Across the web, a steady propaganda drumbeat proclaims a virtuous narrative. In one corner, innocent white people, paragons of "merit", and in the other- "undeserving minorities" who gain what they gain by oppressive "quotas" or "preferences." The drumbeat echoes the racialist Pioneer Fund's fulsome support of assorted "hereditarian" or "biodiversity" scholars- in turn fully endorsed by more innocuous, grandfatherly looking supporters like Charles Murray. But the music is not all it seems. The record shows that the alleged paragons of "merit" were anything but. This post draws on excerpts taken from Harvard Professor Daria Roithmayr's recent book: Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock In White Advantage.
Rothmayr's argument is in favor of recasting "affirmative action" as an "anti-trust" anti-cartel measure, presumably allowing more mobilization of support. I find her notion problematic as a solution to the problem of racial monopolies or cartels. More "diversity" - however it is relabeled ("cartel" or no) is unlikely to gain much traction in today's skittish post-Affirmative Action environment. There are also deficiencies in the educational and skill pipelines, which are not producing the volume of qualified minority competitors in social, work and educational marketplaces, particularly among black males. Rather than focus on yet another round of "diversity", resources might be better spent on producing credible products of that pipeline.If there is $50,000 to blow for example, why spend it on another middle class "diversity coordinator" in some bureaucracy, or talking points "diversity seminar" where already well heeled people get paid, rather than say on hard-nosed Asian style tutoring at the grassroots that would benefit hundreds of struggling black kids directly? There seems to be plenty of money for assorted "diversity" structures but little for other things that might more directly benefit those who need help most. See Heather MacDonald's critique of bloated 'diversity' structures in academia here.
Roithmayr does nevertheless do a service in documenting the existence of racial cartels. Contrary to those who extol the benefits of pure competition as leading to "the end of racism", she shows, like others before her, that ANTI-competitive white racial cartels paid off handsomely for white people in US history. Rothmayr details below for example how white unions conducted strikes to force companies to fire productive black workers. Result: less competition, greater white wages, income and opportunity. This pattern is contrary to the propaganda narrative of virtuous white "merit" holding sway. Let's take a look at alleged white "role models" of "merit" and how they operated:
"On a cold winter morning in
in January of 1919 a committee of four white switchman marched into the office
of one Edward Bodamer, superintendent of the Yahoo and Mississippi Valley
Railroad. The switchmen were there they said to discuss a demand by the area
yard workers, fire all black workers or they would strike. Bodamer threw the
switchman out of his office, warning them as they left that a strike would be
illegal. Ignoring the warning, dozens of switchmen in yard men walked off the job
in protest. Over the next five days, the strike spread like wildfire. Work at
surrounding railroads and yards ground to a halt, shutting down the region's
transportation network and crippling the railroads operations. At its peak, the
strike united over 650 white switchman in racial solidarity, shutting down
transportation in the countless small towns that lined the railroad in Memphis ,
Tennessee , and Mississippi .
At the end of the fifth day, the switchman call a halt to the walk out, but
only after the railroad have promised investigation my government mediators.
For the time being the black workers remained. Illinois
A year later, the white switchman were back in Bodamer office. This time, they had additional firepower, having gotten the backing of the Brotherhood Of Railroad Trainmen, one of the big four railroad Brotherhoods. Unable to risk another damaging strike, Bodamer and the railroad caved to the switchmen's demands and fired almost all of the company's black workers. At the committee's insistence, the railroad also adopted racially restricted contracts that changed seniority systems and entrance requirements, that limited the number of black workers for a particular position.* (Cite: Eric and Sam, Brotherhood of color black railroad workers and the struggle for equality 65-69. The success of the strike in-------------------------------------------
signaled a major shift for the railroad industry. Nationwide after this strike,
white unions begin to regularly demand racially restrictive contractual clauses
and most railroad union contracts begin to carry them.)" Memphis
"How did white workers earn higher wages from discriminating? Classic collective action explains these wages as a sort of monopoly profit. By forming a union that excluded black workers and by pushing employers to hire whites only, white railroad workers could drive up wages relative to their black and brown counterparts.
