Liberal Guilt

Ron Rosenbaum sings the praises of so-called "liberal guilt." I largely agree. He says, though, that "What I don't understand is why there doesn't seem to be any conservative guilt over racism." I don't actually find this puzzling at all: There's little conservative guilt over racism because political exploitation of racial animosity has been an integral element of the conservative movement's political strategy ever since the day when the conservative movement stopped issuing straightforward defenses of white supremacy.

Under the circumstances, anyone who feels too upset about racism can't make it far in the conservative movement. You don't need to be a racist, as such, but in your public work you need to express much much much more concern about the alleged evils of "political correctness" or some such than you do about actual racism.

Comments

Great, more demonizing conservatives.

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 4:37 PM

Great, more telling it like it is.

Posted by Nav | May 26, 2008 4:42 PM

Not a trace of guilt, but this Derbyshire piece betrays embarrassment at some of his American conservative allies - http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/derbyshire/derbyshire050803.asp

Posted by jsrutstein | May 26, 2008 4:46 PM

When we can honestly start phasing out affirmative action, and my guess is that we can within 10 to 15 years if we really want it, the conservative viewpoint starts making sense.

Posted by Affirmative Traction | May 26, 2008 4:47 PM

I think there is more conservative guilt over racism than you might think. The attribution of "white guilt" to liberals has always seemed like little more than projection to me. Why would I feel guilt over a problem I did little to create or perpetuate? I was merely born into a racially tilted system, where I have tried as best I can to be a good person and advocate policies that are substantially just. Conservatives, on the other hand, who have perpetuated racial animus for generations, have significant reason to feel guilty--and I think many of them do. (Of course, some, the out-and-out racists, feel no such guilt. But many Republican voters aren't racist.)

Posted by Leo | May 26, 2008 5:00 PM

Why is it that I always have to remind people that the #1 beneficiary of Affirmative Action in the workplace has been white women?

So now, people think the problem is Affirmative Action at universities. It has nothing to do with Affirmative Action and everything to do with the fact that people object to the idea that minorities might ever be getting an advantage. And that goes directly to ideas of white privilege and dare I say it, superiority/supremacy?

Posted by Bubba | May 26, 2008 5:04 PM

There's little conservative guilt over racism because political exploitation of racial animosity has been an integral element of the conservative movement's political strategy ever since the day when the conservative movement stopped issuing straightforward defenses of white supremacy.

That has little to do with it; you are confusing an effect with a cause. There is little conservative guilt over racism because there is little conservative guilt over anything. It is just not in the conservative psychology to experience significant levels of guilt about any matter. That's what makes them conservative.

The disposition to feel guilt is what inclines someone toward liberalism to begin with. Because they are inclined to view actions self-critically, and are sometimes disposed to apply "my fault" or "our fault" to individual or collective actions, they are inclined toward a political philosophy based on compassion, empathy and respect for the rights of others, and obligations to redress wrongs.

The modern conservative is a person disposed to blame others first and always, and who views guilt as a weak and unhealthy form of self-hatred. They typically see themselves as victims of harms, not the perpetrators of harms. Applied to their collective sense of national identity, the conservative philosophy is that being an American means never having to say you're sorry.

The only national actions over which conservatives do sometimes seem to experience guilt is abandoning fights and allies - Vietnam, for example. But on further reflection, one usually finds that the conservative explanation is not that America abandoned the fight, but that liberals abandoned it, which leads to the conclusion that liberals are not real Americans. So, once again, there is nothing for real Americans to feel guilty about.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 26, 2008 5:06 PM

Conservatives think racism is rational.

Posted by turkey | May 26, 2008 5:09 PM

Shouldn't conservatives feel guilty about slavery and racism and the consequences thereof

Yes.

or must they disdain such feelings, however moral, because they are associated with liberals?

Yes.

Do they choose their moral priorities because of their popularity among others?

Yes.

Or could it be that conservatives disdain liberal guilt about race because they have historically more guilt to bear for the perpetuation of racism and segregation?

Yes.

Should Slate writers use fewer rhetorical questions that they, and everyone reading their piece, already know the answers to?

