From the soapbox:
I am white. I am female. I am married, and I come from a middle-class family. I am supposedly one of the least persecuted members of society. So why is it I feel like I should be sorry for my situation? Answer: affirmative action.
Affirmative action, a movement trying to help minorities have the same advantages as majority groups, encourages racism, sexism and class discrimination. No, not racism against African-Americans, not sexism against females and not class discrimination against poor people. I’m talking about a movement that — while promoting advantages for certain groups — also promotes disadvantages for others.
CNN recently reported on a controversial story that unfolded at the UC-Berkeley campus. The California Legislature proposed a bill allowing California universities to price tuition based on race. A group of students decided to make its own point by holding a bake sale in the Legislature’s honor. The cookies were priced at $2 for whites, $1.50 for Asians, $1 for Latinos, 75 cents for African-Americans and 25 cents for Native Americans. All women received 25 cents off of the purchase price.
According to CNN.com, when some of the other students were upset by this, campus Republicans President Shawn Lewis said, “We agree that the event is inherently racist, but that is the point. It is no more racist than giving an individual an advantage in college admissions based solely on their race (or) gender.”
I totally agree with Shawn Lewis. Many people think being racist means having ill will toward African-Americans. But is anyone ever accused of being racist toward whites? No, because we, white people, are the bad guys in almost every situation.
Now, I understand whites have made mistakes in the past. I think whites treated Native Americans and African-Americans despicably in the past, and in some cases this treatment still occurs. But do I need to pay the price for my ancestors’ or cohort’s wrongdoings? I have no ill feelings toward minorities, so why is it I should be sorry for mistreatment I did not commit?
Affirmative action encourages advantages based solely on appearance rather than qualifications. It’s like a bad joke or riddle. Two people walk into an interview — one is a white male dressed in a suit with an impressive resume, and the other is an African-American female and has less experience in that field. According to affirmative action, guess who gets the job.
Companies look at the employee demographic and say, “We have more white males than any other group. It’s going to look like we are racist or sexist, so we need to hire a minority so we don’t look bad.”
Who cares if the company specializes in a male-dominated field? The African-American woman is selected based solely on her race and gender, because the company doesn’t want to look bad.
Also, how is that woman supposed to feel when she finds out she was hired to fulfill a demographic requirement, rather than because she was qualified? Now, if she was more qualified than the white male, that would be another story, but that isn’t how affirmative action works.
Suppose I am an African-American male from a middle class family. I apply to college and can easily find scholarships tailored to my needs. Now, suppose I am a white male from a fairly poor family who does not have any money for college tuition. I apply to college and my financial prospects start to look very slim.
Then pro-affirmative action people take it a step further. Not only are scholarships more available for minorities — regardless of financial standing — but now some want to price tuition based on race? How can a society that says all men are created equal turn around and say, “Well, except for you whites, you’ve already had your turn.”
I’m not saying we shouldn’t work to make things more equal, but that’s exactly what is not happening. We are overcompensating for these disadvantages which encourages racism toward the majority, and things are anything but equal. Source: By Kellyn Neumann
We allow it, just like battered wives.
What has been labeled as the “Battered White Syndrome” is the identification of a situation where white Americans have been subjected to a pattern of abuse in the context of a violent relationship and this has had an identifiable psychological impact upon whites.
Although specific details and responses vary it has been suggested that the syndrome comprises a three-stage process. The first has been identified as involving a tension build up in the racial situation and this moves into the second stage that involves the manifestation of the tension in beatings and other forms of abuse (such as mass rioting, blackmail, extortion and a high level of interracial crime). The third stage is identified as one where the abuser shows remorse and may make promises of changes to his behavior (after submission is shown by whites). There may be a lull in the cycle of violence (no looting for a full year). The effect of this cessation may allow white Americans to believe that their situation will improve whereas, in fact, it rarely does. “Battered White Syndrome” is a description of a recurring and escalating cycle of violent behavior (which will not end unless the line is drawn once and for all).