Employers also profited from discrimination in their fight against unions. By dividing the labor market in two, railroads maintained a ready-made stable of black strikebreakers perpetually on call to undercut the power of the white union. For railroad and workers alike, then, discrimination was win-win. And those benefits came at the expense of black workers, in the same way that cartels displace the costs of their profits onto someone else."
--Daria Roithmayr. 2014. Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock In White Advantage. pg 25-37
Roithmayr also notes how profitable these racial cartels were and are as the gains made earlier are carried forward and passed down:
"But the lock-in story of racial disparity highlights a number of things about racial inequality that conventional explanations obscure. First, the lock-in model highlights the profits that whites earned from racial exclusion during Jim Crow. Economics scholars have always assumed that racism would die out because discriminating was too costly. On the contrary, the lock-in model demonstrates that racism can pay off, and did so handsomely during Jim Crow.
Chapters 2 and 3 describe the profit-maximizing behavior of Jim Crow 'racial cartels': - homeowners' associations, labor unions, political parties, school districts, and other groups that worked to generate monopoly profits by excluding competitors. By coordinating to keep the neighborhood pure, white homeowners' associations were able to keep for themselves the best houses, in the best neighborhoods, with the wealthiest neighbors. By excluding black and brown children from public schools, whites monopolized the best public education from themselves. By dividing the labor market into two racially identifiable segments, white unions earned the highest wages, in the most prestigious jobs. In the South, whites had a monopoly lock on political power for decades. As these chapters illustrate, during the era of Jim Crow, discrimination paid off quite well."
--Daria Roithmayr. 2014. Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock In White Advantage. pg 25-37
Interestingly enough, "affirmative action" began as a measure to benefit whites, namely white union members who were discriminated against due to union membership. Courts realized that merely telling discriminators to "please stop" was inadequate and that enforcement remedies were needed. There was little objection when whites were benefiting from such remedies. QUOTE:
"The general principle behind "affirmative action" is that a court order to "cease and desist" from some discriminatory practice may not be sufficient to undo the harm already done, or even to prevent additional harm as the result of a pattern of events set in motion by the prior illegal activity. This general principle goes back much further than the civil-rights legislation of the 1960's, and extends well beyond questions involving ethnic minorities or women. In 1935, the Wagner Act prescribed "affirmative action" as well as "cease and desist" remedies against employers whose anti-union activities had violated the law. Thus, in the landmark Jones and Laughlin Steel case which established the constitutionality of the Act, the National Labor Relations Board ordered the company not only to stop discriminating against those of its employees who were union members, but also to post notices to that effect in conspicuous places and to reinstate unlawfully discharged workers, with back pay. Had the company merely been ordered to "cease and desist" from economic (and physical) retaliation against union members,the future effect of its past intimidation would have continued to inhibit the free-choice elections guaranteed by the National Labor Relations Act.
Racial discrimination is another obvious area where merely to "cease and desist" is not enough. If a firm has engaged in racial discrimination for years, and has an all-white work force as a result, then simply to stop explicit discrimination will mean little as long as the firm continues to hire by word-of-mouth referrals to its current employees' friends and relatives. (Many firms hire in just this way, regardless of their racial policies.) Clearly, the area of racial discrimination is one in which positive or affirmative steps of some kind seem reasonable-which is not to say that the particular policies actually followed make sense."
--Sowell, Thomas (1975) Affirmative Action Reconsidered. The Public Interest 3, pg 48-65
When Affirmative Action Was White- (2005) author Katznelson traces history to show that goals, timetables and quotas were specifically put in place to benefit whites at the expense of blacks beginning in the New Deal era. Indeed such quotas were embraced by southern whites with the specific understanding that they would benefit and not blacks. In program after program, blacks were cut out of the loop and sidelined while whites garnered the benefits and filled body count quotas. Katznelson shows how this was accomplished while whites used a seemingly "race neutral" approach.