Yes.

Posted by DJA | May 26, 2008 5:11 PM

Do Democrats really believe the winning electoral strategy for November is to put a guilt trip on White people over racism?

Posted by Tim K | May 26, 2008 5:17 PM

This has nothing to do with electoral strategy.

Posted by dan | May 26, 2008 5:33 PM

Bubba - It has nothing to do with Affirmative Action and everything to do with the fact that people object to the idea that minorities might ever be getting an advantage. And that goes directly to ideas of white (asian)(jewish)privilege.

Why is it morally wrong for for a more-qualified white, Asian, or Jew to object to being frozen out by a quota that goes to some other identity group when they personally have done nothing wrong? How is demanding equal treatment assertion of racial or ethnic privilege? Most whites and Asians don't buy that POMO/critical studies/angry black studies crap in the slightest.

Nor are "white females" the greatest beneficiaries of affirmative action. They represent the greatest numbers, but get no where near the "bonus points" a black female "Two-Fer" gets when applying for a minority contract with the Gov or some company mau-mau'd by Jesse into preferential hiring practices.

Meanwhile, we compete globally and people in most other nations don't give a crap about "guilt".

In the news, the Chinese are proudly pointing out that after the earthquake, their citizens acted in exemplary fashion - as good or better than the earthquake-affected Kobe Japan people. Only a handful of arrests. Nothing, the Chinese note, like the mass barbarism on display in America after Katrina and the police lost control of the "New Orleans savages".

America has a race problem, but it has more to do with our culture and society getting dysfunctional elements - tied to counterproductive racial and cultural beliefs and "bell curve" potentials more than lack of opportunity - to educate themselves to fullest potential and behave civilly.
Some of the strongest racists are immigrants that come to America from lands with no racial problems that are transformed into racists here. They are reacting to bad behaviors by a portion of America's inner city black, hispanic gang culture, and po' white trash that are in fact the historical "model" much of inner city black pathology was copied from.

Posted by chris ford | May 26, 2008 5:43 PM

"It is just not in the conservative psychology to experience significant levels of guilt about any matter."

Well, it's not in their psychology to experience significant levels of guilt over somebody else's sins, certainly. You don't believe in collectivism, you don't believe in collective guilt.

Of course, actual politicians of any ideology tend not to feel guilt about anything, mostly being sociopaths, but the lack of belief in collective guilt on the right explains why right wing politicians don't bother making appeals to guilt, while the lefty sort tend to engage in "Let's you and him make up for this!" histrionics. They're both going with what works.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 26, 2008 5:53 PM

There's little conservative guilt over racism because political exploitation of racial animosity has been an integral element of the conservative movement's political strategy ever since the day when the conservative movement stopped issuing straightforward defenses of white supremacy.

I think this confuses a political strategy [and, moreover, a tendentious representation of that strategy] with an attitude. And, in fact, I'd say what distinguishes conservatives from liberals isn't racism [There are plenty of conservatives who aren't racist], but denial of any sort of responsibility for this country's racial legacy. Here it's important to consider that conservatism's reigning racial philosophy is "color-blindness." That's why conservatives can oppose affirmative action, say, with good conscience, indeed as a stance in keeping with MLK's call for privileging the "content of our character" over race. In this reading, insofar as Republicans "exploit race," they do so by exploiting suburbanite resentments at minority racial claims: We ended discrimination [the thinking goes]; but it's time for "them" to take responsibility for themselves. Conservatives can most certainly feel "guilt"; they just don't buy into the notion that guilt has a social component. That someone might feel guilty for something she didn't actually do makes little sense to them; even less does it make sense that someone else's problems are their responsibility. Odd, given that so many of them claim to be religious, and just about every major religious tradition insists that we are responsible for each other, not just ourselves and our own.

