Wednesday, November 11, 2009

reap the benefits of affirmative action for whites

Ever since the mid-1950s, the United States has used November 11th to honor its military veterans. Prior to that time it was called Armistice Day, a "day to be dedicated to the cause of world peace," according to a Congressional Act. In 1953, a shoe-store owner in Emporia, Kansas named Al King promoted the idea of focusing the holiday on military veterans; the U.S. government eventually agreed, and the day is now officially labeled Veterans Day.

As a white American who fights off a steady barrage of inducements to forget about my whiteness, this day reminds me of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, a massive government program more commonly know as the GI Bill. Millions of white Americans today continue to enjoy benefits handed out under this bill, benefits that were by and large denied to non-white Americans.

In fact, these benefits of the GI Bill have been so generous and extensive that Sociologist Karen Brodkin has aptly labeled the Bill the "biggest and best affirmative action program in the history of our nation." Brodkin also points out that the GI Bill "was for Euromales. That is not how it was billed, but it is the way it worked out in practice."

As Brodkin goes on to explain in her book, How Jews Became White Folks & What That Says About Race in America, the GI Bill's extensive benefits helped returning WW II veterans re-integrate themselves into society -- certain veterans, that is. Jewish American veterans had been recently welcomed into an expanding notion of American whiteness, so Jewish American men reaped benefits that they would have had trouble garnering in the more overtly anti-Semitic American climate before the war.

Unfortunately, the benefits were basically denied to returning non-white veterans, including many white and non-white women. Gains made by women and non-white workers in the war-time industrial boom were also retracted, as de facto affirmative action for returning "Euromale" veterans meant firing such people to provide jobs for white men.

As Brodkin explains in her book,

The GI Bill of Rights . . . is arguably the most massive affirmative action program in American history. It was created to develop needed labor force skills and to provide those who had them with a lifestyle that reflected their value in the economy.

The GI benefits that were ultimately extended to 16 million GIs (of the Korean War as well) included

  • priority in jobs -- that is, preferential treatment, but no one objected to it then
  • financial support during the job search
  • small loans for starting up businesses
  • and most important, low-interest home loans and educational benefits, which included tuition and living expenses.
This legislation was rightly regarded as one of the most revolutionary postwar programs. I call it affirmative action because it was aimed at and disproportionately helped male, Euro-origin GIs. . . .

The reason I refer to educational and occupational GI benefits as affirmative action programs for white males is because they were decidedly not extended to African Americans nor to women of any race. Theoretically they were available to all veterans; in practice, women and black veterans did not get anywhere near their share. . . .

During and after the war, there was an upsurge in white racist violence against black servicemen, in public schools, and by the Ku Klux Klan. It spread to California and New York. The number of lynchings rose during the war, and in 1943 there were anti-black riots in several large northern cities. Although there was a wartime labor shortage, black people were discriminated against when it came to well-paid defense industry jobs and housing. In 1946, white riots against African Americans occurred across the South and in Chicago and Philadelphia.

Gains made as a result of the wartime civil rights movement, especially in defense-related employment, were lost with peacetime conversion, as black workers were the first to be fired, often in violation of seniority. White women were also laid off, ostensibly to make room for jobs for demobilized servicemen, and in the long run women lost most of the gains they had made in wartime. . . .

Black GIs faced discrimination in the educational system as well. Despite the end of restrictions on Jews and other Euro-ethnics, African Americans were not welcome in white colleges. Black colleges were overcrowded, and the combination of segregation and prejudice made for few alternatives. About 20,000 black veterans attended college by 1947, most in black colleges, but almost as many, 15,000, could not gain entry. Predictably, the disproportionately few African Americans who did gain access to their educational benefits were able, like their white counterparts, to become doctors and engineers, and to enter the black middle class. . . .

Karen Brodkin's explanation of the racist effects of the GI Bill -- one among many examples of a long and ongoing history of affirmative action for whites -- is the best and clearest I've read so far. What I find especially valuable is how she illuminates the construction of some of the deeper underpinnings of "institutionalized racism," a reality that many white Americans seem to find too abstract to keep firmly in mind. Thanks to the generational transference of these benefits, the lives of vast numbers of white Americans continue to be buoyed up by the effects of the GI Bill; also, like other white privileges, this array of advantages has come at the ongoing expense of non-white Americans.

