Sunday, August 9, 2015

How Obama plays upon white guilt - Hilary and the liberals are exploiting it as well - conservatives like Shelby Steele confirm it

This post argues that:
  1. Obama's election is no result of alleged "white guilt"
  2. Academic studies of "white guilt" don't show much "guilt"- if anything levels are rather low
  3. White opinion polls show little alleged "guilt"
  4. White behavior shows no "crippling effect" of "guilt"- in fact in employment and housing white bias is still alive and well- not as open as before but more subtle and "undercover"
  5. Far from being "guilty" cripples many white liberals are indifferent, and proffer perfunctory gestures not real substance
  6. Alleged Affirmative Action "guilt quotas" show white guilt is rather thin. Said quotas are not very important in black progress and when they are/were not being blockaded, whites use them for their own benefit- such as application to white legacy university admits and white women.
  7. "White guilt" memes may be a diversionary way to shut down debate, dismiss valid complaints, and continue denial

On the web an assortment of pundits, authors and commenters pump up a dubious "white guilt" balloon, a floating meme which claims, among other things, that white people are piteously burdened or crippled with guilt about black people, guilt caused by pernicious "liberals" who are intent on "making white people look bad." According to one prominent proponent of "white guilt", the loathsome burden of guilt suddenly eased in 1995 when white people saw some black folk celebrating the OJ verdict. And behold, a veil lifted from white eyes, hitherto downcast with shame. Why if the negroes be celebrating the acquittal of that no good OJ, then we see clearly now that we have nothing to be "guilty" about. Look at them- their problems are all caused by their own actions. From henceforth, October 23, 1995 (the Day of the OJ Verdict) would be known as the W-G-E-D - or White Guilt Emancipation Day. Their eyes opened and their consciences clear, white people are now free, free at last. A corollary of the above is the election of Barack Obama, which was due to "white guilt" but now that the evil one has revealed his true stripes, white people are once again unburdening themselves- free at last frens, free at last.. Great gosh almighty! We be free at last.

The above is one common formulation of the meme, and not every proponent of "white emancipation" spins it the same way, but its basic outlines are embedded in most narratives- to wit: the crushing psychological burden of white guilt, the ungrateful coloreds who abuse white goodwill, the evil liberals making "us look bad", the vile policies like anti-discrimination laws or AA quotas punishing innocent white people because of this burden of guilt, the election of a negro president as a manifestation of this guilt, and finally, the need for white emancipation from guilt. Lay that burden down y'all, we shall overcome.. But the narrative is all a bit too pat, a bit too convenient. In this corner virtuous white people, and over there, evil liberals, ungrateful negroes, and so on. But what happens when we look at ACTUAL FACTS, rather than propaganda about "white guilt"? Let's find out. Note- the phrase "white people" below is not meant to apply to ALL white people, just to a substantial number. Obviously there are some white people who when moving to correct certain injustices or wrongdoing against blacks, or when expressing awareness of such, are not motivated by "guilt" at all - they just want to see the right thing done, or understand the facts, free of distorting propaganda.

FACT 1- Most white people didn't vote for Obama due to "white guilt." Obama got around the same percentage of white votes that other white presidential candidates have gotten in the past. there was no onrush of "white guilt" to vote him in.

Perhaps one of the most celebrated statement of these "guilty truths" is by right wing favorite Ann Coulter in a Fox News appearance:

"White guilt has produced mistake after mistake including the 2008 election when more whites voted for Obama than voted for a Democrat for decades.. What we've learned is everyone, blacks especially, are better off when the white guilt bank is shut down, as it was for more than a decade after the O.J. verdict, and liberals kept trying to push the racial narrative in their newspapers and on TV, but Americans weren't buying it.. They were done after October 3rd, 1995, when they saw that verdict and saw black law students at Howard University cheering it, that was it..."

You tell them g.. g.. gurl.. But one curious note- Coulter says white people finally saw the light after OJ and were "set free" in 1995 from guilt. So how could these emancipated white people still feel "guilty" enough to vote for Barack Obama in 2008? What? The "OJ emancipation" had a delayed kick-in? A white folk relapse? Our right-wing pundit doesn't explain the contradiction in her claim, but moving on..

Coulter also said Obama got more white votes than Democrats have gotten for decades. This of course is bogus- her standard propaganda approach of repeating falsehoods so they become "truth" to "the base." Bill Clinton got more votes in 1996 than Obama got in 2008- that's 12 years not  "decades". And in his second term, Obama got 39% of the white vote, below several earlier Democrat candidates. Once again Coulter is lying. Overall, Obama got about the same average number of white votes as other recent white Democrat presidential candidates- Obama 43%, Clinton 44%. Jimmy Carter 48%. Nor is 2008 anything special. Since 1976, Democrats have never won a majority of white voters- Jimmy Carter managed 48% in 1976, but his successor Walter Mondale posted a mere 34%, and Bill Clinton did a bit better at 44% in 1996. In 2008 Obama won 43% of the white vote, less than Clinton or Carter. In 2012 he won 39%, a actual DECLINE, but still near the 40% average for white Dem candidates over the last 10 presidential elections.

In short, White people voted for Obama in the same proportion they voted for white candidates. They did not need to vote for “guilt” or because “it would be nice to have a black president.” Give them more credit than that. They (a) were tired of Bush and his war, (b) did not want Clinton cronyism back, (c) wanted the liberal gravy train from which they benefited to keep rolling, and (d) were unconvinced enough by the weak Republican alternative- which in 2008 included the dubious Sarah Palin, herself an “affirmative action” pick to apply the same reasoning. So much for “white guilt" here. Let's move on to actual levels of allegedly crippling white "guilt."


What about the writings so oft hailed by "guilt" proponents like Shelby Steele? OK this brings us to a favorite right wing book by author Shelby Steele, who, happens to be black. See we have a black guy agreeing with us, some proponents smugly note- how could we have any anti-black animus, or how can we be distorting the actual facts? Steele presents himself in the usual way- the straight-talking "man of courage" on racial issues, who dares say "things others dare not say" and so on. But upon closer examination, neither this stance, or the arguments he brings forward hold water. Let's get to it:

Right wing "guilt" proponents deliberately ignore the central fact of American life that most whites feel little or no "guilt" at all. They banish guilt to a past era- long ago- hence the popular white way of framing the narrative: "I had nothing to do with owning slaves." Of course you didn't but why is this non-issue the frequent central response save as a way to dismiss actual evidence of white profiteering, oppression and privilege that has damaged blacks both historically and at present, before and AFTER slavery? Contrary to Steele's notion, the detailed work of scholars like Eduardo Bonilla-Silva (Racism Without Racists), for example, demonstrates in depth that whites are mostly INDIFFERENT or in deep denial about any "guilt," with  strong streaks of hypocrisy and cynicism from some. In fact in poll after poll whites typically dismiss their own culpability or complicity in creating racial inequality in America, and heavily blame black people for every ill besetting them.

