to start businesses and accumulate riches. When Obama asked the rhetorical question "How much is too much" he proved he was ignorant of the basic premise of making money, you can never have too much because it can be lost just as quickly as it was made. Jealousy of your neighbor is never a good policy, jealousy of a class of neighbors instigates violence and starts wars.

America was built on the backs of the people who accumulated vast sums of money, who invested their money in building railroads and communities. And, for this vision and investment, you villify them as an "over-reaching influence of the oligarchy". I am sure that they would prefer my name for their accomplishments "Visionaries".

Ma, you are wrong both historically and politically, but we shall just have to disagree.

I'm not willing to let it go that easily, Phil, because the argument undoes itself: On the one hand is the question "what business is it of the government to regulate who is rich and who is poor?" Followed by the assertion that "The government should encourage the accumulation of vast wealth! They should take every opportunity to foster the growth of personal income and create opportunity for people to start businesses and accumulate riches." Which is doing exactly that which the question begs: having the government determine winners and losers - and beggering the poor for the benefit of the rich in the process. In other words, following the policies of the last three Republican administrations. That is why we have a tax system that greatly favors the rich over the poor, where the effective tax rate is higher for the middle class than for the wealthy. What we should be doing, as Senator Webb argues, is "be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners." That opportunity is not created by enriching the upper class at the expense of the middle class.

'
Yes, as usual, the ordinary American gullible dimwits were suckered, squeezed and discarded by their rich rulers.

Divide and conquer.

Well, ok. I agree, why is it proper for government to foster one group over another? Isn't that the whole conservative mantra?

As you point out, NWP, they aren't asking for a neutral government but rather one that favors capital accumulation.

Furthermore, it is necessary for government to reign in capital because:
1. Capital has proven itself to be unwilling to regulate itself even when looking at its own best interest -- each and every economic downturn proves that point.

2. All forces need a balancing force or else the system gets out of balance and self destructs.

3. The very best way to foster capital is for the government to prevent too much concentration of it and to provide those without capital with a more even playing field so that they can accumulate as well.

Listen, I was once a Republican, I was very conservative fiscally, and then fortunately I met them. The ones who keep whimpering about regulations, restrictions and taxes. For the most part what I discovered were people blinded by greed, possessions and an urgent need to win at what they undertook.

I refuse to associate with those kinds of people because they are agents of death and destruction, they are enemies of human kind.

Want proof? Look around.

My computer crashed before I could post my "concurrence and dissent" from the views of Senator Webb...

I quite agree when he says, "Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners." I also agree when he says, "The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed." And that "African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup." And "Generations of such deficiencies do not disappear overnight, and they affect the momentum of a culture." All of this is true, but...

his sweeping cure-all of ending affirmative action programs entirely does not flow from his arguments. There are times when historical discriminatory impacts should be considered in decisionmaking. Not often, not exclusively, but remediation takes a very long time. Nonetheless, I prefer the Obama administration's approach by looking at "economic disadvantage" rather than race as the focus of policy. It is, and should be, about leveling the field of opportunity. That is an approach that I think has the greatest merit, and reflects the knowledge that Shirley Sherrod won from her experiences as a young advocate for poor farmers. That's why the Senator-who-would-become-President said I agree with that approach, as, I think, does Senator Webb. But I think that Senator Webb's recitation of parallels of "white Baptists" and "Irish Protestants" as proof of "white diversity" deliberately misses the far more significant historical reality and fatally wounds his arguments. Anyone who has ever lived in the South, the East, or the Midwest has seen, or experienced, the daily reality of "White Privilege." It ain't no myth, and, as Faulkner would say, "It's not even past."