Regarding these broad and powerful institutional effects of the bill, Brodkin writes,

The record is very clear. Instead of seizing the opportunity to end institutionalized racism, the federal government did its level best to shut and double-seal the postwar window of opportunity to African-Americans’ faces. It consistently refused to combat segregation in the social institutions that were key to upward mobility in education, housing, and employment.

Moreover, federal programs that were themselves designed to assist demobilized GIs and young families systematically discriminated against African Americans. Such programs reinforced white/nonwhite racial distinctions even as intrawhite racialization was falling out of fashion. This other side of the coin, that white men of northwest European ancestry and white men of southeastern European ancestry were treated equally in theory and practice in regard to the benefits they received, was part of the larger postwar whitening of Jews and other eastern and southern Europeans.

As the title of Brodkin's book suggests, her interest in the effects of the GI Bill on Jewish Americans is personal -- it helps to explain the relatively greater success of her Jewish American family. However, I think that other white Americans should take her insights personally, by figuring out how this de facto white affirmative action program, like many others, has increased their own access to "the American Dream." As we white Americans continue attributing the relatively greater success that we and our ancestors have achieved to fighting off foreign enemies, to working hard, and to tugging on our proverbial bootstraps, we should also understand the institutional leg-ups that have been extended to us, but not to others.

As Brodkin writes of her own favorably whitened background,

To say that Jews pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps ignores the fact that it took federal programs to create the conditions whereby the abilities of Jews and other European immigrants could be recognized and rewarded rather than denigrated and denied. The GI Bill and FHA and VA mortgages, even though they were advertised as open to all, functioned as a set of racial privileges. They were privileges because they were extended to white GIs but not to black GIs. . . .

Jews and other white ethnics’ upward mobility was due to programs that allowed us to float on a rising economic tide. To African Americans, the government offered the cement boots of segregation, redlining, urban renewal, and discrimination.



PS -- for a look at how the GI Bill was explained to veterans at the time, here's a newsreel prepared for them by Army-Navy Screen Magazine:





47 comments:

  1. I'm starting to believe that you ARE NOT WHITE! LOL! I can't believe such insight and arguments are coming from a white American. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe he was a male/female of color in another life? I think he's just with it, that's all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Random comment:

    This section of How Jews Became White Folks pretty much singlehandedly made me pro-affirmative action (in the modern sense) and reparations. Mostly because, as Macon said,

    >> "However, I think that other white Americans should take her insights personally, by figuring out how this de facto white affirmative action program, like many others, has increased their own access to "the American Dream.""

    Had to write an essay on this for my high school African-American Studies class.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As far as I know white people are the only people on the planet who discriminate against themselves to help other races.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great post, Macon. Also good are When Affirmative Action was White and this


    http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=614

    ReplyDelete
  6. >> "As far as I know white people are the only people on the planet who discriminate against themselves to help other races."

    I bet a *lot* of early (heck, even current) WOC feminists would disagree with this.

    Not that they thought, "Oooh, let's help white women!" But the fact is that the Feminist Movement (TM) tended and still tends to focus laregly on issues that are of concern to white, Western women, and often ends up supporting measures that are discriminatory against WOC/all POC. Thus by default, WOC feminists who participated in the Feminist Movement (TM) would sometimes have been discriminating against themselves in order to help WW. (I must note that WOC feminists have often spoken out against this discrimination, however!!! I am totally not denying their awesomeness or trying to demean them in any way. More than anything I am criticizing the Feminist Movement (TM)).

    I get the feeling that a lot of POC involved in LGBT rights issues--especially black people--are feeling this way right now. "We've helped you; when are you going to help us?"

    And then on the other hand, there's Michael Steele. But since I don't think WP have any say in discussions of internalized racism, I won't say any more on this.