And as others like author Tim Wise show, (Between Barack and Hard Place -2009) as early as 1963, whites in polls were dismissing black concerns saying that blacks had just as good opportunities as whites in the workplace or in education. This same dismissal mentality continues on into today's polls. Many whites for example still seem to think a majority of blacks are on welfare (a bogus notion), or that black folk depend to any significant extent on "affirmative action quotas" (another bogus notion) and a host of other erroneous beliefs and attitudes. Indeed, even when whites know these notions are false, they still keep pushing such distorted propaganda lines (particularly right wingers) in order to dismiss black concerns. In short, when the total picture is looked at, white people are not in "guilt" mode at all.

Shelby Steele in his book "White Guilt" fails to even minimally address data on actual white thinking and behavior. Let's look at some more of his claims on so-called "white guilt."

Below is a review of academic studies on "white guilt." As can be seen, the authors examined four studies on white guilt. Their conclusion was that while SOME white people, particularly those more aware of discrimination against blacks etc. etc. felt guilt, overall levels of "white guilt" were rather LOW - contradicting Steele's notion (as well as Coulter and the rest of the "guilt" brigade) about this so-called "guilt burden" white people are carrying. As a well-paid academic and think-tank writer, Steele had easy access to these and other data, dealing specifically with his "white guilt" thesis. But he conveniently skips over them-perhaps because they undermine his claims. Here is the data- QUOTE:

"Four studies examine the strength of feelings of White guilt, the relationship between White guilt and possible antecedents to this guilt, and the consequences of White guilt for attitudes toward affirmative action. Even though mean White guilt tended to be low, with the mean being just below the midpoint of the scale, the range and variability confirms the existence of feelings of White guilt for some. White guilt was associated with more negative personal evaluations of Whites and the theoretical antecedents of stronger beliefs in the existence of White privilege, greater estimates of the prevalence of discrimination against Blacks, and low prejudice against Blacks."
--Janet Swin. 1999. White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action. Personality & social psychology bulletin vol:25 iss:4 pg:500 -514


Furthermore as Swin notes- even if say for example, some white students feel initial guilt when exposed to the history of discrimination against black people, it does not necessarily last. Their eventual reaction is not any haste to "help" or "compensate" or commiserate with black people. To the contrary- a common follow-on reaction is DENIAL AND RESISTANCE. Says Swin:

"Through her observations of students in class, Tatum noticed that many White students experience strong guilt feelings "when they become aware of the pervasiveness of racism in our society" (p. 463). Even the students who say they do not discriminate against Blacks claim that they feel guilt by their association with the White race. An unfortunate consequence of the guilt feelings for some White students, Tatum claimed, is the resistance to learn more about race and racism. This is consistent with early authors' discussions of guilt reducing or evading defensive reactions such as denial of discrimination (Allport, 1954/1986; Golightly, 1947)."
-Swin 1998.

In addition, when the matter of guilt was laid before whites, researchers found SOME individual sympathy for black individuals who had to suffer, but little sense of overall "collective guilt" among whites. Indeed research data going back to 1972, supposedly a hotbed time per Steele, when guilt was developing that translated into the AA programs of the 1970s, finds "white guilt" to be virtually non-existent, and this was a study at a supposedly "progressive" Midwestern university, far from the mean, old South. AGAIN NOTE:
"In contrast, Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, and Elliot (1991) have offered empirical support for reports of White guilt. However, guilt for Devine et al. stems from a personal violation of standards in a particular situation rather than a general feeling of corporate or collective guilt. Collective guilt is not necessarily a result of one's own prejudicial behavior. Instead, it is a result of knowledge of the advantages one receives from being in a privileged group. It is the latter form of guilt that is the focus of our article. We are aware of only one study that has examined endorsement of White guilt. Bardis (1972) found very little endorsement of feelings of guilt in his sample of White Americans at a Midwestern university and concluded that "deep guilt feelings" are virtually nonexistent."


Note this was more white liberal college types in 1972. Fast forward 26 years and what do we find when Swin studies a sample of supposedly more progressive college students- so-called "white guilt" was AGAIN, rather LOW. Impossible!! If anything, with these progressive young white college kids, the deck should have been stacked in favor of white "guilt." After all, haven't we been told for decades by right-wingers how the education system is churning out all these confused, "guilty" white kids? But in fact, no such picture emerges from the data, debunking assorted right wing claims.

"Similar to Bardis's (1972) findings, scores were low on our measure of White guilt. Perhaps this low score was a function of the present sample and their level of White racial identity. Most of the participants in both Bardis's study and the present study were young college students.."

Interestingly Swin found some data supporting Steele's claim that higher levels of "guilt" among those whites who felt guilty might cause a more favorable reaction to things like "affirmative action." Aha you say! Why doesn't Steele then use this academic support to bolster his notions? As we saw above however, overall white "guilt" was rather small beer- undermining the central theme of Steele. Sure, among the small group there might be some guilt among a small number of individuals, but its general significance is unimpressive, and the overall weight of the research debunks numerous aspects of Steele's claims. Even in the matter of AA, support for such programs was partly a product of POLITICAL  orientation, not mere "guilt." It is interesting (and telling) that Steele skips mention of the research of Swin or the others on white guilt mentioned above in any of his books- Content of Our Character (1991), White Guilt (2006) or Shame (2014). 

As can be seen above, this research goes back decades, and in fact Swin specifically mentions Steele's works in the 1990s on white guilt in her article, even finding partial support for Steele's other notion that white guilt may influence openness towards affirmative action among the overall small tail end of whites, though political orientation may ALSO play a part in that openness. Yet again and again, over 3 tomes, Steele dishonestly avoids substantially addressing the specific weaknesses in his claims, weaknesses noted over 16 years ago. He simply keeps recycling the same old shaky talking points, in book after book, after book.

------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------


When actual data on what white people are thinking is consulted there is no wave of "white guilt" afflicting white America. For example a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll of almost 1000 adults in 2002 did not show white people in any paroxysm of alleged "guilt." 9 out of 10 white Americans for example rejected reparations; 62% rejected any government apology for legally permitting slavery. In the 1980s and beyond, polls shows consistently strong white opposition to affirmative action "guilt quotas." In five separate Gallup polls for example between 1977 and 1989, no more than 11 percent of whites endorsed preferential treatment for minorities. In all five polls a majority of respondents actually wanted MORE tests to apply for employment, and more barriers, etc., hardly the picture of white people cringing in "guilt." (Gallup 291, 1989). Gallup polls in the 1990s show a similar pattern. In fact one poll in 1995 found that when blacks were the issue white respondents were more hostile and harsher in their opinions compared to when others like white women were in view. (Gallup 1995).

Note- "quotas" are not the same as "equal opportunity." Whites generally favor equal opportunity especially where white women are concerned. It is ironic that many Civil rights measures such as the Civil Rights Act (CRA) of 1964 are claimed by right wingers as "benefiting blacks" when in fact the main numerical beneficiaries are white women, who benefited greatly- in employment, pay scales, and other sectors. If there were this alleged wave of "white guilt" then whites would presumably show less opposition to things like quotas. But on into the 2000s, clear and consistent majorities of white Americans resolutely opposed them. For example, in one 2000 NES poll, 91 percent of whites stated that they disapprove of race preferences. (National Election Studies 2000) This is contrary to Steele's claim of a vast influence of white "guilt" that would seek to compensate black people for past wrongs. There is no such vast wave of "white guilt". Both Polls and actual white behavior debunk any such notion.