EXCERPT from some book reviews:
"Rather than seeing affirmative action developing out of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, Katznelson finds its origins in the New Deal policies of the 1930s and 1940s. And instead of seeing it as a leg up for minorities, Katznelson argues that the prehistory of affirmative action was supported by Southern Democrats who were actually devoted to preserving a strict racial hierarchy, and that the resulting legislation was explicitly designed for the majority: its policies made certain, he argues, that whites received the full benefit of rising prosperity while blacks were deliberately left out. Katznelson supports this startling claim ingeniously, showing, for instance, that while the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act was a great boon for factory workers, it did nothing for maids and agricultural laborers—employment sectors dominated by blacks at the time—at the behest of Southern politicians. Similarly, Katznelson makes a strong case that the GI Bill, an ostensibly color-blind initiative, unfairly privileged white veterans by turning benefits administration over to local governments, thereby ensuring that Southern blacks would find it nearly impossible to participate...
Katznelson places into contemporary context the cause of racial inequity that is directly related to government policies, which are widely believed to benefit blacks but which have actually benefited whites. He eschews the more generalist focus on slavery and white supremacy as the causes of racial inequality and focuses on government policies of the New Deal and post-World War II distribution of veteran benefits. He identifies in a practical sense government policies, most of which appear neutral on their face, that were designed to restrict blacks and, in fact, impeded them from progressing commensurate with white America. The war economy and labor needs expanded opportunities for blacks and substantially reduced economic disparities. But postwar policies to promote home ownership and labor laws regarding minimum wages deliberately excluded blacks. Other policies providing the engine that produced today's middle class, including the GI benefits that financed college education, reinforced the discriminatory patterns...
From a NY Times review:
This history has been told before, but Katznelson offers a penetrating new analysis, supported by vivid examples and statistics. He examines closely how the federal government discriminated against black citizens as it created and administered the sweeping social programs that provided the vital framework for a vibrant and secure American middle class. Considered revolutionary at the time, the new legislation included the Social Security system, unemployment compensation, the minimum wage, protection of the right of workers to join labor unions and the G.I. Bill of Rights.
Even though blacks benefited to a degree from many of these programs, Katznelson shows how and why they received far less assistance than whites did. He documents the political process by which powerful Southern Congressional barons shaped the programs in discriminatory ways -- as their price for supporting them. (A black newspaper editorial criticized Roosevelt for excluding from the minimum wage law the black women who worked long hours for $4.50 a week at the resort the president frequented in Warm Springs, Ga.)
At the time, most blacks in the labor force were employed in agriculture or as domestic household workers. Members of Congress from the Deep South demanded that those occupations be excluded from the minimum wage, Social Security, unemployment insurance and workmen's compensation. When labor unions scored initial victories in organizing poor factory workers in the South after World War II, the Southern Congressional leaders spearheaded legislation to cripple those efforts. The Southerners' principal objective, Katznelson contends, was to safeguard the racist economic and social order known as the Southern "way of life."
Katznelson's principal focus is on the monumental social programs of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal and Harry Truman's Fair Deal in the 1930's and 1940's. He contends that those programs not only discriminated against blacks, but actually contributed to widening the gap between white and black Americans -- judged in terms of educational achievement, quality of jobs and housing, and attainment of higher income. Arguing for the necessity of affirmative action today, Katznelson contends that policy makers and the judiciary previously failed to consider just how unfairly blacks had been treated by the federal government in the 30 years before the civil rights revolution of the 1960's.
I wrote about the impact of the G.I. Bill and segregated suburbia in "How Integrated is your neighborhood?" Katznelson goes much deeper into just how post WWII programs set the stage for minority exclusion from upward mobility.
Katznelson reserves his harshest criticism for the unfair application of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act, known as the G.I. Bill of Rights, a series of programs that poured $95 billion into expanding opportunity for soldiers returning from World War II. Over all, the G.I. Bill was a dramatic success, helping 16 million veterans attend college, receive job training, start businesses and purchase their first homes. Half a century later, President Clinton praised the G.I. Bill as ''the best deal ever made by Uncle Sam,'' and said it ''helped to unleash a prosperity never before known.''