Posted by David in Nashville | May 26, 2008 6:15 PM

"and just about every major religious tradition insists that we are responsible for each other,"

But not that said responsibility is supposed to be expressed through government. Tithing is something you do yourself, not impose on others.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | May 26, 2008 6:20 PM

Have to disagree with that posted article's thesis.
Two problems; Obama's presidency, even if he is elected in a landslide, will NOT improve the lives of the average black man, woman or child. Black Americans will still disproportionately fill the prisons, welfare rolls and unemployment lines.
Second, making Obama's race the focus of your support of his candidacy distracts entirely from the search for the kind of virtues (experience, talent, readiness for the job) that SHOULD be the most important. Whoever the next president will be will have to make tough choices and unpopular decisions. Raising taxes, cutting spending and essentially declaring Iraq a lost cause are not likely to get Obama or anyone else carved on Mount Rushmore. The glow of being "the first black president" will fade quickly and he'll just be a man getting shit on by the left and right because he's supposedly not this or he's too much of that. So liberals, feel guilty all you want but don't kid yourselves that you're helping heal the country, atoning for the sins of thy fathers or in any way making the world a better place. Liberal white guilt will accomplish none of that.

Posted by Nathan | May 26, 2008 6:26 PM

Nice unattributed quote from "the Chinese" there about black people in New Orleans, Chris.

Even if you could begin to compare the two situations (I would argue that the earthquake was worse than Katrina disaster-wise, but that the Chinese gov't response has been far more efficient than our own was), you'd have to take into account the fact that Chinese cops aren't also looking to arrest and lock up their fellow citizens on trumped-up charges on the basis of skin color at every opportunity. Also, I'm guessing that Chengdu votes Communist, so the Chinese gov't doesen't feel like it can just leave adherents of another party affiliation to starve in the Superdome like Bush did.

Perhaps you'd like to explain (at great and obnoxious length) what the barbarian savages in NOLA did wrong that you wouldn't do in the same circumstances, apart from drowning. And of course you may include all of your scholarly citations and links.

Finally, I'd like to say, Happy Memorial Day, you racist troll, and batten upon my squishy white liberal guilt!

Posted by Vivisfugue | May 26, 2008 6:32 PM

Two problems; Obama's presidency, even if he is elected in a landslide, will NOT improve the lives of the average black man, woman or child. Black Americans will still disproportionately fill the prisons, welfare rolls and unemployment lines.

Nice shift from sentence one's 'Obama won't improve anything' to sentence two's 'Obama won't fix all of our racial problems with his Magic Negro powers'. Are you an idiot? Nobody expects Obama to make it all better; we, instead, believe that Obama will set us on the right path towards improvement. This is as opposed to the Republican view of government, which seems to be to hope that things just don't get worse. Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Posted by NBarnes | May 26, 2008 6:41 PM

"Do Democrats really believe the winning electoral strategy for November is to put a guilt trip on White people over racism?"

Actually no.

That’s why Barack Obama has tried to keep race out of this election to the best of his ability. The more he becomes the “black” candidate, the more he loses.

And if you are trying to suggest that right-wing Republicans, (and even some moderate Republicans), have not been exploiting racial tensions in America since 1968 and reaping the electoral benefits, then I’ve really been a fool for ever trying to talk to you like a reasonable person. Even Republicans, (see Atwater, Lee), cop to this.

Poor, uneducated white people have a greater tendency to dislike black people, particularly in the South, thus many vote Republican. Many also seemed to vote for HRC. This is a fact.

Obviously, some qualifying needs to be made. Not all poor, uneducated whites dislike black people. My grandparents were poor and uneducated and most certainly were not racists. And not all rich, educated whites like black people either. Racists are in the North as well as the South, look at HRC support in central PA, something the normally very racially sensitive Chris Matthews failed to mention.

But poorer, less educated racists who live in the South dislike black people with a greater intensity than richer, better-educated racist who live in the North. And a greater number of poorer, uneducated racists seem to live in the South than anywhere else.

Yes, it’s complicated, but it’s also fairly true.

There is no other earthly reason why Obama wins a state like Oregon by about 10 and loses a state like Kentucky by about 20…..in the Democratic primary that is. He either needs enough blacks to offset the racist uneducated whites in southern states like Virginia or South Carolina. Or he needs the overwhelming number of whites in the state to be less racist, like in Iowa, where he won by about ten. Iowa. Not exactly the state that comes to mind when you think of elite, latte-sipping white liberals.