White people get to have it both ways- they can be "against race quotas" while at the same time, making sure that they are the biggest beneficiaries of special preferences- cases in point- white females are the biggest beneficiaries of affirmative action, and white "legacy" admissions are the biggest block of preferential treatment admittees to colleges.

Steele's attempts to psychoanalyze Americans on race show some insight, but again, he is long on personal opinion and anecdote, and short on actual credible data. What have others who have studies race relations in depth written we want to know and how do you respond to that? Steele has little to say, giving the book a thin feel. There has been a huge amount on the topic, credible scholars in academia, to well respected journalists. Why don't you address at least a portion of it? Steele conveniently cops out.

------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------------------------- 


Even poll data is not needed to cast doubt on the notion of "white guilt". It is true that again and again, polls of whites suggest that whites think racial discrimination is something of the past. Most are not on any "guilt trip" at all. But white behavior on the ground also suggests that "guilt" is rather thin there.

Fact 4A: White people don't feel guilty about current segregation. For example, whites have basically segregated off their schools (hence today's phenomenon of racially integrated schools declining) as well as their communities by various methods- from zoning and other legal controls designed to suppress the supply of housing, to "white flight" to the indirect "white price"- i.e. minorities being priced out of various venues by more affluent whites- hence less blacks and browns to hang around. Most whites feel no "guilt" about such things at all, debunking Coulter's or Steele's core notions about so-called "guilt trips."

Fact 4B:   White people don't feel guilty about affirmative action benefiting white people. As far as the white trump card of complaint, alleged "white suffering" under "affirmative action": A 2010 Century Foundation study (The Future of Affirmative Action) found that for every student of color who benefited at all from affirmative action at a selective college there are two whites with lower scores and grades than the average, but who were admitted anyway because of family connections or parental alumni status. And as regards affirmative action (AA) the main beneficiaries are white women not blacks. But see, white people have no guilt at all in bashing blacks as being such "exclusive" beneficiaries of "affirmative action."

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 sports that are generally low interest, or sports generating much less 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."

Infamous squeegee "terrorists"- a staple of 1990s right-wing discourse.... turns out only about 75 of them existed

Fact 4C:  Whites don't feel "guilty" about policing practices that unfairly target blacks. Well into the late 1990s and into the 2000, police "profiling" practices continued to target black drivers out of proportion to their presence on the road, or any crimes committed. The infamous "black shakedown" seizures of money from black motorists in the 1990s by people like Sheriff Bob Vogel in Florida is among the best known of several pernicious practices. In case after case, black motorists were not charged with any crime but the cash in their possession was seized. To get it back they had to go to court- paying thousands in legal costs, in actions that might take years. Vogel offered an "easy" solution- the negroes could get the money back in weeks not years, if they "settled" and agreed to a "deduction" for "administrative costs." Mind you, these people have not been charged with any crimes. It took a hard fight, including lawsuits and federal probes to finally put an end to the white shakedown- and even then there were numerous people, including elderly black people that never got their money back from the shakedown machinery. Several other cases have been well documented, such as the "black cash" shakedowns by Texas law enforcement against minority motorists- note this was in 2008, not the 1990s.

In addition to unfair targeting, police brutality is a continuing problem for blacks. Well publicized "I can't breathe" chokehold victim Eric Garner found that out. But so did a much less publicized elderly black man-  stroke victim Allen Harris in Los Angeles, brutally abused by white police. So disgusted were the jury at the callous treatment accorded the crippled black man, that it ordered the worse offending officer to pay an additional $90,000 out of his own individual pocket to the crippled black victim, on top of a multi-million dollar settlement. Aside from the malice shown, what also irked the jury were was the outright lying by white officers who had been at the scene. The LA jury had some minority representation but what about those areas without such balance?

Indeed, white taxpayers seem not to mind paying out millions in police abuse settlements against minorities- hardly the picture of a population allegedly brooding with "guilt." The City of Los Angles settled big in the Harris case above, its liability increased by the disgustingly mendacious testimony of its white employees. But this was nothing unusual. One study found that Chicago paid out around $120 million in lawsuit settlements over police abuse over 4 years. Why do white taxpayers keep paying out this money to cover the bad behavior of  mostly white police forces where abuses against minorities are concerned?  And why do fire-breathing white conservatives, who oft rail against "the union bosses", including beating up on teachers and their unions, seem so willing to support the mostly white police union bosses who cover up, block and delay scrutiny against wrongdoing by mostly white police forces? And its not only conservative but liberal jurisdictions as well where whites seem willing to pay out multi-million settlements without fundamentally reforming white police forces. Why? Whatever the specifics of different cases, there is a clear pattern of concern costing white taxpayers multi-millions, yet reforms to union-dominated, mostly white police forces are sometimes fought tooth and nail by these same white taxpayers. Yet we are told they are wracked by "white guilt"? ROTFLMAO..

In addition, Professor E. Bonilla -Silva 2009 also shows data on white perceptions of black crime out of proportion to actual occurrence. Blacks for example in one study made up 43% of those arrested for rape though only 33% of actual women raped said their attackers were black. Even more disturbing, Smith, Visher, and Davidson found that whereas the probability of arrest for cases in which the victim was white and the suspect black was 0.336, for cases of white suspects and black victims the probability dropped to 0.107. Blacks represent 65 percent of those exonerated for rape and half of the exonerations of men convicted of raping white women (Bonilla-Silva 2009- Racism Without Racists). There are few whites documented voicing any "guilt" about such disparities, though a small number has brought them to the attention of the larger society.  On a more humorous note, turns out there were only about 75 of the infamous "black squeegee men" in the NYC, fodder for endless anti-black propaganda and symbol of "decay" in a city of over 4 million people. But that's another tale.. 

Fact 4D:  White people (small percentage excepted) don't feel guilty about black over-representation in the criminal justice system- in fact they want harsher treatment of blacks research shows. Where is this alleged "guilt"? In fact, a recent Stanford study shows that when whites are given information on the discrepancies in black incarceration and other such measures as compared to whites, a significant majority do not respond with any "guilt" - but just the opposite. They actually go on to SUPPORT EVEN HARSHER, MORE PUNITIVE measures that will impact blacks negatively. [Racial Disparities in Incarceration Increase Acceptance of Punitive Policies  Psychological Science 0956797614540307- 2014]. Far from feeling more sympathy or supporting "liberal" measures, most white respondents responded even MORE harshly.