But Katznelson demonstrates that African-American veterans received significantly less help from the G.I. Bill than their white counterparts. ''Written under Southern auspices,'' he reports, ''the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow.'' He cites one 1940's study that concluded it was ''as though the G.I. Bill had been earmarked 'For White Veterans Only.' '' Southern Congressional leaders made certain that the programs were directed not by Washington but by local white officials, businessmen, bankers and college administrators who would honor past practices. As a result, thousands of black veterans in the South -- and the North as well -- were denied housing and business loans, as well as admission to whites-only colleges and universities. They were also excluded from job-training programs for careers in promising new fields like radio and electrical work, commercial photography and mechanics. Instead, most African-Americans were channeled toward traditional, low-paying ''black jobs'' and small black colleges, which were pitifully underfinanced and ill equipped to meet the needs of a surging enrollment of returning soldiers.
The statistics on disparate treatment are staggering. By October 1946, 6,500 former soldiers had been placed in non-farm jobs by the employment service in Mississippi; 86 percent of the skilled and semiskilled jobs were filled by whites, 92 percent of the unskilled ones by blacks. In New York and northern New Jersey, ''fewer than 100 of the 67,000 mortgages insured by the G.I. Bill supported home purchases by nonwhites.'' Discrimination continued as well in elite Northern colleges. The University of Pennsylvania, along with Columbia the least discriminatory of the Ivy League colleges, enrolled only 46 black students in its student body of 9,000 in 1946. The traditional black colleges did not have places for an estimated 70,000 black veterans in 1947. At the same time, white universities were doubling their enrollments and prospering with the infusion of public and private funds, and of students with their G.I. benefits."
Far from being for allegedly "exclusive" black benefit- Affirmative action has been long expanded other groups besides blacks- the case of so-called business "preferences"- Thomas Sowell
Conservative scholar Thomas Sowell 2004 in his study of preferential policies around the world notes that a particular tendency of such policies is to extend them to cover ever more classes and groups, some far beyond the original intended beneficiaries. White female beneficiaries are a typical casein point but Sowell notes that other groups- some relatively affluent or privileged foreigners have also been cashing in on programs ostensibly designed to help US Blacks. The propaganda machine however is conveniently light on such facts, with its bogus picture of allegedly "exclusive" benefit for "the blacks" even as whites and others, reap most of the benefit. Now where have we seen such right-wing distortion before? QUOTE:
"Because minority immigrants are eligible for affirmative action, even though they have obviously suffered no past discrimination in the United States, members of the Fanjul family from Cuba.with a fortune exceeding $500 million.have received government contracts set aside for minority businesses. An absolute majority of the money paid to minority-owned construction firms in Washington, D.C., during the period from 1986 to 1990 went to European businessmen from Portugal. Asian entrepreneurs have likewise immigrated to the United States and then acquired preferential access to government contracts. Such results once again demonstrate how far the reality of affirmative action departs from its rationale of remedying past discrimination.
Although affirmative action began as a program primarily intended to benefit blacks, most of the minority and women-owned businesses favored by government preferences are owned by groups other than blacks. More than four times as many businesses are owned by Hispanics and Asian Americans and thirteen times as many businesses are owned by women as by blacks. Moreover, even within this omnibus category of minority and women-owned businesses, some evidence suggests that the vast majority of firms receive nothing from these preferences, while a relatively few receive the bulk of the benefits. In Cincinnati, for example, the city vendor list identified 682 such firms, but 13 percent of these firms received 62 percent of all the preferential contracts and 83 percent of the money. Nationally, only about one-fourth of one percent of minority-owned enterprises were even certified as entitled to preferences under the Small Business Administration. Then, even among this tiny fraction of minority firms, 2 percent received 40 percent of the money."
--Thomas Sowell 2004. Affirmative Acvtion Around the World. p 121
White university "legacy" admissions use quota-like preferential politices to benefit mostly whites, while at the same time white hypocritically condemn so-called "quotas for blacks" that are trivial in relation to the numbers of whites benefiting from such preferential policies.
