Wednesday, July 9, 2008

white quotation of the week (karen brodkin)

Pictorial Report #43: "The G. I. Bill of Rights"
Army-Navy Screen Magazine

Regarding the racial significance of this bill, Karen Brodkin writes:

I continue to be surprised when I read books that indicate that America once regarded its immigrant European workers as something other than white, as biologically different. My parents are not surprised; they expect anti-Semitism to be part of the fabric of daily life, much as I expect racism to be part of it. They came of age in the Jewish world of the 1920s and 1930s, at the peak of anti-Semitism in America. They are rightly proud of their upward mobility and think of themselves as pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps. . . .

Part of my ethnic heritage was the belief that Jews were smart and that our success was due to our own efforts and abilities, reinforced by a culture that valued sticking together, hard work, education, and delayed gratification.

I am willing to affirm all those abilities and ideals and their contribution to Jews’ upward mobility, but I also argue that they were still far from sufficient to account for Jewish success. I say this because the belief in a Jewish version of Horatio Alger has become a point of entry for some mainstream Jewish organizations to adopt a racist attitude against African Americans especially and to oppose affirmative action for people of color. Instead, I want to suggest that Jewish success is a product not only of ability but also of the removal of powerful social barriers to its realization. . . .

[Suddenly, after World War II,] the same folks who had promoted nativism and xenophobia were eager to believe that the Euro-origin people whom they had deported, reviled as members of inferior races, and prevented from immigrating only a few years earlier, were now model middle-class white suburban citizens.

It was not an educational epiphany that made those in power change their hearts, their minds, and our race. Instead, it was the biggest and best affirmative action program in the history of our nation, and it was for Euromales. This is not how it was billed, but it is the way it worked out in practice. I tell this story to show the institutional nature of racism and the centrality of state policies to creating and changing races. Here, those policies reconfigured the category of whiteness to include European immigrants. . . .

The GI Bill of Rights, or the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act, 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, but 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. . . .

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.

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.


  1. 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. . .

    That alone could be Reparations - Exhibit #4

  2. I've really found my thinking turned 180 degrees on the matter of affirmative action by what I have learned on this blog and from those who participate here. This one change has probably been the most obvious position change I have undergone as a result of being educated about racism.

    Previously, I thought it rather unfair to promote on the basis of race, but I've come to the conclusion that something like this has been made almost a necessity because of the almost constant discrimination (along with a corresponding affirmation of white privilege) levied against POC throughout the history of this country.

    I can't really see any other way that would truly correct for the socio-economic imbalance. An affirmative action program is a baseline correction, the minimum, and not a favor or favoritism.

  3. The Linden Branch,

    I would hope you wouldn't see affirmative action as "race based" when it includes women and White women have purportedly been the main beneficiaries.

    And since this thread is about the GI Bill, it's important to note how MLK advocated for "preferential treatment" and noted how the GI Bill was a perfect example of "preferential treatment."

    As far as I know, veterans, which obviously includes White men, continue to benefit from "preferential treatment" (if that's what you call it). White men also are beneficiaries of affirmative action via age (non-traditional students) and disability status.

    So let's stop giving affirmative action a "Black" eye (i.e. framing it as if it's exclusive for African-Americans).

    I guess that made the bare minimum even more bare... Hard for AA to be a favor or favoritism when it does little to correct the socio-economic imbalance. It didn't end legacies and pro-White quotas that restrict the number of high achieving Asian students, e.g.

    Back when states on the west coast were doing those Propositions, Washington State released data that showed how Whites were the majority of the recipients to benefit from AA there in hiring and education, if I remember correctly.

    So let's be clear on what AA is and who benefits.

  4. Linden Branch,

    I agree (of course) with NQ's reminder that the face of Aff Action is too often merely a black face, and that the common perception of it in those terms only obscures its many other facets and manifestations. At the same time, I'm so glad to have been of service with this blog in changing your perspective on racial matters. For us white folks (I assume you're one?), getting on board is all about getting filled in. Or maybe, de-programmed.

  5. I'd applaud TLB's open mind or willingness to consider something other than her former established position and his/her willingness to allow that information to be part of what changed her mind.

  6. Nquest,

    Thanks for the information on AA. I already knew some of it (probably from previous comments here or elsewhere mentioning some of the same).

    I didn't assume that the US had properly implemented an affirmative action program when I made my statement. I actually don't believe the government has, but I certainly see a need for one, and that is what I was trying to say.

    Oh, and I'm a he (you can check my blog if you like). Sort of funny since it was just recently that Restructure! had to make a correction only in the opposite direction.

    And I'm also white (just to clarify for Macon).

  7. Macon, I have a question and you don't need to publish it if you don't want. Did your admitting to be Jewish lead to 1) a reduction of hits on your site since then, and/or 2) nasty comments from whites who thought you were 'one of them' because they still don't count Jews as real white people?

    I wonder about the 2nd question because now your comments are screened and before they weren't. Otherwise thanks for this post as I didn't know that.

  8. Kit, thanks for the questions and I'm glad you liked the post. Please note that it's a "quote of the week" by another writer. She's Jewish, I'm not. I've noticed no response otherwise to a perception that I'm Jewish. As for comments moderation, I'm experimenting with it--never done it before, thought I'd try it.


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

hit counter code