And when those harsh policing or criminal justice system actions hit home, white people as a whole don't seem to be consumed with guilt. If they were, how come discrimination against non-whites is still alive and well- as government reports show, and as the 2-year backlog in EEOC cases and court filings show? And why for example does the "War on Drugs", disproportionately hit blacks hard- even though several studies show blacks are not any more likely to be either drug users or dealers than whites. (

Fact 4E:  Most White people don't feel guilty about the much  larger number of FALSE CONVICTIONS handed to blacks in the criminal justice system or the fact that blacks receive LONGER prison sentences than whites for the same crimes.
False convictions. One study for example found that 5 Of 10 Falsely Convicted Prisoners are African American. A new U.S. registry or database put together by scholars at the University of Michigan Law School and Northwestern University School of Law highlights more than 2,000 innocents who were falsely convicted of serious crimes since 1989. A closer look demonstrates that half of those exonerated were African-American. Breaking down the numbers on the 873 exonerations, researchers found that five of out ten defendants were African Americans; nine out of ten were men. More than 100 of the 873 exonerations were prisoners that had been facing death sentences. Among the 305 charged with sexual assaults, about two-thirds of exonerations came by DNA testing. Nearly one-third of the 416 false homicide convictions were exonerated by genetic testing. [Gross and Shaffer 2012. Exonerations in the United States, 1989 – 2012  Report by the National Registry of Exonerations. University of Michigan Law School -National Registry of Exonerations -]

Disparate sentencing. And what about disparate prison sentencing for the same crime? Such sentencing is nothing new and little white"guilt" is in evidence over it. A recent academic study at the University of British Columbia for example, found that of 58,000 federal criminal cases, significant disparities in sentencing for blacks and whites arrested for the same crimes. The research led to the conclusion that African-Americans’ jail time was almost 60% longer than white sentences. According to the researchers, racial disparities can be explained “in a single prosecutorial decision: whether to file a charge carrying a mandatory minimum sentence…. Black men were on average more than twice as likely to face a mandatory minimum charge as white men were, holding arrest offense as well as age and location constant.” Prosecutors are about twice as likely to impose mandatory minimums on black defendants as on white defendants.
See: [Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Charging and Its Sentencing Consequences (by M. Marit Rehavi and Sonja B. Starr, University of Michigan Law & Econ, Empirical Legal Studies Center Paper)] and [Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the US Criminal Justice System (by Christopher Hartney and Linh Vuong, National Council on Crime and Delinquency) -]

Fact 4F:  White people don't feel guilty about freezing out black applicants in employment. On the employment front, one study by economists at MIT found that even when job applicants are equally qualified in terms of experience and education, applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely than those with black-sounding names to get a callback for an interview. Another found that white male job applicants with criminal records are more likely to get called back for an interview than black men without one, even when all other qualifications are indistinguishable. As scholars of the study note:
"We study race in the labor market by sending fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perceived race, resumes are randomly assigned African-American-or White-sounding names. White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. Callbacks are also more responsive to resume quality for White names than for African-American ones. The racial gap is uniform across occupation, industry, and employer size. We also find little evidence that employers are inferring social class from the names. Differential treatment by race still appears to still be prominent in the U.S. labor market."
-- Bertrand and Mullalinathan 2004. Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? American Economic Review. Sept 2004- 991-1013

Passion coursed through her.. making her body melt, with "guilt".. :)

Fact 4G:  Perhaps some right-wingers have too much time on their hands, but most whites are simply too busy looking after their own interests and agendas to even think about blacks.
Let's look at the dating scene in heavily liberal areas as an example. Are white people "crippled" with guilt as they go about their business? Not at all. Blacks simply don't register in any significant way. As regards gay "hookups" for example, numerous gay men of color who have researched and experienced the issue say white gays are rather indifferent and sometimes even hostile towards their darker brethren, though of course there is variation in all communities. Says Chong-suk Han (2007-Quote): "Despite the civil rights dialogue used by the gay community, many ‘gay’ organizations and members of the ‘gay’ community continue to exclude men of color from leadership positions and ‘gay’ establishments, thus continuing to add to the notion that ‘gay’ equals ‘white’."  Hmm, not a lot of "white guilt" on the gay end, nor does much guilt show up on the straight side of the street either.  

Let's see. As the narrative goes, liberals are consumed with "white guilt" and so on. Surely then, these liberals, to prove their liberal, non-racist credentials, would be showing black folk some attention on the dating sites in liberal areas? Stats from dating venue in liberal areas should show the influence of this alleged "guilt" right? Sorry. Nope. Detailed analyses of dating sites in major liberal markets like San Francisco, Boston etc show that as far as whites, blacks get the least amount of replies or attention. See Christian Rudder's 2014 book "Dataclysm" for a detailed analysis of OK Cupid for example, but it is a pattern that shows up on Match and other major sites.

The data suggest that white people are simply too busy with their own agendas to give blacks a second thought. Note how liberal whites in these settings are not at all concerned about "microaggressions"  and "guilt." The blacks simply don't register, or matter. So, again, one wonders, where is this wave of "white guilt" Shelby Steele and his cronies keeps talking about? Black folk are scratching their heads.

Fact 4H:  White people don't feel guilty about white ethnic networks monopolizing jobs for cronies and friends and freezing out black folk. If anything real data out there shows it is mostly indifference, or muted hostility. But of course, people like Ann Coulter ducks around detailed discussion of ACTUAL white behavior, to pump up the bogus "guilt" meme for her white right-wing "base.". And does anyone really believe that the deeply embedded white ethnic networks, the ones like the Irish or Italian networks that control hundreds of thousands of government jobs and that excluded and continue to partially exclude black people having any "guilt"? Or the cynical union bosses and rank and file? Are the significant white majorities opposed to affirmative action, not to mention those filing lawsuits re "reverse" discrimination consumed by "guilt"? Where are these cringing white hordes, doubled over in "guilt"? When reality on the ground is looked at much of "guilt" spiel so loudly played up is laughable.

White behavior does not show much "guilt" at all in the current day. Another study on labor market discrimination showed the same US pattern across majority white countries- Australia, and in Europe. If anything, the data suggests that whites 'primary concern is to advance their own interests, not spend time on "guilt." QUOTE:

"Controlled experiments, using matched pairs of bogus transactors, to test for discrimination in the marketplace have been conducted for over 30 years, and have extended across 10 countries. Significant, persistent and pervasive levels of discrimination have been found against non-whites and women in labour, housing and product markets. Rates of employment discrimination against non-whites, in excess of 25% have been measured in Australia, Europe and North America. "
-- Riach and Rich 2002. Field Experiments of Discrimination in the Market Place. The Economic JournalVolume 112, Issue 483, pages F480–F518.

Fact 4I:  White people don't feel guilty about their high representation in government employment. Its only when a black man gets a piece of the action then there's a "problem."
White right wing pundits like Ann Coulter (2012) or "honorary whites"  like convicted felon and pundit Dinesh Dsouza (1996) sneer at black representation in government employment, but don't have much to say when its white people feeding on the government dime. White groups like the Irish at one time had ONE-THIRD of the working populations employed by government (Bayor and Meagher 1996)-- THAT'S ONE THIRD of that entire white working population- but that's OK you see. It's only when a black man shows up then the hypocrites leap into sneering commentary and objections. The blunt fact is that whites have been feeding deeply and heavily from the government bucket and indeed used their control of that bucket to move themselves up economically.