    And of course, there is the larger issue that really, the vast majority of WP--I am speaking of Americans here--will NOT accept anything that remotely smells of "discrimination" against them.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @cryptic -- if you're running a race and somebody else is being forced to run on a rougher track, no one is discriminating against you if that runner gets a head start.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Affirmative action is state sanctioned discrimination against white people. You'll never non-whites in power discriminating against themselves to help other races. In fact, you'll see them discriminate against others to help themselves.

    And if white people are so terrible and racist why don't you leave? Why do millions of non-whites go through a lot of trouble to live in white countries just to be oppressed?

    ReplyDelete
  9. >> "You'll never [see] non-whites in power discriminating against themselves to help other races. In fact, you'll see them discriminate against others to help themselves."

    I think you're missing the larger point here, which is that in the U.S. (and probably the rest of the West), as a collective white people have the systemic power.

    But if you want to talk individuals, well, insofar as he can be construed to have power, Michael Steele.

    Or, on a more humanitarian (well, white-itarian level, I suppose), take a look at the voting records of POC congresspeople, state or federal. Hate crimes legislation is often notoriously racist in practice, as are many (though not all) laws against domestic violence. A POC who votes in favor of them--because let's face it, does any progressive really want to be on the record as supporting domestic violence?--is thus, on some level, discriminating against people of her/his own race (and other non-white people) in favor of WP.

    (I highly suspect you are trolling for the heck of it and will thus not respond to basic logic, but whatever. I'm trying to avoid work).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Affirmative action is state sanctioned discrimination against white people.

    No it's not. Not one iota of your indignant response made any sense. Go back to where considering that people of color were here first?

    Back on topic-ish, some how we ended up talking about affirmative action a lot in my Intro to Women's Studies course (go figure) and it really did a lot for me to dismantle any myths I held over about affirmative action and who really benefits. We talked about GI Bill quite a bit too and it really hit home with my dad especially (Navy vet, this was the 70s though). Thank you for including that video clip, too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Solid, Macon. I always think about this when Tom Brokaw (or anyone) goes on about 'The Greatest Generation' -- really? those guys who came home to segregation and ... well, they're not exactly known for their contributions to the Civil Rights Movement.

    @cryptic: I often wonder myself how POC can stand to live in this racist system, but let's face it: there aren't too many nations in the world that U.S. racism hasn't touched ... where's anyone gonna go?

    Come to think of it, if you think we're so busy discriminating against ourselves in this country, it might behoove *you* to look around for another homeland?

    ReplyDelete
  12. @Metaphorizer

    Are poor whites ever the beneficiaries of affirmative action? I doubt it.

    If bleeding heart white liberals want affirmative action they should give their jobs to non-whites.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @cryptic The primary beneficiaries of affirmative action are white women. But let's flip your question, if there's so much discrimination against white ppl in America, why don't you leave? Why do millions of whites go through a lot of trouble to live in countries just to be oppressed?

    ReplyDelete
  14. White people conquered North America fair and square through military conquest. Other races acquired their countries the same way.

    Discrimination is happening to whites yesterday, today and tomorrow, not 60 years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Part of why affirmative action rankles its detractors is because of its baldy racially discriminatory intent. The GI Bill merely had a racially disparate impact. No, the analysis shouldn't end there, but I think sometimes people expect that relabeling disparate-impact policies as "affirmative action for [whites/males/etc]" ought to serve as some clever "gotcha!" rebuttal to affirmative action's critics; instead, this tactic disregards some of the main criticisms being advanced.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @basement jack- what you call "fair and square" was genocide. Who did the Taino take their country from? Or the Sami? Care to list some examples of anti-white discrimination?

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Willow -

    But the fact is that the Feminist Movement (TM) tended and still tends to focus laregly on issues that are of concern to white, Western women, and often ends up supporting measures that are discriminatory against WOC/all POC.

    I'm not saying it doesn't happen, I just can't think of what such a measure might specifically be and I'm curious to find out. Can you suggest where I might find an example of a measure that advances white women but opposes WOC/POC?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @ Willow: I thought white feminists were, generally, committed abolitionists (prior to the Civil War), and that post-Civil War they abandoned their insistence that the 15th Amendment extend suffrage not just to black men but to all women as well, shelving for the time being the goal of women's suffrage in order to win immediate benefits for male POCs?

    ReplyDelete
  19. @basement jack

    White people conquered North America fair and square through military conquest. Other races acquired their countries the same way.

    And societies change internally without military intervention. What's your point with this comment, that society should be locked at the moment of conquest? Good luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Basement Jack, do us a favor. Stay in the room that your name implies, so that we can have a progressive discussion.

    Fair and square = rape, murder, lies, cheating, stealing, genocide, disease, discrimination....I could go on and on. But, you get the gist of it all.

    Poor whites do benefit from Affirmative Action as well. Hello, the G.I. Bill. Are you daft?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Cryptic, you do realize that people of color make up the majority of the World, don't you? You are the minority. There are only so many "white" countries to begin with.

    So, where will you go?

    ReplyDelete
  22. @ xD

    Yes, many if not most of the first-wave white feminist leaders were abolitionists. However, after slavery was abolished things got bad pretty quickly. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, I *think*, is on record as saying something like "I must protest against any man from another race until the daughters of Jefferson and Adams receive their rights." (not a direct quote, but it's close) Anti-immigrant sentiment was also pretty strong. And there is the long-standing white feminist refrain of "But blacks got the right to vote before women did" (leading one to wonder where, exactly, black women are in that thought...)

    Basically, it was a classic case of one oppressed group trying to improve its situation by trampling on another.

    --

    @ EPT:

    The first example that comes to my mind is legislation regarding violence against women. The Feminist Movement (TM) has tended to push for measures that focus largely on the legal system--police, courts, social services. All three of which often have MAJOR problems on a racial level. Not to mention what this does in the case of undocumented immigrants.

    On a more personal level (for me), there is the example of eating disorders. While all EDs can strike people of all races, ages, genders etc., ED awareness and prevention efforts often focus on anorexia and pretty much ignore bulimia, which is more common among WOC. Also, cultural/societal factors--I am not just talking about media here--often contribute a significant amount to causing someone's ED, and again, efforts tend to focus on issues that are more stereotypical to WW. I work for a peer education group that does ED work, and we are *finally* getting together targeted presentations for high schools with various race/class makeup. (A couple of us have been pushing for this for a LONG time).

    bell hooks has written some good stuff on racism within the feminist movement--'Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center' and 'Feminism Is for Everyone' are a couple of good ones. If you are into theology at all, Jacquelyn Grant's "White Women's Christ, Black Women's Jesus" is a great critique from a religious perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Re: racism in the feminist movement, check out the bell hooks' book "Ain't I A Woman?"

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Brash Tax

    Many white countries are being flooded with non-whites and institute the same anti-white policies of America.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @kitchen sink

    Many gruops of Native Americans were constantly at war with each other.

    Forms of anti-white discrimination.

    Affirmative Action

    Racial set asides

    Quotas

    "Hate Crime" laws that seem to only be used against whites

    Freedom of association restrictions

    ReplyDelete
  26. @EPT

    The point is that the argument that America or any other territory belongs to a group "because they were there first" is fallacious.

    ReplyDelete
  27. A very informative post for me. I knew about the GI Bill (my dad's a veteran), but hadn't considered that at the time it was introduced that it overwhelming helped white American males, in part due to segregated universities and gender roles in the U.S. Thanks for this!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yes, goodness yes, a very informative post for me too. And, I've got some relatives to forward it to. THIS is history that whiteness forgot. I bet kids still don't hear this stuff in their high school American history classes. Even tho that's "white history" too.

    ReplyDelete
  29. >> ""Hate Crime" laws that seem to only be used against whites"

    So not true.

    Critiques of hate crimes legislation (that aren't "you're infringing on my right of freedom of speech"-related crap)

    Notable excerpts:
    "Hate crime laws do not distinguish between oppressed groups and groups with social and institutional power.
    This reality of the state makes it so that white people can accuse people of color of anti-white hate crimes, straight people accuse queers, and so on. Such a reality opens the door for marginalized people to be prosecuted for simply defending themselves against oppressive violence."

    "Hate crimes legislation is a liberal way of being 'tough on crime' while building the power of the police, prosecutors, and prison guards. Rather than address systems of violence like health care disparities, economic exploitation, housing crisis, or police brutality, these politicians use hate-crimes legislation as their stamp of approval on 'social issues.'"


    Shorter hate crime law: "Can I have a cookie?" :P

    ReplyDelete
  30. There has been a common and persistent stereotype that affirmative action programs only benefit minorities particularly African Americans, however a 1995 Department of Labor study shows that WHITE WOMEN have benefited the most from the institution of affirmative action programs.

    Through these programs have supported the development of research funding and health screenings for women, particularly for diseases that affect only women i.e. cervical cancer, breast cancer etc. They have funded domestic violence research and support programs. There are affirmative action programs to improve the participation of women in traditionally male dominated occupational fields. Affirmative actions programs even helped to ensure women to equal access to higher education and participation in collegiate athletics, with requirements for support and resources from their schools etc.

    Affirmative action programs are meant to combat racial, SES and gender inequities. However this is always framed as hard working white people supporting impoverished blacks i.e. "reverse discrimination". And I wonder why? Probably for the same reasons we don't talk about white poverty or that the majority of welfare recipients are white.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Willow, thanks for that.

    Fido, while what you say is true in terms of justice and fairness, the way the world works, if you're able to take something and hold onto it, you own it, regardless of whether others think you are right to. In the term 'might makes right', 'right' means control, not legitimacy.

    I was merely responding in another way of how the world works: change is inevitable.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "And if white people are so terrible and racist why don't you leave? Why do millions of non-whites go through a lot of trouble to live in white countries just to be oppressed?"

    Many of those 'complaining' have been on this continent for hundreds of years. Why should they go 'back'? This is akin to telling a black person to go back to Africa. I will give you this though, you include all racialized people going back to their respective countries of origin. At least in that respect you are inclusive.

    "Affirmative action is state sanctioned discrimination against white people. You'll never non-whites in power discriminating against themselves to help other races. In fact, you'll see them discriminate against others to help themselves."

    Affirmative action is state sanctioned discrimination against black people.. You'll never have whites in power discriminating against themselves to help other races. In fact, you'll see them discriminate against others to help themselves. Is more like.

    "Discrimination is happening to whites yesterday, today and tomorrow, not 60 years ago."

    If I had a violin, I'd start playing it.

    "Part of why affirmative action rankles its detractors is because of its baldy racially discriminatory intent. The GI Bill merely had a racially disparate impact. No, the analysis shouldn't end there, but I think sometimes people expect that relabeling disparate-impact policies as "affirmative action for [whites/males/etc]" ought to serve as some clever "gotcha!" rebuttal to affirmative action's critics; instead, this tactic disregards some of the main criticisms being advanced."

    What are you on about. Did you cut and paste from some article on Stormfront?

    ReplyDelete
  33. "And societies change internally without military intervention. What's your point with this comment, that society should be locked at the moment of conquest? Good luck with that."

    The writers point? Other societies have done the same thing so it's okay, no big deal!

    "Many white countries are being flooded with non-whites and institute the same anti-white policies of America."

    That must scare the living shit out of you.

    "Forms of anti-white discrimination.

    Affirmative Action

    Racial set asides

    Quotas

    "Hate Crime" laws that seem to only be used against whites

    Freedom of association restrictions"

    In other words, bring back Jim Crow, or better yet slavery so you can deal effectively with those darkies. Put them in their place.

    "The point is that the argument that America or any other territory belongs to a group "because they were there first" is fallacious."

    How so? For those being subjugated, I'm sure it wasn't a 'fallacious' argument.

    "As far as I know white people are the only people on the planet who discriminate against themselves to help other races."

    As far as I know, white people are the only people on the planet who discriminate against others in order to help themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @EPT

    One highly specific and harshly demonstrative example of the Feminist Movement (TM) putting the concerns of White Western women over those of WOC is an article in the May 1982 issue of Ms. magazine.

    In the article, Ms. praises the multinational corporation Control Data for “their commitment to employing and promoting women” and encouraged other firms to emulate their policies regarding women. The irony is that just 2 months prior, in March, close to 300 female factory workers in Seoul, Korea started a production slow down to petition for higher wages. Six union leaders (all women, with tenures of up to 13 years) were fired, imprisoned, and had their families threatened.

    Two months later, on July 16, the matter was abruptly and violently settled when a group of Control Data male supervisors and guards locked the female workers inside the factory and beat them. Many women were injured, 5 had to be hospitalized, 2 suffered miscarriages, and the female union president threatened with death by gasoline fire. Then to add insult to injury, Control Data's official statements regarding this violence was filled with the typical victim blaming that the Feminist Movement (TM) professes to deplore.

    Yet Ms. magazine never expressed any knowledge, much less consideration for this instance of flagrant psychological, legal, and physical violence against women of color, and thus became an ironic accomplice to global injustice against women. The information was out there. The May 1982 issue of Multinational Monitor featured an article about the Control Data pay inequities, strike, and subsequent firings of the female Korean employees. MM reported on the violence in July then followed up in September and as well as included it in their 1982 Annual Report.

    If the non-profit MM had access to this information while the Feminist magazine co-founded by Gloria Steinem did not, one can only assume that they either had no desire to seek it out or simply did not think to. Each option is troublesome, even the seemingly more innocuous one as it speaks to an unexamined view that White American women are the only women whose welfare matters, perhaps because of an unconscious belief that they are the only ones who are truly women. It is this viewpoint that leads to many WOC's discomfort with the mainstream Feminist Movement (TM) which Willow referred to. There are many more examples of similar episodes, this one is simply my "favorite" (if one can have a favorite example of racism within a supposedly progressive movement) because of Ms. magazine's status within the Feminist Movement (TM).

    I do hope this example helps. If you require clarification, references, or a follow up example, I will provide them to the best of my ability.

    ReplyDelete
  35. >> "As far as I know, white people are the only people on the planet who discriminate against others in order to help themselves."

    Mm, not so much on this one. Granted, it's more *effective* when WP do it, because we have systemic power (in the U.S., but also in the world overall), but we're not alone. I talk a lot about racism within the Feminist Movement (TM), but let's not forget that the [black] civil rights movement had *strong* elements of sexism. There are a *ton* of WOC bloggers who talk about the ways in which they are specifically targeted by MOC today, and I would highly encouage you to check them out. (Requisite criticism of white feminists here: we do, by and large, a very crappy job of standing by WOC in these circumstances. It's another case of WOC saying to WW, "We helped you; why are you deserting us?").

    But still, even this (MOC>WOC discrimination) occurs in the context of a system governed by white supremacy, heteronormativity, and so forth.

    A good article that explores how racism and sexism mix in various levels of oppression of black men, black women, and white women.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Oh, also,

    >> "If I had a violin, I'd start playing it."

    ROFL! Thanks. :)

    ReplyDelete
  37. Bah, previous post is mine (Willow). Roomie stole my computer for a moment and I didn't realize she logged in to Blogger.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "As far as I know, white people are the only people on the planet who discriminate against others in order to help themselves."

    I was being facetious by inverting this person's post. I am quite cognizant to the fact that discrimination is not germane to one group.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @ Hernieth:

    What are you on about. Did you cut and paste from some article on Stormfront?

    No, and I find that response extraordinarily offensive, dismissive and derailing.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @XD,now that made me crack a smile - a racist using the language of anti-racists to claim being the wronged party. "Derailing" hee hee.

    ReplyDelete
  41. @ punch

    What have I said ITT that leads you to conclude I'm a racist?

    I also think derailing is a pretty accurate term for what happens to a discussion when you randomly haul off and call someone a Nazi...which I believe is what Herneith did since, If I'm not mistaken, that's what Stormfront is -- a Neo-Nazi message board.

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Willow

    (sorry, I'd forgotten about this thread)

    You said

    "Or, on a more humanitarian (well, white-itarian level, I suppose), take a look at the voting records of POC congresspeople, state or federal. Hate crimes legislation is often notoriously racist in practice, as are many (though not all) laws against domestic violence. A POC who votes in favor of them--because let's face it, does any progressive really want to be on the record as supporting domestic violence?--is thus, on some level, discriminating against people of her/his own race (and other non-white people) in favor of WP."

    and

    "The first example that comes to my mind is legislation regarding violence against women. The Feminist Movement (TM) has tended to push for measures that focus largely on the legal system--police, courts, social services. All three of which often have MAJOR problems on a racial level. Not to mention what this does in the case of undocumented immigrants."

    I was wondering if you could elaborate on this for me because I really hope I'm interpreting this wrong. It sounds like the argument is "Tougher laws and calls to higher action in the legal system cause more POC to pass through the legal system, which is historically and notoriously racist and biased. Therefore these laws hurt POC and mostly serve white women." That sounds like terrible logic to me. WOC, and also women of any color from lower socioeconomic classes, are far more likely than your average middle class white women to be victims of domestic abuse and also more likely to be largely ignored/not helped by the legal system.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @ Cloudy

    The legal system is notoriously racist, so strategies for reducing domestic violence that work exclusively through the legal system are also racist. It's not just that WOC are ignored, it is that they are actively persecuted.

    This web page has a lot of really good examples and further info. The most relevant stuff starts about 2/3 of the way down the page, or you can do Edit>Find "Remedies." Here are three examples provided:

    * An undocumented woman calls the police because of domestic violence. Under current mandatory arrest laws, the police must arrest someone on domestic violence calls. Because the police cannot find the batterer, they arrest her and have her deported (Tucson).

    * An African American homeless woman calls the police because she has been the victim of group rape. The police arrest her for prostitution (Chicago).

    * An African-America woman calls the police when her husband who is battering her accidentally sets fire to their apartment. She is arrested for the fire (New York).

    ReplyDelete
  44. Willow, all of these examples only prove my point that the problem lies with the police and courts, not the laws. If anything, the police in those cases acted in ways that are completely and totally contradictory to what the laws aim to accomplish. In fact, examples #2 and #3 have nothing to do with any domestic violence laws on the books and are really just pure racism. They in no way make the legislation against domestic violence racist or self-serving in nature. Holding these up as the examples of the failings of feminism is nothing more than dishonesty, bad logic, and derailment. Let's stop blaming the people who fight for gender equality for the deeds of those who perpetuate it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Cloudy, it's not that the laws are racist in and of themselves. (They may or may not be). The point is that, in a world where the legal system is racist, trying to defeat domestic violence PURELY through the legal system prior to any effort to reform that system will continue to fail WOC.

    White feminists have a tendency to take for granted that the police will (a) come quickly to "their part of town" and (b) listen to them. In my observation, while neither of these things is true 100% of the time for WW or 0% of the time for WOC, it is far, far more likely for WW to be reached/helped by the cops in domestic violence situations.

    However, it is much easier to pass a law that says "spousehitters go directly to jail, do not pass go" than it is to address the poverty, self-hatred, religion, sexism, racial, mental illness and the myriad other factors that contribute to DV. However, addressing those underlying factors would mean that white feminists would have to confront their privilege and (gasp!) maybe even give some of it up.

    Did you go to the page to which I linked? It does a more thorough job of outlining the differences in approaches to DV.

    >> "Let's stop blaming the people who fight for gender equality for the deeds of those who perpetuate it."

    If the gains of white women come at the expense of women of color, we haven't done shit for gender equality.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Check this out for another review of the book [PDF]

    http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showpdf.php?id=3154

    "She ends up advocating a return to yiddishkeit -- defined as a commitment to the Jewish people -- as a way for Jews of eastern European descent in the U.S. to opt out of whiteness and
    reclaim the collective significance of Jewishness."

    Interesting twist. Jews became white, then some want to become jews again...

    ReplyDelete
  47. Riveting to say the least. You're right up there with Tim Wise in your take on reality. Keep up the great work. I quite often speak with white men and women who have no concept of the "Original Affirmative Action" and how it benefited millions of white Americans.

    Excellent read.

    ReplyDelete

Please see the "commenting guidelines" before submitting a comment.