Posted by Raindog | May 26, 2008 6:49 PM

More to the point of the thread, I'm a left-leaning white person with zero racial guilt. My family first came to America in the 1920's and settled as far south as South Jersey. No one with my blood ever oppressed any person, at least on the basis of skin color.

Posted by Raindog | May 26, 2008 7:06 PM

What's the difference between having a conscience and thinking about how the past might affect the present and what one might do about it, and "guilt"?

A great deal of this discussion is the wrong-headed allowing of right wing nimrods to label things the way they want, and to trash the notion of intelligent approaches to our society as some sort of maladaptive weakness by people what ain't got the stones to be as hard-headed and callous as we darn tootin' need.

More fake conservative charades about how their hostility to rationality and reason gets bizarrely labeled as bold, hard-headed realism.

Posted by El Cid | May 26, 2008 7:21 PM

The high mark of the conservative movement: the 3 days between Wm. Buckley's last defense of segregation and the adoption of The Southern Strategy.

[Entirely fanciful. I'm not really aware if Buckley ever quit defending segregation.]

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 26, 2008 7:28 PM

I hate to interrupt the sanctimonious circle jerk y'all are having, but where are all the amateur sociologists and cultural anthropologists in the woodwork examining why so many "whites" have these racist passions?

For example, the liberal community bends over backwards to excuse the conspiracy theories of the black populace, like their kooky theories of the crack and AIDS epidemic that are largely self-inflicted. There are all sorts of diversicrats in the academe profiting off this kind of work.

But economically impoverished whites never seem to have their advocates amongst these no-doubt worldly readers. It's all so RACIST and incomprehensible, backed by ignorance lacking in data - except for the fact that African-Americans commit crime far in excess of their proportion, achieve lower on the success ladder given relatively the same starting points, etc.

Why the egregious discrepancy especially when objective, statistical data seems to bear out one group's racial tropes over another?

Posted by Billare | May 26, 2008 7:31 PM

I know a few conservatives that I like. I do not understand how they can be decent and conservative. In general, the point of view that conservatism is the disgusting facade for unfettered selfishness and self-interest and conservatives are the disgusting excuses for human beings has served me well.

Posted by della Rovere | May 26, 2008 7:33 PM

I have a hard time agreeing or disagreeing with Rosenbaum because I don't know anybody who actually feels "liberal guilt."

Let me amend that. Rosenbaum says that "liberal guilt" is "better defined as an awareness of the need to contend with, and overcome, a racist past." Well, sure, if you define it that way, I recognize it. But in that case "liberal guilt" about recognizing one's moral obligation to help build a better society. Or to put it another way, it's "liberal guilt" without the guilt.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | May 26, 2008 7:40 PM

I was a liberal once (actually a minority, reformed-libertarian now). There are quite a few liberal policies I support ab initio, like the need to reduce inequality, better transportation policy, etc. But the more I read the more I am struck and persuaded the true progressivism, as a complete philosophical ideology, is profoundly immature. Generalizing from one anecdote and breathless emotion to another, they see problems with the world, and believe that is special and laudatory simply to appreciate those problems.

I figured the world was unfair in many respects when I was about 10 years old. I realized when I was 17 that it is supremely hard to change that, and there's probably a good *reason* human progress is incremental. Many progressives, IMHO, just don't grasp this elementary truth.

Posted by Billare | May 26, 2008 7:53 PM

Tim K: "Great, more demonizing conservatives."

More of Tim K's pointless right wing Republican postings on a liberal blog. Go post on Rush Limbaugh's blog, Tim.

"Do they choose their moral priorities because of their popularity among others?"

That's pretty much true about all humans - except where they choose the priorities because it lets them feel superior to everybody else. And that's where "liberal guilt" comes in - if you feel "guilty", then you're showing everybody how "sensitive" and "moral" you are over your "failings".

Might as well wear a T-shirt...