Government jobs were crucial in the economic and social progress of white Irish Americans for example, who manipulated that control to discriminate against other Americans. Take away the discriminatory manipulation and domination and the point still holds. Taking any opportunity open- including government jobs- is nothing special among US ethnic groups. Indeed one reason for over-representation in such jobs is that they were OPENLY ADVERTISED, unlike the "hidden jobs market" and white networks of cronies, friends and relatives that get "the hookup." But such blunt realities are conveniently skipped over by the guilt-mongers. Let's look at how the white Irish benefited from and used government jobs:

"In the city's building trades such as plumbers and the masons, Irish-dominated unions adopted nepotistic membership requirements that kept out new arrivals... Similarly the Irish used their political connections to entrench themselves in both skilled and unskilled city government jobs for policemen, firefighters, rapid transit workers and school teachers, even before these workers had their unions recognized."

"nepotistic membership requirements that kept out new arrivals... Similarly the Irish used their political connections to entrench themselves in both skilled and unskilled city government jobs for policemen, firefighters, rapid transit workers and school teachers, even before these workers had their unions recognized."

"As early as 1855 Irish men were the largest group of the cartmen of New York, including those that specialized in doing city work on sanitation, landfill road projects and the like. To be a private cartman one required a license; to work for the municipal government in particular one needed good connections. Even before the massive influx of the feminine Irish in 1843, the Democrat-dominated Common Council gave a large number of market licenses to Irish men, much to the chagrin of native American entrepreneurs."
--FROM: Bayor and Meagher 1996, The New York Irish, 96-97

"As a consequence, the public sector employed a full one-third of first, second and third-generation Irish Americans in 1930 compared with just 6 percent in 1900. This patronage helped produce a heavy concentration of Irish in jobs on the fire and police departments and in municipally owned subways, streetcars, waterworks and port facilities. Many of the city's Irish middle class worked on the public payroll, especially in the public schools, and thousands of others labored in construction jobs tied to city expenditures. For second-generation Irish-American women, jobs as schoolteachers were the most sought-after career. Such patronage policies would help to bind the Irish working class and much of the middle class Tammany Hall for another generation."
--Bayor and Meagher 1996. The New York Irish, p. 313

Victim of housing bias- not white enough...

Fact 4J:  White people don't feel guilty about discriminating against blacks in housing. In just 2010 alone, HUD statistics show some 29,000 complaints filed on housing discrimination- a substantial number alleging discrimination based on race. Such discrimination has been against the law for decades but many white people, supposedly "stricken with a guilty conscience" due to liberal agitation, show a remarkable flexibility in conscience- they continue to discriminate at a healthy clip decades after civil rights laws were put in place.

It took 20 years, up to 1988, to finally get significant enforcement teeth in the 1968 Civil Rights bill ( Open Housing), and even after that, racial discrimination in the housing market still remains a problem. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is well known, as is the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But the third big victory of the King era, enacted in the ferment after his murder, is the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which deals heavily with banning discrimination in housing. Bottled up for years by white legislators, King's assassination finally sparked movement. The 1968 Act banned discrimination in housing, covering about 80% of the market. However it contained few enforcement provisions. HUD could take complaints and the Justice Department could file suit in cases of "wide patterns" of discrimination but few landlords would be so kind as to leave a paper trail showing "wide patterns". This primarily left laborious individual lawsuits- meaning every discrimination incident had to be met and filed as a separate court case. This cumbersome and costly arrangement, deliberately put in place by white legislators, ensured that progress would be painfully slow. It was only until 1988, 20 years after, than real enforcement muscle was introduced, as credible histories show. The book Waking from the Dream below gives a detailed analysis- for example- quote: :

"The great legislative victory for the civil rights movement in 1968 is the last of the victories of the movement that King symbolizes, and it is more properly his legacy—more a result of his sacrifice—than the others. It may be that the nation’s memory has neglected that final act because it did not satisfy the high expectations of its supporters. It was imperfect in its effects: It took a Supreme Court decision in 1969 to remove its major exceptions. Women were not specifically protected by it till 1974. Enforcement was rarely available except via individual lawsuits—cumbersome and expensive for discrimination victims to pursue—until Congress strengthened the enforcement provisions in 1988."
--David L. Chapelle. 2014. Waking from the Dream: The Struggle for Civil Rights in the Shadow of Martin Luther King Jr.

HUD enforcement in 1968 was deliberately limited to "conciliation" and the organization estimated that some 2 million cases of discrimination occurred every year. As one NY Time story puts it:

"The 1968 law, passed after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental of housing on the basis of race, color, sex, religion or national origin. Under the law, discrimination victims can complain to the Department of Housing and Urban Development. But H.U.D.'s powers are limited to ''conference, conciliation or persuasion.'' That hasn't proved to be a very potent deterrent to discrimination. H.U.D. estimates that two million cases occur each year.  

Other legal paths are available. Individuals may pursue their own cases in court. With expert testimony, some have won millions in damage awards. The Justice Department can file suit if there is evidence of a wide ''pattern or practice'' of discrimination. For landlords and real estate agents, litigation can be a costly lesson in discrimination. But for some victims, it is time-consuming and jeopardizes the availability of desired housing.

  That's why tougher enforcement is not only desirable, but necessary. Under amendments passed by the Senate last week, an administrative law judge would investigate any discrimination charge, and, on finding discrimination, could award compensatory damages, issue an injunction or impose civil fines of $10,000 to $50,000. Either party could seek review by a Federal district judge. The housing law would also be broadened to cover the disabled and families with children."   

Lest the reader naively think that the problem was "solved" by legislation in 1968 or 1988, the brutal fact of American life is that housing discrimination against people of color is still a reality. The reality is that much white bias and racism never really went away after the Civil Rights era. It simply went underground, and became more sophiscated and subtle. The article below, shows that after almost another 20 years, biased white people are still at it. The "colored" or "tainted" family in question was denied housing. But when a white "tester" couple applied for the same housing at the same place, they were quickly accepted. Meanwhile the "colored" family was frozen out. To refocus on our theme herein, if there was all this white "guilt" about black people, how come white people are still discriminating so much against them in housing? Oh to be sure, the landlord below did not have "NO NEGROES" signs posted. Things these days are a little more subtle. But one wonders- where is all this alleged "white guilt" and so-called "favoritism" showed towards black people? The case of white bias in housing illustrates the mendacious propaganda and hypocrisy engaged on by white conservatives, right wingers and even some liberals. QUOTE:

"Four years later, Rembis still gets emotional when she talks about what the testers found. "This part is really hard," she said, her voice breaking. "This part is really hard. The black family and the white family had the same income, the same credit history, and the black family had the least number of kids. They wouldn't even let them see the house. They wouldn't return their phone calls." The white family, the testing showed, was called back immediately and invited to see the house. The Rembis family applied to rent this 3,000-square-foot house in Hudson, Mich., but was denied, according to HUD, because Claire Rembis is part black. What happened to the Rembis family isn’t an isolated instance of a landlord flouting the 1968 Fair Housing Act. It’s a rare case of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development actually investigating and filing formal charges. Today, federal authorities filed a complaint against the owners of the property and proposed to settle the case with a $12,500 fine to be paid to the Rembis family, according to a Justice Department official. The proposed settlement also calls for Paula and David French to undergo training in following the fair housing law. Attempts to reach the Frenchs’ attorney were unsuccessful.

