Well they are opening up a new space of discourse. I have no problem with them making
the best case they can for their particular argument. Some critics will charge that
their approach is a diversion from the internal work that needs to be done in and by the black
community, and portrays black folk once more as coming to white people for a handout,
which in turn will stoke the usual resentments and counter-demands by other groups, which
will aid and abet right-wing enemy propaganda0 a perfect recipe for more race squabbling-
and propaganda- yet another diversion of scarce political capital and energy.
But we'll see what happens.
The Civil Rights act of 1964, without a provocative name like affirmative action, granted non-NW Euros, Catholic Euros, and Jews the rights to mid and upper level management positions as fully white privileged Americans.agreed. It was also a greet boon for white women.
For Blacks, Natives (the continents' owners), and the Spanish surnamed (but not Spaniards) it only prohibited entry level overt discrimination. Also true, and even this was fought after the Act, overt and covertly. Many people do not seem
to realize that the Act was only a first step. It took years of lawsuits, political mobilization,
lobbying etc to enforce its provisions. As MLK noted, eating a hot dog next to some black people
was very easy for whites- it was no great concession. But when it came to substantive things, like
schools, housing, jobs and services, grudging opposition flourished. Hence the fed govt had to threaten
to cut off funding to hospitals if they continued discriminating against blacks, a threat that worked
and was a boon for black health care. IN employment the same grudging opposition continued, though the
Act did bring about substantial improvements in black job status, particularly in the south, where
discrimination was fiercest, as scholars note. Hence the southern textile industry saw a significant
jump in black employment after the Act, when the white job protection racket could no longer be
openly maintained.
In govt programs, too often only threats and financial pain, via lawsuits or funding cutoffs forced action in
many places. The GI Bill for example was supposed to be for ALL veterans, but once again, black veterans
'got shortchanged, routed to inferior "cullud" schools, being forced to deal with discriminatory local
regimes administering the money etc etc. Once study noted that it is as if blacks never got any GI BIll
money at all- such were the obstacles. Again, it took substantial applications of hard power, threats to
the ocketbook- to force white people to make real concessions.
In housing the govt was among the biggest discriminatorys, "redlining" off areas to deny them loans
and assistance when black people showed up. Just the presence of a single black family on a block 99%
white was enough to trigger the dreaded "red line" cutoffs. This is one reason that whites who might
have had nothing personal against black people were so opposed to them moving in. The govt itself stoked
racial conflict for decades through its policies. The Kennedy Admin could have stopped the Freedom Ride
horrors in a few days since Interstate commerce was sunder its purview, but dragged its feet. It was
only after shocking pictures of burning buses and bloody, beaten riders reached the international press
and embarrassed the white Kennedy regime that John and Bobby finally did something. Same thing with
public housing. The Kenned's could have rolled back the worse of discrimination in federally funded public
housing with the stroke of a pen, but they dragged their feet, while talking a good game bout
CIvil RIghts. It is a big crock of BS how the Kennedys are touted today as such friends of Civil
rights. Hell, it took a southern good old boy Lyndon Johnson, who did 100 times more than the Kennedys
to get things moving.
The former was established and implemented very successfully without an affirmative action program.
Even with affirmative action the latter is only mildly successful.Well the CIv RIghts Act did bring about substantial improvements in jobs, services and even education
particularly in the south. See the book Sharing the Prize 2013, by Gavin Wright. Of course, it could
not reverse the previous 100 years of discrimination with the stroke of a pen.
nilevalleypeoples.blogspot.com/2012/05/7-reasons-libertarians-may-be-wrong.htmlAs for the non-NE Euros, they did receive white affirmative action in a way, when blacks were banned
or frozen out of better quality housing, jobs, and schools. Just the anti-black "redlining" policies
enabled whites to get the best land and housing, and best jobs too as the nation suburbanized,
all with subsidies from the fed govt. Such favor enabled them to double up on the major source os
wealth int he US- housingWhether ADOS will be able to extract anything substantial from these folk,
who have enjoyed these benefits and advantages for generations, and are not about to give them up,
remains to be seen.
Old line black nationalists have long argued that internal black self-strengthening must be the focus
rather than spend priority energy on petitioning and begging the white man. Of course this can be
overly exaggerated. The battle needs to be waged on multiple fronts- hence lawsuits and marches
were needed to hammer the walls of white apartheid state, and there is often much overlap with
internal buildup- which is ongoing in any case. But in general, IN PRINCIPLE, I think the old line approach
is more correct, and earns black people more respect, and gives enemies less scope for easy propaganda.
ADOS seems to be more based on the handout-petition model rather than the nationalist self-strengthening,
independence model.