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 26, 2008 7:59 PM

I agree with Dan Kervick. There is no such thing as conservative guilt. A person is liberal insofar as he or she identifies with and sympathizes with the weaker and less fortunate and suffers pity for them; and he or she is conservative insofar as he or she identifies with and sympathizes with the stronger and more fortunate and thereby enjoys glory over the weaker and less fortunate. Hence liberal whining and conservative boasting.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 26, 2008 8:04 PM

Matt's certainly being a bit tendentious in his description of conservative political strategy, but that's par for the course. He's constitutionally incapable of recognizing the appeal of non-racist conservative arguments.

The reason I don't feel "guilt" about slavery and Jim Crow is that I was born well after the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment and the legal repudiation of Jim Crow. I've never seen a Whites Only drinking fountain, except in the movies. It's perfectly rational to feel guilty about bad things you have actually done, but feeling guilty about the actions of others is pathological.

But what I find most bizarre about this notion of expiating racial guilt by electing Obama is that Obama himself isn't descended from any actual victims of slavery or Jim Crow, at least not so far as we know. His mom was white and his dad was Kenyan.

If we're going to elect a black President to assuage white guilt over slavery and Jim Crow, shouldn't we at least find a black President whose ancestors suffered from these crimes?

Posted by Cheerful Iconoclast | May 26, 2008 8:23 PM

What's wrong with liberal guilt? It sees African Americans in terms of stereotypes and judges them as a feared group rather than as individuals and equals. It is based, at heart, on unacknowledged prejudice, fear and the notion of appeasement rather than genuine respect.

Let me give you a perfect, every day life example of "liberal guilt," how at heart is is based on fear, and how it demeans those it claims to champion: When I was a young woman my husband and I shared a house with a young man from a very affluent family. His affluent background had not provided him with much opportunity to encounter people of different classes or races -- but he was a very idealistic, liberal and good hearted person devoted to the idea of civil rights. A recent college graduate, with a degree in sociology, who was taking a "break" before graduate school; he lived in, and had filled with all the most coveted bachelor toys of the time -- elaborate stereo equipment, a top of the line electric typewriter, etc., etc. -- the large daylight basement to the cottage we were renting in San Francisco's Western Addition (a mixed race, working class neighborhood). Our cottage shared a courtyard with a three story apartment building that housed, on the ground floor, an elderly African American couple who provided day care for children in the neighborhood. The children played in the courtyard we shared with the apartment building's tenants. Unknown to us, our roommate, who was home all day while we worked, rather than treating these (African American) children appropriately, as adult to child, and speaking to their adult caretakers about any inappropriate behavior (that their caretakers would not have approved of), had fallen into the practice of dealing with them through bribery -- he bribed them to, for instance, stop rolling our empty garbage cans down the street (where he would have to retrieve them), etc. This unhealthy situation came to a head one Saturday when my husband walked to the corner store to buy a pack of cigarettes and a candy bar. As he left the store, unwrapping his candy bar, two little boys, about 12 and 11, followed him making a teasing plea for a bite of his candy. My husband didn't give them any candy, but he and the boys bantered good naturedly back and forth for the block and a half back to our house. When my husband came into the house he was laughing and started to tell me about how lively and funny his conversation with these little boys had been. He had barely finished his story when our 6' 4" 200+ pound roommate, in a terrible rage, pounded up the stairs shouting that he had been "robbed!" Exactly how had he been robbed by two little boys less than half his size? Well, playing in the courtyard that day was one of the Jones' charges, a little girl, about 5, whose mother worked on Saturday mornings. Hearing the boys bantering with my husband about a candy bar, she told them, "Mike (our roommate) will give you a dollar." and directed them to the exterior door to his basement room. From our roommate's own account, here is how the "robbery" went; the boys knocked on the door and asked him for a dollar. He told them he didn't have any cash. The older boy, looking around the room, spotted his fancy stereo equipment and teasingly asked if he could, in lieu of the dollar, have the stereo. Mike said "no." Then the other boy asked if he would give them his electric typewriter. Mike said "no." Apparently, they went around the room this way until they landed on the clock radio. Mike decided he could part with the clock radio -- he gave it to them.

Why would a grown man act this way? Too frightened to say "no" to a couple of harmless, impudent children? White liberal guilt.