Few civil rights laws are more routinely defied than the ban on housing discrimination. HUD studies have found that African Americans and Latinos are discriminated against in one of every five home-buying encounters and one in every four attempts to rent an apartment. Only a scant few of these incidents ever come to the attention of authorities. In 2010, HUD and the National Fair Housing Alliance, reported that HUD, state, local and private groups received about 29,000 complaints from people alleging discrimination for a wide variety of reasons — including race, familial status, disability and national origin. About two-thirds were handled by private attorneys and non-profits which settled cases and, in some instances, filed civil law suits."

--No Sting: Feds Won’t Go Undercover to Prove Housing Discrimination. []



5a) White liberals talk a good game but when crunch time comes may  be missing in action. When the full picture is looked at, white liberals are not exactly losing sleep over "guilt." Indeed in report after report, white liberals, supposedly the most "guilt ridden" of all, may make boilerplate expressions of support or sympathy, but don't seem terribly concerned with doing something of SUBSTANCE where blacks are concerned. This  complaint about white liberals- plenty of lightweight or trivial gestures of support, little real substance- is an old one, but still very much alive and well. Martin Luther King complained about it during the Civil Rights era. Says King in: "Letter from a Birmingham Jail." "I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate..." He goes on to talk of a passive liberalism that is long on flowery rhetoric or symbolic gestures, but short on real action.  The complaint also appears in the writings of ex-Black Panther David Hilliard's "This Side of Glory," and the detailed scholarship of ant-racists like Eduard Bonilla-Silva's "Racism Without Racists", to everything in between. As far as police brutality for example, white liberals don't seem like people wracked with guilt. In fact some of the worse, most publicized incidents of police misconduct or brutality is in heavily liberal areas- Los Angeles, Seattle, New York, etc. Liberals muttered the usual thing but quietly approved NY Mayor Rudy Guiliani's "broken windows" approach and its sometimes corollary- harassment and unjust treatment of innocent black people.

5b) Liberal white areas don't seem to be losing any sleep over black concerns about unfair treatment, as long as things are not OPENLY racist. In liberal Brookline Masschusetts, where black police officers describe racial hazing and harassment, and black citizens describe subtle harassment and targeting- such as a surfeit of traffic stops and tickets for "being black in a particular area"- liberals continue business as usual despite years of complaints- hardly a picture of "cringing Caucasoids"- mired in "guilt."

5c) So-called "white progressive areas" may just be about lip service. Speaking of liberal areas, let's take Seattle. It is a staunchly liberal place, but an independent federal report found deep patterns of excessive force being used against minority citizens. Yes- in liberal, granola loving, progressive Seattle! So if "the liberals" are so terrible, supposedly handicapping other white people with foolish "guilt" why is it that so many of these incidents of brutality are taking place in bastions of nice, progressive white liberalism?

Says Nation blogger  Mychal Denzel Smith in: White People Have To Give Up Racism -"Not every white person is a racist, but the genius of racism is that you don't have to participate to enjoy the spoils. If you're white, you can be completely oblivious, passively accepting the status quo, and reap the rewards." 

What, me guilty?

5d) "Political correctness" may be less about white "guilt," and and more about petty power trips that come with "monitoring" others for "rule violations" in PC venues. On college campuses some public intellectuals lament that there is a new hyper-sensitivity among white students, invoking their right not to be offended. Change has been not particularly driven by blacks and browns, but white feminists, gays and leftist types, who may INVOKE "sensitivity" towards the coloreds but whose primary agenda lies elsewhere. Attacks against traditional Christianity for example can be disguised as "protections" needed for "sensitivity" and "inclusiveness" - translating into censorship of said traditional views. This outcome may suit some gays quite well- the primary agenda having nothing to do with blacks or any "race guilt." Where they do appear in the picture the "people of color" may be the stalking horses, the cat's paw. White students, particularly females, seem to be flexing their power in this arena, even intimidating college teachers in the material and methods used to teach. As noted above with dating sites, whites seem to be driven not by any "guilt" but by their own power, control and self-gratification agendas in particular venues. Part of the payoff is also self-congratulation- to be more holier or righteous, or more enlightened than these other people. Blacks are mere instruments to these white ends.

5e) Locally entrenched right wing unions and bastions often block reforms by well-meaning progressives. In fairness, it could be said that some white progressives have tried to stem abuses, but they fight an uphill battle against deeply entrenched police unions and other right wing bastions, that successfully stymie and intimidate local political leaders and legislative bodies in blocking reforms. Police unions for example have oft successfully blocked federal consent agreements requiring cleanup of  abusive practices, as well as stymieing and intimidating local progressives who stand up to them. Union contracts, hidden from public scrutiny contain all sorts of special favors. Police offices for example under investigation for abuses, get to see any video of the incident BEFORE interrogation or detailed investigation, allowing them to modify their reports or stories to "sync"with, or explain away what shows on the camera. Ordinary citizens get no such privileges. "Fired" officers dismissed for abuses are entitled to a layer of both civil service AND union contract hearings and are often reinstated after the media hoopla over an incident dies down. And there is much more that needs reforming, oft resolutely blocked or sandbagged, in myriad places. And while no doubt most union members are decent people, these are the blunt realities of the system and culture they work in. There appears to be little "white guilt" about such things, many well documented.

------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- -------------------------

FACT 6: While SOME liberals may see "affirmative action" as compensatory policy, when the overall picture is viewed, whites ensured that "quotas" served their own agendas, such as applying them to white women, and ensured that they would at best, be a weak measure affecting a tiny minority of blacks.

 Affirmative action quotas are not the "smoking gun of guilt" they are often made out to be. It is true SOME liberals, having guilt, support AA quotas as a compensatory measure, but the overall record suggests (a) minimal white guilt in action as far as "quotas"  (b) substantial opposition and resentment, and (c) manipulation of alleged "giveaways" not to help blacks but whites. Seven points are applicable here:
  • Whites were the creators of "quotas" - i.e, "white only" jobs, housing, government services, etc etc, and "affirmative action" itself began as a measure to benefit WHITE union workers discriminated against due to union membership. Courts realized that merely saying "please stop" was ineffectual to stop discriminatory action against white unionists.
  • Whites ensured that "quotas" served their own agendas, such as applying them to white women, or "legacy" admittees in universities. As we shall see below, such "legacy admits" play an interesting role in ensuring higher levels of white representation on campus compared to Asians. 
  • Whites not only fiercely opposed quotas for blacks, but watered them down into weak measures affecting a only small minority of blacks. So called "guilt quotas" have been ineffectual in combating continuing anti-black discrimination- the EEOC for example has a TWO YEAR BACKLOG of such cases. As one detailed research study shows, continuing discrimination by whites hardly suggest any so-called "guilt." Quote:

    "Research buttresses this evidence of wage discrimination with findings of significant race- and gender-based discrimination in hiring. For example, Harvard University researchers found that résumés with “white-sounding” names such as “Emily” are 50 percent more likely to elicit interviews than equivalent résumés with “black-sounding” names such as “Lakisha” (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004). In addition, a multi-year, national study on race and sex discrimination in large and midsized private businesses found that intentional discrimination exists in every region of the country and in each of nine occupational categories ...” (Blumrosen and Blumrosen 2002). Even as recently as this year, the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs found that FedEx engaged in discrimination against 21,000 applicants in 15 states (U.S. Department of Labor 2012). In short, although the American ideal may be to judge individuals by the content of their character, we have not yet guaranteed equal opportunity in all cases."
    Source: Economic Policy Institute (2012) The Public Sector jobs crisis.
  • Quotas such as in college admissions affect only a small minority of black students, and that mostly in politically correct venues such as elite campuses. And even then, such quotas have been heavily watered down or restricted, ever since the Bakke case in the 1970s. 
  • Whites may themselves be using college admission quotas to keep out or hold down higher performing Asians. Admission "point" systems allegedly "helping only" blacks are MORE helping whites, by enabling them to bypass and squeeze ahead of Asians who may post better raw numbers. Unz's analysis suggests that certain elite institutions can manipulate a variety of factors, not because of "guilt" or "self-hate" but to help whites edge out the Asian competition- you know- via that prototypical "well rounded" candidate. Translation: less "narrow" Asian grinders on campus. Sweet. The beauty too is that Blacks can be used as front-men and scapegoats for the above- taking the heat from assorted bigots, bashers and baiters. In the meantime, behind the scenes, the admission structures are manipulated to hinder or slow down the real competition- Asians.
  • Far from being crippled with guilt, many whites have advocated, or accepted or tolerated a deliberately distorted, hypocritical narrative disparaging black achievements or work as the products of "quotas" while pumping up whites as paragons of virtuous "merit." This is precisely the argument for example made by white right wing pundit Ann Coulter in her book "Mugged" (2012). In fact, black progress depends very little on any race quotas as even conservatives like Thomas Sowell 2004, 1983, 1994 show. Black economic and educational advance has little to do with AA quotas. Most blacks for example had ALREADY pulled themselves above the poverty line PRIOR to the start of AA quotas in the 1970s. Blacks earning college degrees and attending college, or gaining managerial, technical and professional jobs were ALREADY on the rise PRIOR to AA quotas. Single professional black women as early as 1969, had ALREADY posted incomes HIGHER than the white female average- a trend in motion BEFORE AA quotas came about. AA quotas, even when implemented, never accounted for any but a minor proportion of black employment or education despite the steady drumbeat of right wing propaganda. 

    Other bogus narratives claims an assortment of bad things happening due to "quotas"- such as crime increasing when more black police are hired- a slander pushed by Coulter. In fact, crime began a steady drop in the 1990s, when minority police hires were at their HIGHEST in history. And assorted narratives of swarms of minorities "under quotas" allegedly swamping supposedly more virtuous white people are dubious as well. The percent increase of black officers hired in cities with consent decrees ("quotas" in the narrative) for example was a mere 2.5 percentage points more than in cities without AA consent decrees. In short the share of police employment going to dreaded "minorities" like blacks under affirmative action was laughably small, contradicting the distorted doom and gloom narratives of "HBD" lore. (US Dept of Justice, "Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics" Reports(LEMAS) 1987, 1990 and 1993.)

This man apparently set white people free from "guilt" by his sacrifice.. :) 


It is unknown how one can talk about white guilt and not address white privilege. Author Shelby Steel above, and other proponents seem to think that pointing out the matter of such privilege is promotion of "guilt." But such privilege is a fact on the ground - just the massive advantages reaped by racial cartels- locking in gains from discrimination against blacks over a century -tell the tale. As seen with Shelby Steele's own example of Clarence Thomas, whites, with their networks of exclusionary cartels and connections, built up over 2 centuries, have it a lot better than a guy like Thomas. Was it because "affirmative action" (AA) "devalued" his degree that Thomas did not get lucrative "big money" offers from white law firms, or was it because he was a no-name small-town black guy with an otherwise decent but unspectacular Law School record? If he was white and had access to white networks Thomas would have made out a lot better. But Steele carefully avoids saying much about this.

Both Clarence Thomas and Steele try to minimize Thomas's own Yale Law Degree. According to Thomas in his biography My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir, he put a 15-cent sticker on his framed degree and banished it to deep storage somewhere in his house. But it was this same "useless" Yale degree that opened doors for Thomas. His first professional legal job, in the Missouri court system was gained because a friend referred him to another Yale graduate, Attorney General John Danforth, who interviewed and hired Thomas, telling him he wanted to bring some new blood on board. The "school connection" got Thomas' name to the right people who could help him, just as it routinely does with tens of thousands of white people who have such connections, and who have the privilege of controlling and using such networks. Thomas was glad for the job. True the salary was not much compared to a big Wall Street Firm (what is?), but in local terms it was decent. And it was Thomas who came to the lower wage south rather than staying north. Thomas considered the Assistant Attorney General slot in Missouri, the best job he has ever had. In short the supposedly  "useless" piece of paper from a white university, was what gave Clarence Thomas a good start- a start he was glad to have.

Then there was his next significant job in the private sector, where, again, the so-called "useless" Yale degree opened doors, just as it does with white people, in white networks. Thomas was also hired on to the legal staff of chemical giant Monsanto, IN PART, because Monsanto's conservative Republican general counsel Ned Putzell Jr. wanted an African American and a woman on board, as a good political move, according to Thomas' sympathetic biographer, Andrew Peyton Thomas. As a Yale graduate with a serviceable record, Thomas was a credible pick, perhaps more credible than some white graduates out of lower ranked no-name state universities. At his interviews Putzell was also impressed that Thomas didn't seem to have a "chip on his shoulder"- nothing unusual there- people often get hired based on how well employers think they will "fit in". The initial position was a regular, boring staff position, not a special "diversity outreach" type thing. Thomas took his place there like anyone else. Monsanto was a giant firm with more in-house attorneys than usual, so there was room for promotion. BUT, it was Thomas, who tired of routine legal work on toxic waste and enviro issues, left Monsanto to return to the more exciting public sector when another opportunity knocked. So let's see- the Yale graduate gets a job in the large law office of one of the biggest US companies- with plenty of room for promotion- whoa, not bad for an allegedly "useless piece of affirmative action paper."

And then, Yet Again, for the third time, the reputedly "useless" Yale "affirmative action paper" connection worked is magic- Danforth offered him a job in Washington.  Eventually this would end up in Thomas being named a judge to the US Supreme Court. In short, Clarence Thomas' Yale degree was not the allegedly "valueless" piece of paper he later made out to be. The "valueless" 15-cent "piece of paper" worked very nicely for Clarence Thomas, despite his later attempts to "disavow" it.