As far as college admissions wealthy whites easily buy their way into elite colleges as shown in detail by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Daniel Golden in his book The Price of Admission: How America’s Ruling Class Buys Its Way into Elite Colleges—and Who Gets Left Outside the Gates. Golden shows how mediocre or low-ranked whites get access due to their parent's wealth. He also shows how minorities are penalized when "athletic scholarships" are given to wealthy whites for participating in relativelylow interest sports that generate significantly less interest (or revenue) than mainstream sports. As he says:
"Colleges discriminate against minorities and low- and middle-income students by reserving slots—and, outside the Ivy League, scholarships—for athletes in sports only rich white people tend to play."
Unscheduled 'diversity' event.. :)
Evolution, brain size, and the national IQ of peoples ... - Jelte Wicherts 2010
Why national IQs do not support evolutionary theories of intelligence - WIcherts, Borsboom and Dolan 2010
Personality and Individual Differences 48 (2010) 91-96
Are intelligence tests measurement invariant over time? by JM Wicherts - ?2004
--Dolan, Wicherts et al 2004. Investigating the nature of the Flynn effect. Intelligence 32 (2004) 509-537
-------------------------------------------LYNN AND VANHAVEN'S IQ AND THE WEALTH OF NATIONS DEBUNKED
Race and other misadventures: essays in honor of Ashley Montagu... By Larry T. Reynolds, Leonard Lieberman
Race and intelligence: separating science from myth. By
M. Fish. Routledge 2002. See Templeton's detailed article referenced above also
inside the book
HBD "SELECTION" AND EVOLUTION CLAIMS DEBUNKED-Sarich and Miele's "Race: the reality of Human Differences"
Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press
For summary see: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-02-18/
--S OY Keita, R A Kittles, et al. "Conceptualizing human variation," Nature Genetics 36, S17 - S20 (2004)
--S.O.Y. Keita and Rick Kittles. (1997) *The Persistence ofRacial Thinking and the Myth of Racial Divergence. AJPA, 99:3
HBD RACE EVOLUTION CLAIMS DEBUNKED BY GENETICISTS
Alan Templeton. "The Genetic and Evolutionary significnce oF Human Races." pp 31-56. IN: J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating scinnce from myth.
HBD RACE AND INTELLIGENCE CLAIMS DEBUNKED
J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating science from myth.
MORE HBD DEBUNKING
Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press
Krimsky, S, Sloan.K (2011) Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture
Wicherts and Johnson, 2009. Group differences in the heritability of items and test scores
"SELECTION FOR"- "SELECT FOR" HDB CLAIMS DEBUNKED- "SELECTION" IS NOT THE ONLY KEY FORCE DRIVING CHANGE
--Joseph Graves, 2006. What We Know and What We Don’t Know: Human Genetic Variation and the Social Construction of Race
J. Kahn (2013) How a Drug Becomes "Ethnic" - Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law and Ethics, v4:1
Exploding nonsense: the 10,000 Year Explosion
We need "rational racism"?
The Affirmative Action Propaganda Machine- part 1
Two rules for being "really" black- no white wimmen, no Republican
The Axial age reconsidered
Cannibal seasonings: dark meat on white
"Affirmative Action" in the form of court remedies has been around a long time- since the 1930s- benefiting white union workers against discrimination by employers
Mugged by reality 1: White quotas, special preferences and government jobs
Lightweight enforcement of EEO laws contradicts claims of "flood" of minorities "taking jobs"
Railroaded 3: white violence and intimidation imposed quotas
Railroaded 2: how white quotas and special preferences blockade black progress...
Railroaded 1: How white affirmative action and white special preferences destroyed black railroad employment...
Affirmative action: primary beneficiaries are white women...
7 reasons certain libertarians and right-wingers are wrong about the Civil Right Act
Social philosophy of Thomas Sowell
Bogus "biodiversity" theories of Kanazawa, Ruston, Lynn debunked
In the Blood- debunking "HBD" and Neo-Nazi appropriation of ancient Egypt
early Europeans and middle Easterners looked like Africans. Peoples returning or "backflowing" to Africa would already be looking like Africans
Ancient Egypt: one of the world's most advanced civilizations- created by tropical peoples
Playing the "Greek defence" -debunking claims of Greeks as paragons of virtue or exemplars of goodness
Quotations from mainstream academic research on the Nile Valley peoples