for whitey when being whitey isnt enough

[bcbm]

http://www.clutchmagonline.com/2013/...d-isnt-enough/

fuck rich white people

[Os Cangaceiros]

She needs to set her sights lower and stop whining. I was an average student, applied to two state schools (one state of which I was already a resident of) and was accepted to both. Oh wow, you weren't accepted to Yale or Princeton? Pffff. And that article definitely wasn't "satire". The entire thing was just one long passive aggressive sarcastic diatribe with very little in the way of anything meaningful.

[bcbm]

theres been soe other shit like this recently, stupid crakcers being like 'oh i was denied entrance to the best schools in the country because i am not black' and thn its like 'oh no wait your test scores and everything else about you was middling and people way more qualified than you didn't get in. hmm

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

Is there actaully any evidence that she did lose a place due to affirmative action or something?

[bcbm]

no

[bcbm]

and even if she did (which she didnt) who gives a fuck

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

and even if she did (which she didnt) who gives a fuck

Because we are socialists, and we strive to create a society where the individual is free to flourish and reach their full potential, free from religious, racial, and gender concerns. Would be a tad hypocritical if we ignored her plight purely due to the colour of her skin.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Because we are socialists, and we strive to create a society where the individual is free to flourish and reach their full potential, free from religious, racial, and gender concerns. Would be a tad hypocritical if we ignored her plight purely due to the colour of her skin.

As socialists, we strive to destroy oppression, including racial oppression. If this means stepping on the toes of someone from the dominant race (who in any case has much more opportunity than members of other races of equivalent class), so what? We are not legalistic liberals that want to ignore the realities of racial oppression in favour of equal treatment "on paper".

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

As socialists, we strive to destroy oppression, including racial oppression.

I've already said that.

If this means stepping on the toes of someone from the dominant race (who in any case has much more opportunity than members of other races of equivalent class), so what?

So you negate class diferences purely for racial ones? How quaint.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I've already said that.

And then you started complaining about the "plight" of white people due to affirmative action. How do you propose that racial oppression be destroyed? Should we all act as if all races are already equal, until the sheer power of our denial changes reality?

So you negate class diferences purely for racial ones? How quaint.

Which part of "of equivalent class" was unclear to you? Black proletarians are discriminated as proletarians, and they are discriminated for being black. Or are you trying to suggest that the rich daddy's girl that wrote that execrable article was part of the proletariat?

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

And then you started complaining about the "plight" of white people due to affirmative action.

No I didn't.

How do you propose that racial oppression be destroyed?

Autogestion (the first answer to everything), the scrapping of victimless crimes that tend to be solely in place for keeping ethnic minorities under control (drug prohibition, variations of the sus law et cetera), and the implementation of direct democracy.

Which part of "of equivalent class" was unclear to you?

At least in Britain, according to sociological studies I'm sure you will just lanbast as liberal, white and black white proles had the same amounts of economic and cultural capital, and roughly the same life chances. By lumping all whites in together as an elite, and all non whites as an oppressed group you do a diservice.

Or are you trying to suggest that the rich daddy's girl that wrote that execrable article was part of the proletariat?

Not at all, I was just wanting to find out whether she was too stupid for university, or had actually been discriminated against like she claimed.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

No I didn't.

So you didn't post this:

Would be a tad hypocritical if we ignored her plight purely due to the colour of her skin.

right?

Autogestion (the first answer to everything)[...]

Because, of course, racism did not exist in the SFR Yugoslavia and in Spain.

[...]the scrapping of victimless crimes that tend to be solely in place for keeping ethnic minorities under control (drug prohibition, variations of the sus law et cetera)[...]

Alright, but this barely scratches the surface of racial oppression.

and the implementation of direct democracy.

And then? Racial oppression magically disappears?

At least in Britain, according to sociological studies I'm sure you will just lanbast as liberal, white and black white proles had the same amounts of economic and cultural capital, and roughly the same life chances. By lumping all whites in together as an elite, and all non whites as an oppressed group you do a diservice.

I am familiar with the study; it depends on a ridiculous, non-Marxist notion of class and is not really relevant here. And yes, racial and national groups other than the dominant one are oppressed, but this doesn't mean that all members of the dominant group are part of the "elite", just as all men are not part of an "elite", even though women are still oppressed as women.

Not at all, I was just wanting to find out whether she was too stupid for university, or had actually been discriminated against like she claimed.