The failure of Steele to address such crucial matters, including the favorable networks that pull strings for white people, just shows how shallow his claim, and that of other guilt meme mongers is. Again, if you are writing anything credible about "white guilt" you have to address one of its key components- actual or perceived white privilege. You don't have to write an academic tome but you should be willing to candidly and honestly address such issues. But Steele again and again duks, dodges and cops out, even when his own example, Clarence Thomas, illustrates the point about privileged networks. And actual data on such networks is referenced, in fact, by sober, credible studies of employment like Deidre Royser's 2003 "Race and the Invisible hand: How White Networks Exclude Black Men from Blue-Collar Jobs" show that again, and again blacks have to rely on things like advertised job openings, advertised formal training programs etc etc, while whites are quickly and easily "hooked up" for jobs and other benefits by their informal white networks, including "good old boy" (or girl) white networks.  Steele avoids talking about such things in any depth, subsuming any jarring notes under a "guilt" umbrella - a tactic numerous white right wingers use to sidetrack  or dismiss discussion- the equivalent "conservative correctness" to the leftie "political correctness."  

Guilt- a diversionary  tactic? The advantage of the "white guilt" narrative is twofold.

First, it can be spun as a PERSONAL attack of some sort against white people, which will, as expected by the narrative's manipulators, provoke white defensiveness and denialism - re being unfairly "accused" victims. This defensiveness in turn can be used as a right-wing mobilization mechanism built upon resentment and denial. Some whites have played the game for years- such as talking up "quotas" as a scourge "swamping white people with "unqualified" negroes, who are supposedly "taking all the jobs" and so on. Richard Nixon's "southern strategy" and Jesse Helms classic "white hands" campaign commercial, are just 2 of the manifestations of this calculated and cynical approach. On both the conservative and the liberal side of the fence, such denialism and defensiveness can be used as a basis of shutting out or silencing critiques of racism below the surface.

Second,  it is an excellent diversionary mechanism to sidetrack or shutdown debate or exposure of the falsehoods and hypocrisy about racism in America. Simply pointing out for example how the racist activities of white unions hurt black working men for decades and gained whites massive advantages in the labor market, advantages locked in for generations, can be dismissed by saying - "oh you are just trying to make me feel guilty." Likewise the harsh experience of millions of black Americans who have actually experienced discrimination, and their struggles in overcoming such discrimination can be dismissed, distorted, or denied.

Note-  the point of the analysis above is not making anyone feel "guilty." The point is debunking, and exposing (a) denial of the simple facts,  (b) distortion of the record, (c) the deceptive nature of the guilt propaganda narrative. That's the bottom line.

Hence to recap- this post demonstrates that:

  1. Obama's election is no result of alleged "white guilt"
  2. Academic studies of "white guilt" don't show much "guilt"- if anything levels are rather low
  3. White opinion polls show little alleged "guilt"
  4. White behavior shows no "crippling effect" of "guilt"- in fact in employment and housing white bias is still alive and well- not as open as before but more subtle and "undercover"
  5. Far from being "guilty" cripples many white liberals are indifferent, and proffer perfunctory gestures not real substance
  6. Alleged Affirmative Action "guilt quotas" show white guilt is rather thin. Said quotas are not very important in black progress and when quotas were not being blockaded, whites use them for their own benefit- such as application to white university legacy admits and white women.
  7. "White guilt" memes may be a diversionary way to shut down debate, dismiss valid complaints, and continue denia


Joint products of "racial evolution"...


The Teflon Don- Covid-era approval rating may signal November success

Tchalla's "Wakanda First" philosophy looks a bit like Donald Trump's "America First" approach

'AsiaRate' Lawsuit against Harvard shows dirty little secret- white quotas used at elite universities

Some gays find welcome home in the 'alt-right' as nationalist organizations step up recruitment

Racial discrimination is alive and kicking in employment, housing and credit markets

Sowell 3- new data shows backward tropical evolution? Wealth and Poverty- An International Perspective in Trump era

Sowell 2- Wealth, Poverty and Politics- International Perspective - Trump era to bring these issues into sharper focus?

Sowell- Liberal intellectuals and hard questions about race differences- Trump era may force them to focus?

Trump properties discriminated against black tenants lawsuit finds

Stealing credibility- Dinesh D'souza has prison epiphany- after hanging with the homies- Hallelujah Hilary!

Shame on you, and your guilt too- A review of Shelby Steele's 'Shame'

Go with the flow 3- more DNA and cranial studies show ancient African migration to, or African presence in ancient Europe

Go with the flow 2- African gene flow into Europe in various eras

DNA studies show African movement to Europe from very ancient times

Guilt3- Why the "white privilege industry" is not all there

Guilt2- Media collaborates with guilt mongers - or how to play the white victim card

Hands off the Confederate flag

Despite much more wealth than blacks, whites collect about the same rate of welfare and are treated more generously

African "boat people" ushering in European demographic decline

The forgotten Holocaust- King Leopold's "Congo Free State" - 10 million victims

Are violent minorities taking over California and the West?

Presidential hopeful Ben Carson meets and Greeks

Contra "ISIS" partisans, there have been some beneficial effects of Christianity

The social construction of race, compared to biology- Graves

 Why HBD or hereditarianism lacks credibility

Leading Scientists criticize hereditarian claims

Thai me down - Thais fall behind genetically related southern Chinese, Tibetans below genetically related East Asians like Koreans and other Chinese

Time for liberals to respect "the south" ... in a way of speaking.. the south of Egypt that is..

Irony 2: touted High IQ "G-men" cannot reproduce themselves

Unz and Sowell: Unz debunking Lynn's IQ and Wealth of Nations. Sowell debunking the Bell Curve

Irony 1: touted High IQ types are more homosexual, more atheist, and more liberal (HAL)

Elite white universities discriminate against Asians using reverse "affirmative action"

Deteriorating state of white America

Racial Cartels (The Affirmative Action Propaganda machine- part 2

Hereditarian's/HBD's "Great Black Hope"

Exploding nonsense: the 10,000 Year Explosion

We need "rational racism"? Proponent Dinesh D;Souza becomes his own test case

The Affirmative Action Propaganda Machine- part 1

Two rules for being "really" black- no white wimmen, no Republican

The Axial age reconsidered - or latitude not attitide

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

JP Rushton, Michael Levin, Richard Lynn debunked. Weaknesses of Jared Diamond's approach.

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

Assorted data debunking

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

---------------- -------


Race and other misadventures: essays in honor of Ashley Montagu... By Larry T. Reynolds, Leonard Lieberman

Race and intelligence: separating science from myth. By Jefferson M. Fish. Routledge 2002. See Templeton's detailed article referenced above also inside the book
---------------- -------

Oubre, A (2011) Race Genes and Ability: Rethinking Ethnic Differences, vol 1 and 2. BTI Press
For summary see:
---------------- -------


--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
---------------- -------

Alan Templeton. "The Genetic and Evolutionary significnce oF Human Races." pp 31-56. IN: J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating scinnce from myth.

 J. FiSh (2002) Race and Intelligence: Separating science from myth.


-------------------------------- ---------------------

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

--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

------------------------------------ -----------------

(c) Enrique Cardova, 2015.

No comments: