NavigationBanners
Active forum topicsRecent blog postsUser loginWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 0 users and 739 guests online.
|
Add new commentEnding the anachronism of racial labelsSubmitted by Bill St. Clair on Sat, 2002-01-05 06:35.
FROM MOUNTAIN MEDIA
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED JAN. 4, 2002 THE LIBERTARIAN, By Vin Suprynowicz Ending the anachronism of racial labels Predictably, 'civil rights' establishment drags its feet Martin Luther King, Jr., inspired a nation when he voiced his dream for a color-blind nation, a nation in which little children would be judged by the content of their characters, "not the color of their skin." Today, another black man is attempting to move that agenda forward after a long national detour. Ward Connerly, the University of California regent who successfully battled to dismantle race- and gender-based preferences and set-asides in his state's college admissions programs in 1996, has now launched a petition drive to bar any state and local government agencies there from classifying people by race and then gathering race-based data about them. The irony is that those who oppose Mr. Connerly's new initiative are not bullet-headed white racists with white hoods and firehoses, but rather many in today's "civil rights" establishment -- big-government toadies and rent-seekers who argue that identifying people by race is necessary for the special quotas and set-asides which are the only way (they would argue) their particular, favorite minority groups can get ahead in life. Though the measure would exempt police agencies who need to describe suspects by race, hospitals that might need racial and genetic date for research, and (since no one now dares invoke state supremacy under the 10th Amendment) federal programs which count people by skin color, many who would otherwise claim a share of Dr. King's mantle are obviously worried. "My worry is that when you stop collecting data it becomes possible to sweep certain issues under the rug," protests Hugh P. Price, president and CEO of the National Urban League. "Without data, it would be difficult to keep track of minority children are doing academically, to keep track of discrimination in employment," and so forth. But this exposes an essential fallacy. For such statistics prove virtually nothing. If a black child is subject to racial prejudice in the schools that's abominable. But -- lacking systematic new Jim Crow laws, which are unimaginable -- prejudice by its nature is something best discerned and demonstrated individually. If the number of black or Hispanic children doing poorly in the schools is below average, that doesn't prove willful and systematic race-based discrimination against them, any more than a finding that Jewish or Asian children may be doing better in school demonstrates willful race-based prejudice on their behalf. (In fact, efforts to water down the curriculum to "equalize outcomes" are themselves racist, if they end up lowering the bar on the theory that "challenged" minority students "can't succeed" if asked to read Shakespeare. Just ask Marva Collins of Chicago's Westside Prep.) As black author and economist Thomas Sowell has exhaustively demonstrated, the fact that retail stores in many inner-city black neighborhoods tend to be owned by Lebanese or Koreans -- or that merchants in East Africa tend to be East Indian -- has far more to do with vocation and cultural tradition than with prejudice: Such "disparities of outcome," far from being suspicious, seem to be a rule of nature. Otherwise, where are the federal racial quota police to investigate the obvious conspiracy against short white men (not to mention women) when it comes time to hire NBA forwards and NFL wide receivers? "We don't ask people what religion they are, what their party affiliation is or what their sexual orientation is," points out Mr. Connerly. "So why is it critical to ask about race?" Interestingly enough, Mr. Connerly's proposal seems to be striking a chord with the Golden State's multiracial community. They -- like golfer Tiger Woods, who claims Asian as well as European and African ancestors -- are left scratching their heads by government forms which anachronistically insist they choose only one grandparent when identifying themselves by "race." Visitors from other cultures find this Anglo-Saxon fixation on racial labeling equally strange. Iranian immigrants report with a mixture of humor and dismay that -- en route to settling in America -- they have found their respective government ID cards describing them as "black" while resident in England, "Asian" while living in Canada, and finally "white" upon crossing Niagara Falls. When a Singaporean newspaper reporter of mixed English, Chinese and Filipina heritage earnestly asked what box to check under "race" when applying for her Arizona press pass in Phoenix, recently, the sheriff's clerk took one look at her and told her to check "Hispanic" -- the one race with which the reporter was pretty sure she shared no ties whatever. Mr. Connerly needs 700,000 valid signatures to put his measure on the California ballot next November. It's about time.
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Subscribe to his monthly newsletter by sending $96 to Privacy Alert, 561 Keystone Ave., Suite 684, Reno, NV 89503 -- or dialing 775-348-8591.
Vin Suprynowicz, vin@lvrj.com "When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right." -- Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926) "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed -- and thus clamorous to be led to safety -- by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken add new comment | quote | 1161 reads
Reply |
BlogrollLewRockwell.comQuotesEvery man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission. -- L. Neil Smith Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bear arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason, then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings. -- L. Neil Smith Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. -- John Lott, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report (PDF) on gun control laws Zero Aggression Principle ("Zap") "A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim." -- L. Neil Smith Formerly called the "Non-Aggression Principle", or "NAP" Why Did It Have to be... Guns? Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put. If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you. If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims. What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him? -- L. Neil Smith "Tell me," I was once asked, "What do you think about gun control? Give me the short answer." To which I replied, "If you try to take our firearms we will kill you." -- Mike Vanderboegh The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war. -- Bill St. Clair Monthly ArchivesTTLB |
Recent comments
6 days 7 hours ago
1 week 1 day ago
1 week 6 days ago
2 weeks 12 hours ago
2 weeks 1 day ago
2 weeks 1 day ago
2 weeks 1 day ago
2 weeks 3 days ago
2 weeks 3 days ago
2 weeks 3 days ago