Again, why does it matter if she was?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Because we are socialists, and we strive to create a society where the individual is free to flourish and reach their full potential, free from religious, racial, and gender concerns. Would be a tad hypocritical if we ignored her plight purely due to the colour of her skin.

No, no one is denied an education because they are white, public schools with mostly poor white students are underfunded and neglected because people are poor and part of the neoliberalization of public schools is pushing costs onto parents (and sometimes teachers) to make up for the gaps in supplies, extra-cirriculars, one-on-one education and so on. So if you have some independant means but still go to a public school, that public schools upper-middle class PTA fundraises among parents to get band or sport equipment, new computers etc - induvidual parents send their kids to tutors and SAT classes. If you're poor, you're just stuck with a bare-bones education.

Poor public schools with black students get all of that plus the weight of institutionalized racism. They don't just "lack" - these students are also blamed for the deterioration of public schools: they don't want to learn, their parents care more about partying and sports than about education [/Obama].

I'm not sure about eliete universities like these - I think some privite schools do have afermitive-action-like "diversity" requirements, but in state schools I think it's all been eliminated or gutted for the most part. In the UC system in California, there has been a statistical (and observable) impact:

After California voters approved such a law, black and Hispanic freshman enrollment at the University of California system dropped by about one-quarter in 1998, the first year the ban was in effect. At the system’s most competitive campuses, in Berkeley and Los Angeles, enrollment for those groups fell by almost half.

Tuitions have also doubled since then and universities in California are shifting to more out of state enrollment because they charge an even higher tuition for those students. All of this is part of erroding the public part of public education.

So the agitation around anti-affermitive action is ideological: an attack on the legitimacy of the idea of educational equality (which the UC system was founded on in the post-war era). The whole basis for these arguments is that (mostly) black and latino students are undeserving of education and there are all these myths of underqualified minority students displacing overqualified whites, but Affermative Action (at least in the UCs) never functioned like that - you had to be qualified to begin with, under-represented groups only recieved "points" in the admissions process like with considerations of what county you came from, being a first generation college student, high school club activities, etc. So it wouldn't be that a qualified student would be passed over for an underqualified student, it was more that two students with more or less the same qualifications might be impacted by A.A. practices.

[AConfusedSocialDemocrat]

right?

Talking about the *individual* of this story is not me going on about some massive affirmative action conspiracy against white people, as you're trying to spin it.

Because, of course, racism did not exist in the SFR Yugoslavia and in Spain.

I haven't read enough about Yugoslavia to come to an informed oppinion, but Slovenian friends of mine claime that it was never truly implemented.

Alright, but this barely scratches the surface of racial oppression.

No, it goes straight to the heart. The demonisation of minorities is no longer possible at a political and economic level, and the lack of police harrasment dissapears, allowing people to get on with their lives, not feeling that the authorities are constantly out to get them, and allows them to take pride in their community.

And then? Racial oppression magically disappears?

It allows people to voice their concerns immediately, in this case racial prejudice, and address them quickly, rather than waiting years for elections.

Again, why does it matter if she was?

Because she would have been cheated out of a place she worked for.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Talking about the *individual* of this story is not me going on about some massive affirmative action conspiracy against white people, as you're trying to spin it.

That is not the point. The point is that you're drawing a false equivalence between members of an oppressed group and the members of an oppressor group.

I haven't read enough about Yugoslavia to come to an informed oppinion, but Slovenian friends of mine claime that it was never truly implemented.

It was implemented; of course, due to the concurrent restoration of capitalism, the workers ended up managing their own exploitation, but this simply demonstrates that relying on cooperative property, the lower stage of social property, is misguided.

Anyway, the point was that racism was very much alive in Yugoslavia, in Spain, and in other places where autogestion was in vogue.

No, it goes straight to the heart. The demonisation of minorities is no longer possible at a political and economic level, and the lack of police harrasment dissapears, allowing people to get on with their lives, not feeling that the authorities are constantly out to get them, and allows them to take pride in their community.

"Pride in their community!" As if that mattered! No, the question remains: how do you think physical attacks on members of minorities should be stopped, how do you think racist ideology should be smashed, how do you think the economic inequalities will level out? Shouting "autogestion" and "direct democracy" is not enough; in fact implementing these two, ah, let's generously call them policies, in areas where reactionary attitudes are predominant, is a recipe for disaster.

It allows people to voice their concerns immediately, in this case racial prejudice, and address them quickly, rather than waiting years for elections.

But how would they be addressed? This is the question you have meticulously avoided for the last few posts. How?

Because she would have been cheated out of a place she worked for.

And why should that concern us?

[Red Commissar]

I enjoyed the article's take down of the op-ed on the Wall Street Journal. I mean yeah there's a case to be made sometimes colleges expect way too much out of potential students now, but then going into the territory thinking that minorities have it easier to get into college is laughable.

Thankfully the original article linked somewhere that the op-ed was copied too, because Wall Street Journal is paywalled. This is the part that really got me shaking my head

For starters, had I known two years ago what I know now, I would have gladly worn a headdress to school. Show me to any closet, and I would've happily come out of it. "Diversity!" I offer about as much diversity as a saltine cracker. If it were up to me, I would've been any of the diversities: Navajo, Pacific Islander, anything. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, I salute you and your 1/32 Cherokee heritage.

Like the article's author points out when she's making fun of her, is it really that *ideal* to be a headscarved Muslim right now? With all the islamophobia hysteria? I mean god I'm tired hearing of this bullshit. I remember when I was applying to college (over five years ago now) and hearing the people blaming minority policies for screwing them over when they didn't get into some university they wanted. Or throwing the reverse racism bullshit.

I mean really think about it- is their life ending because they didn't get into a college they feel they should have? These kids with comfortable lives? The article closes with this nice takedown

Weiss, in her budding wisdom, exposed the mantle of white privilege for what it should be: Proud, unapologetic and unconcerned with anyone not blessed to posses it. She offered herself up as the scape-goat to be ridiculed. Though she did receive job and internship offers for her take-down of reverse racial discrimination, that was never the point.

The point was to reveal the face of the forthcoming post-racial state of America. A place where white students are rewarded for mocking the tenuous foundation of equality on which this country is built and education remains a coveted club to which only middle-class white students are entitled.

Well done, Suzy. Well done.

Good god I mean seriously, how can you claim to be an "average" student if you got your rant published on the fucking Wall Street Journal? Most of the time you get published as a letter but as a full op-ed? I'm sorry but that tells me her parent(s) have connections.

Speaking as someone who'd be considered a "minority" student, I honestly didn't feel that I could've just expected to be accepted just because I was a minority. I applied to several universities and got rejected by several, accepted by some, and could only feasibly go to one. And that was because of my grades. Same case now with graduate school- I've been turned down by so many, so I don't think just being a minority helps my chances tbh... it comes down to your grades and what your particular admissions officer feels their admission pool is like.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Because we are socialists, and we strive to create a society where the individual is free to flourish and reach their full potential, free from religious, racial, and gender concerns. Would be a tad hypocritical if we ignored her plight purely due to the colour of her skin.

Well if we employ a bit of dialectics, we know that "racism" exists as a social construct of whiteness whose purpose is to affirm white privilege, so to abolish racial oppression is indeed to oppress the white man until his privileged position is abolished and we no longer need to speak of whiteness. Likewise, the dictatorship of the proletariat will be the dictatorship of the proletariat over the white "people".

[Althusser]

I see this shit all the time from privileged whites. I even know middle to upper class minorities that spew (in their TV weatherman voices) that same racist crap, completely oblivious to the realities in education inequality pointed out in this article.

Re-education camps and gulags are necessary.

[chase63]

Well if we employ a bit of dialectics, we know that "racism" exists as a social construct of whiteness whose purpose is to affirm white privilege, so to abolish racial oppression is indeed to oppress the white man until his privileged position is abolished and we no longer need to speak of whiteness. Likewise, the dictatorship of the proletariat will be the dictatorship of the proletariat over the white "people".

Why does ending racism involve oppressing other groups of people? And does this explain why so many on this thread seem to be racist against whites? The whole matter honestly confuses me. Privilege is economic, is it not? And economic inequality exist between races largely due to past discrimination, and this economic inequality becomes a cycle, correct? This is not a topic I have much knowledge in. Someone care to explain a more marxist view of this? thank you.

[bcbm]

Why does ending racism involve oppressing other groups of people?

the idea that hundreds of years of oppression can be ended by simply declaring everyone equal is nonsensical

And does this explain why so many on this thread seem to be racist against whites?

there is no such thing as racism against whites, and the point is not really against individual white people per se but against the construct of whiteness that needs to be destroyed

Privilege is economic, is it not?

not exactly