NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/9882

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 5.1 KB | 89 lines

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!destroyer!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!usenet.ucs.indiana.edu!bronze.ucs.indiana.edu!aaiken
From: [e-mail] (Andrew C. Aiken)
Subject: Thinking About Race (the daily whine)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bronze.ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 19:29:55 GMT
Lines: 76

In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Elliott Mitchell) writes:
[...]
>This is exactly what one would expect from a white male, someone who has to
>have described to him what it's like to be discriminated against *as a
>group,* else he'd never have a clue.

    Your stereotype of the white male is no less a caricature than
the opinion that the bigot has of the black man.  I am often surprised
that the loudest advocates of "diversity" try to reduce diversity to
simple, obvious elements, even when this is not possible.  Thus, they
defend diversity in sexual and religious practices, and in race, but they
have stereotypes of these groups that are no less pernicious than the
negative stereotypes of the bigot.  They fancy that women are closer to
nature than men, that blacks are "rhythmic," that Asians are intuitive
and brainy.  I have heard "liberals" say such things; although they would
never originate such lines of thought among the said groups, they simply nod
in assent when the bigot declares that that AIDS was invented by the white
man or the Jew to genocide blacks.  They defend Spike Lee's insistence on
speaking only to black journalists, although they are justifiably critical
of Lester Maddox for choosing to speak only to white reporters.  I have
heard more than one white defend the notion that blacks cannot be racist.
    Now, from listening to a group of privileged whites, I could glean
the notion that whites are, in general, insensitive to the concerns of
minorities.  Similarly, I could conclude, from listening to a circle of
chic leftists, that whites are despisers of the traditions of minorites, and
thus of the minorities themselves.  In either case, I would be committing a
fallacy by generalizing to whites characteristics that are true only of
certain groups of whites.  Diversity is to be found not in the in the
accidental features of our birth, but in the paths on which we live our
lives.  No honest man or woman could deny that minorities have suffered, but
the process of reparation should not result in the continuation of the
dependency relationship.  Instead, we must let the persecuted taste liberty
at last, while at the same time refuse to deny the liberty of any other
citizen.  We must let each man choose his own path, to see Whitman's
"democratic vistas" for himself.  But the direction in which our culture
is headed precludes this from ever happening.


>The reason for folks to band together
>by gender, or by color, or by sexual orientation to ask for equality of
>rights is precisely because they are denied that equality simply on the
>basis of those things that bring them together as a group.

    As good a defense of the legal basis of collective rights as any.
Presumably, though, the individual members of these groups want only
the same liberty as the enfranchised man has; the usual political rights as
well as the right to be employed on his merits, the absence of "redlining,"
and so on.  But racism in the case, say, of redlining, is due precisely
to the establishment of barriers to one group or another.  If these barriers
are abolished, then the same criteria for granting loans would be used for
both whites and blacks.  The practice of collective rights, however, does
not allow such a simply remedy to be used.  The group leader insists that
a certain proportion of loans be granted to a particular group.  He insists
that universities practice "race-norming" on standardized tests.  Thus, the
tests are scaled upward for blacks, and downward for Asians, and the
"modified" scores are used as a criterion for admission, often with
disastrous results.  These policies have led me to believe that those who
ally themselves with a particular group, and sacrifice their own interests
in the name of obtaining "group rights," are not to be satisfied with anything
less than personal political representation.  This idea is, of course,
contrary to the principles on which this country was founded.  It was tried
in France 200 years ago, the result being that Liberty was beheaded in the
name of Fraternity.  I do not criticize citizens for gathering into groups
for the purpose of expanding legal rights to include the individual members
of a minority, but when they appeal for collective rights, then the
liberty of individuals can only suffer.  In modern times, there is no
possibility of earnest, learned discussion.  We are to adopt a radical
skepticism which makes reconciliation impossible. Instead of walking with W.E.B.
Dubois in his gallery, talking of things great and small, we have chosen
to sit in the stable, amusing ourselves with our knowledge of profanity.


Andrew Aiken