Anti-racists keep the black man down

[Gamblor]

Please allow me to preface this post by first establishing that I don't believe I am racist, although it is likely that at least one person will infer racism from this post. I firmly believe that there are proportionately equal number of black idiots as idiot white idiots as Jewish idiots. Well, not Jewish idiots.

Fresh from a screening of Dangerous Minds, I wanted to give a little more thought to the general idea of black representation in a white mans America. I found most interesting, the claim that a black man can only make it if he’s a super-talented athlete, rapper, or drug-dealer. I often hear from anti-racism activists (and people generally sensitive to the subject of racism) that blacks simply don’t get hired to fill Executive roles in business, that they are underrepresented. That the only way out of the ghetto is to rap or throw a ball.

I, on the other hand, think this makes perfect sense, as it follows the experiences of all one-time-outer-classes in America – their experience, while not the same, is similar and provides a solid counter-argument to those that consistently claim systematic (if not blatant) racism. That the system is designed to keep black men down. Even more disturbing is the demand for legislation to ensure black representation in executive positions.

Now, why does this make sense? Well let’s examine the Jews’ ascent into the upper echelons of the business elite in America. Jews started out as immigrants here in the late 18th century, similar to the way the Emancipation Proclamation made blacks virtual immigrants into American society in the late 19th century.

Generally, Jewish people were kept out of most elite business positions by the Old Money network of WASPs. While this may not have been intentional (although it might have been), at the very least, it occurred because within the WASPy clique it was just familiarity that gave executive candidates a leg-up on other, non-WASP applicants. That is, while there may not have been any overt racism, the outsider nature of Jewish immigrants kept them out of Executive positions.

So what did the jews do? Sure, they got into show business, just as the blacks would after receiving their "meal ticket". But what created this situation was the fact that Jews were kept out of those executive roles and thus the entrepreneurial Jews who weren’t talented enough to act or sing were forced to run their own businesses. There was no affirmative action for Jews that put them in a WASP-dominated business world. So they began to run their own businesses. They were merchants and entrepreneurs in their own communities before they made it in the mainstream. And instead of trying to crack the "rich, white man's world" they first became successes their own world. And the rich, white men took notice. When it came time to hire new executives in the rich white world, they noticed how successful some of the local Jewish businesses were and realized that despite whatever ties and Old Boys networks existed, sometimes there was just a better man for the job.

It did, however, take a long time, and some old habits die hard. But for the most part, Jews today are integrated into American and Canadian business societies. So I submit, as a result of this thought-process, that legislation regarding the current inequities in hiring practices regarding black men is unfair and in fact hurts the marth towards complete integration and assimilation. I believe that black people aren’t limited to success in rap and athletics. I submit that once news of real talented business people within the black community is mainstream, they will soon be poached, just like the immigrant Jews were, into the highest executive positions in the country. And they will no longer be sitting around with their friends, talking about how the only way out of the ghetto is to work on their jump shot.

In conclusion, affirmative action legislation and minimum ethic requirement legislation is, in light of the above, not only unethical, but it doesn’t foster the entrepreneurial environment that forced the Jews to go into business for themselves. By forcing blacks to work for white-dominated organizations through affirmative action, the talents of blacks are hidden in desk jobs and blue collar jobs. By fostering entrepreneurial spirit and independence in black communities instead of encouraging the show-business or affirmative-action route, we will achieve true equality, and we’ll see a more proportionate percentage of blacks (and it will continue for all other ethnicities I think) in the boardrooms of America and Canada.

I certainly think I've missed lots of points, and there may be historical inaccuracies. But I'm sick of hearing about how black people are underrepresented in executive positions. I think that with time and success within their own shtetls, the white business world will sit up, take notice, and realize that for executive search committees, looking past race will not be a move that brings goodwill but a move that brings competitive advantage.

Thus, anti-racists should not be screaming about inequalities at Microsoft or Fedex or wherever, but rather should be screaming for government loans to entrepreneurs of all colours.

[stealyourface]

First of all I'm too lazy to read your entire post, but I offer you up one counterpoint.

It is much easier to distinguish blacks from whites than Jews from whites. Much of the racism in American history is based on this distinction. I'm not saying blacks can't succeed in business because they look different, but I believe that whites in post bellum America were more likely to identify with people of the same skin color.

I don't know if that made any sense, so if it didn't just forget about it.

[Bez]

Good post. When it comes down too it, big business care about the money. If a black man really stands out, he's going to get a top job on his merit. It may be harder for him to do so than a white man, but it will happen.

As you point out, it's a gradual process. The last thing blacks at the top need is people critcising them for being there thanks only to positive discrimination.

[nicky g]

Didn't AA legislation come about a long time after empancipation? Or no?

[stealyourface]

AA?

[stealyourface]

I assume you mean Affirmative Action, which I believe started after the civil rights movement. So yes, a considerable time after the Civil War.

[Gamblor]

I don't see the relevance. It took the Jews almost 200 years in the country to really get their feet into mainstream business. Shouldn't it take a similar length of time (hopefully social/human progess will shave a few decades off the process) for the descendants of slaves and new immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean to be equally integrated?

I generally agree with you which is probably surprising as I am very "liberal" on most social issues. Another poster mentioned that Jews couldn't really be compared fairly to Blacks because they can't be identified as easily. This would seem like a good counter-point if it wasn't for the success of Asians.

Gamblor, if you are interested in this subject and want a lot of great information to back up your argument, read the first couple chapters of Larry Elder's "The Ten Things You Can't Say In America" (I may have the title slightly off). He makes a very compelling argument along the lines of what you wrote, and he is Black fyi.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
I submit that once news of real talented business people within the black community is mainstream, they will soon be poached, just like the immigrant Jews were, into the highest executive positions in the country. And they will no longer be sitting around with their friends, talking about how the only way out of the ghetto is to work on their jump shot.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're 20 years too late to submit that argument, which was true 20+ years ago. Read Thomas Sowell, Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality from 1985, using data mostly from the 70's proving there was no discernable discrimination in hiring or wages among blacks, women, asians, or any other group. The market is not hiring sex or ethnicity, it's hiring experience and knowledge. Once you separate out what the market is hiring, it's impossible to distinguish groups based on sex and race. I think the hispanic example was the best -- while hispanics have lower income than whites, if you only look at third generation hispanics in the U.S. -- the figures are indistinguishable. So apparently, once non-english speaking immigrants learn the language white men quit discriminating against them. If you separate out women who have the same education and experience as men, they actually make more money than men.

The entire premise is all a part of the natural history of nonsense.

[Autocratic]

[ QUOTE ]
Good post. When it comes down too it, big business care about the money. If a black man really stands out, he's going to get a top job on his merit. It may be harder for him to do so than a white man, but it will happen.

As you point out, it's a gradual process. The last thing blacks at the top need is people critcising them for being there thanks only to positive discrimination.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some of this is true, but most studies show large discrepencies in the hiring rates of blacks with similar or near-identical resumes to whites in many cases. It may be counter-productive to a certain extent since AA reinforces some negative feelings, but equality isn't the default mode in society either way.