Would he have been as unreasoningly AFRAID of these children if they were white? Would he have been convinced that their over the top requests were serious, contained a threat, constituted an attempt to attack and "rob" him? Would he have felt that he had to appease them in some way? I don't think so. Would he have been so uncomfortable dealing with white children, and normal, if annoying behavior, that he felt he had to appease and bribe them? I don't think so.

Posted by esmense | May 26, 2008 8:31 PM

"It's perfectly rational to feel guilty about bad things you have actually done, but feeling guilty about the actions of others is pathological."

What if you benefit from their actions, and other people are harmed by them? Shouldn't you feel some kind of obligation to redress the injustice that was done even if you personally didn't cause it?

Posted by Ted | May 26, 2008 8:46 PM

Ted, you're making a different argument now, though. You're not arguing, as Rosenbaum did, that we ought to feel guilty about past conduct of others; you're arguing instead that past conduct of others has created certain problems, and that they ought to be remedied.

That I can agree with in the abstract, but the real question is about whether certain remedies are likely to be both fair to people who are personally blameless and likely to ameliorate the harms to which you point. But that's not an argument in favor of electing a black guy just for the sake of electing a guy who has the same skin tone as people who were unjustly oppressed at one time. (As I noted earlier, he's not actually descended from the victims of slavery and Jim Crow.)

If you think he's the best guy, by all means vote for him. But Rosenbaum's argument for doing so really isn't very good.

Posted by Cheerful Iconoclast | May 26, 2008 9:56 PM

Ted --

White liberal guilt is about appeasement and the evasion of guilt -- not justice. A genuine desire to redress injustice arises from respect for moral principles, notions of what constitutes moral conduct, notions of moral responsibilities owed to our fellow humans, and a desire to create, and take responsibility for creating, a just society. It has nothing to do with guilt and certainly I hope you are not suggesting that only the guilty have any motivation to be just?

Posted by esmense | May 26, 2008 10:00 PM

Ron Rosenbaum and Matt Yglesias want you to know that they feel personally guilty about any of their ancestor Rosenbaums or Yglesiases who owned slaves in Alabama or fought Indians in the Dakota Territory.

Posted by Steve Sailer | May 26, 2008 11:24 PM

Steve Sailor wants you know that blacks are genetically inferior and don't deserve your guilt. He also wants you to know that the Nazis were correct in their belief that the size of one's head correlates with the level of their intelligence.

Steve Sailor is a very flawed individual.

Posted by Just Karl | May 26, 2008 11:35 PM

Just Karl wants you to know how bad he is at spelling people's names.

Posted by Glaivester | May 26, 2008 11:53 PM

Gayvester wants you to know that he is Steve Sailor's bitch.

Posted by Just Karl | May 26, 2008 11:58 PM

Well, it's not in their psychology to experience significant levels of guilt over somebody else's sins, certainly. You don't believe in collectivism, you don't believe in collective guilt.

Well, Brett, that would be a consistent attitude if conservatives also didn't experience significant levels of pride over someone else's achievements. If you don't believe in "collectivism", then I suppose you don't believe in collective credit either.

But, in fact, when it comes to feeling pride in the achievements of others, simply because those others belong to one's own collectivity, conservative are all over it.

Modern conservatives don't eschew feelings of collective guilt because they are dedicated philosophical individualists opposed to making themselves the objects of emotional attitudes deriving from attitudes toward groups of which they are members. Instead, they are happy to accept all the group credit but avoid all the group guilt because they are jingo, chauvinist babies addicted to victimization and blame.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 27, 2008 12:00 AM

"More to the point of the thread, I'm a left-leaning white person with zero racial guilt. My family first came to America in the 1920's and settled as far south as South Jersey. No one with my blood ever oppressed any person, at least on the basis of skin color."

Well, I think this can get rather tricky - or besides the point, perhaps.

1) As El Cid points out, this sorta falls victim to rightwing frames. Whlle one doubtlessly can find something akin to 'liberal guilt' if one looks hard enough- esp. from high school or college kids hitting certain realities for the first time - , it's not really a productive response and probably shouldn't be encouraged. It's better - and usually far more accurate - to speak, if one must, of liberal shame. Here shame is the painful counterpart to pride, in a cultural or national sense. After all, we speak of feeling pride in national or cultural accomplishments by other people, sometimes many generations ago, with whom we need not have much at all in the way of blood ties. (After all, many white Americans are more closely related to folks in Kracow, Salerno, or Galway than to any of the founding fathers). Some folks might argue some of this pride is misplaced, but it would sound downright bizarre for someone in the cultural mainstream to distance themselves from our revolutionary, Constitutional, or emancipationist ideals on the grounds that their ancestors only got here in the early 20th Century, never served in the Revolutionary or Civil wars, and didn't get to sign the Constitution.

Now, ideally we would speak of national or American - not just liberal - shame, but while conservatives are happy to embrace national pride - at least for certain readings of history - nowadays they seem to avoid any similar and corrective consideration of shame at all costs. Rather, liberals have ended up, by both nature and default, with the burden of serving as as America's conscience.

[upon hitting preview I see that Kervick made just this point - and far more concisely. Great minds named Dan obviously think alike . . .

2) I, also, can point out that my folks got here in the early 20th century, and with only a few exceptions didn't really get that far from Ellis Island, at least 'til this most recent generation; personally, I grew up at a time when the Civil Rights Movement had already become a powerful myth. But #1 aside, this is a somewhat simplified, atomistic, and ahistorical way to look at things. It safely situates the bad things both geographically and chronologically - specifically, the South, and mostly before (or not long after) the Civil War. (Cheerful Iconoclast does note the extra century of racial terrorism and apartheid). It completely overlooks the way that racism had woven itself into our society and history like a particularly aggressive creeping weed. There's a very pertinent Ampersand cartoon I wanted to link to re: this, but as it seems to have disappeared - well . . . . for example, much of 20th C. history is a story of racial benefits being given to white (and newly-white) people and denied to brown ones. Let's say we start in the early 30s, with Joe the Southern/Eastern European ethnic-American and John the African-American. John 's family history is particularly & horribly dismal - brutal slavery and oppression - but to be fair, Joe's didn't exactly have the warmest welcome ever. However, things are about to change. Times are tough all around, but Joe has a number of New Deal programs that help at least a little. Eventually he goes off to serve in WWII in a (white)ethnically integrated unit - surely a formative experience. Returning home, he is able to pursue higher education thanks to the GI bill, and to purchase a home thanks to FHA loans - things that serve as steps on a ladder of social, economic, and cultural advancement. (It's during this general time period that many of the turn-of-the-century new immigrants change from alien subhumans to proper white people). Quite possibly this home is in a suburb, one rendered economically viable and convenient in part by gov't subsidized highway construction, and with particular patterns of professional/occupational employment. Thanks to all this, Joe is better able to succeed in amassing social, cultural and fiscal capital to invest in his children's future.

John, on the other hand, is unable (or at best far, far less likely) to get any of these advantages. In fact, he's often not just denied, but actively disadvantaged - facing redlining, restrictive covenants, social & employment discrimination, etc. Even so, he may by dint of sheer individual effort end up moving in next door to Joe (where this is not explicitly forbidden). In this case, he may find the local welcome wagon a little -shall we say over-enthusiastic? Alternately, he may find most of his new neighbors rapidly becoming his new ex-neighbors, perhaps with a little help. Either way, John is likely to become increasingly isolated from the cultural, social , and economic mainstream, trapped in areas with sometimes catastrophically collapsing tax bases, employment opportunities & investment, service provision, and political influence. He ends up facing enormous challenges in amassing capital to invest in his children's futures.

[Incredibly simplified and limited version (& of course, this is one of the better scenarios, for areas were there wasn't an outright regime of racial terrror). See also Sundown towns, etc.)

Now things get better, but not, of course, by themselves. It's ends up taking enormous effort, sometimes by both Joe and John's children fighting side by side - and for all the progress that's made, it's far from over. If anything, for example, de facto school segregation is increasing - the result ends up being that certain kids are being protected from future competition from other children.

Now, of course, there's hardly only one axis of oppression, and there are many white folks for whom privilege only meant not being on the very bottom of the heap - something often used to prevent or shatter interracial coalitions aimed at improving things for poor and working class folks regardless of skin tone.

Posted by Dan S. | May 27, 2008 12:17 AM

I'd like to thank the Academy...and also all the chimpanzees who suffered so much mutating into humans, which allowed me to be the person I am today.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 27, 2008 12:50 AM

Why is it morally wrong for for a more-qualified white, Asian, or Jew to object to being frozen out by a quota that goes to some other identity group when they personally have done nothing wrong? How is demanding equal treatment assertion of racial or ethnic privilege? Most whites and Asians don't buy that POMO/critical studies/angry black studies crap in the slightest.

Why is it not morally wrong for an equally qualified Black, women, Native American, Mexican-American, Asian, or Jew to be frozen out because the white guy doing the hiring isn't comfortable with a Black, woman, Native American, Mexican-American, Asian, or Jew. Affirmative action isn't and shouldn't be about quotas. It's about balancing a scale that always has a white man's finger on it.

Posted by John | May 27, 2008 12:50 AM

Dan S - much of 20th C. history is a story of racial benefits being given to white (and newly-white) people and denied to brown ones......John, (the symbolic black man of Dan S) on the other hand, is unable (or at best far, far less likely) to get any of these advantages

A guilty white liberal screed undermined by the evidence of mass immigration of tens of millions absent "white privilege" not being held back.

More Dan S - If anything, for example, de facto school segregation is increasing - the result ends up being that certain kids are being protected from future competition from other children.
Now, of course, there's hardly only one axis of oppression.....

Despite it being Gospel to liberal mavens of diversity, there is no evidence:

1. That "non-diverse" schools in China, Switzerland, Russia, Japan, Singapore, Australia and other nations that clean America's clock in
educational performance suffer from lack of black underclass kids not preparing them to compete. Nor in America's highest performing state school systems, which are all those with few blacks to drag the performance of USA whites, Asians, motivated Hispanics down.

2. There is no evidence sitting black students in with whites helps underclass blacks with major cultural, family, and intelligence flaws all coming from outside the school system improve their performance. But there is plenty of evidence that schools "dumb down" standards so the gap between blacks and other races lessens, which does hurt students of other races.

3. Nor is there evidence that More Money!! Superteachers!! - are the answer. Experiments that festooned underclass black students with nearly unlimited funds, the best teachers in test cities and prestigious university teaching school "clinics" - have largely been dismal failures

Posted by chris ford | May 27, 2008 1:23 AM

the problem with liberal guilt is that it is very selective

Posted by pine | May 27, 2008 7:32 AM

"A guilty white liberal screed undermined by the evidence of mass immigration of tens of millions absent "white privilege" not being held back."

(Assuming, as always, that chris ford is 100% genuine rightwinger rather than performance art)
- did you read my comment? I'm talking about specific historical realities in the period between the Great Depression and the string of later civil rights victories such as the 1968 Fair Housing Act. What nonwhite groups immigrated in the tens of millions during this period? (Southeast and East) Asian immigration had been shut down for years - while the gate was opened a crack in the 40s, things didn't start up again until '65.

______

Remember, we're talking about specific forms of discrimination (besides the regimes of specific racial terrorism identified (often inaccurately) solely with the south). If it carefully works out that a group is provided with far fewer opportunities to access higher education, home-owning, economic and social investment, etc. it's going to be tougher to succeed. This is especially true if you think that this group is disadvantaged compared to, say, specific immigrant groups (and there are some approaches that don't merely assume African American are hereditary defectives with good rhythm - see ie Ogbu's work on voluntary vs. involuntary migrants, for starters; also demographic profiles of many such groups . . )

"1. That "non-diverse" schools in China, Switzerland, Russia, Japan, Singapore, Australia and other nations that clean America's clock in educational performance suffer from lack of black underclass kids not preparing them to compete [etc. . . .]"

Did you hear that whooshing sound? That was my point going over your head. I wasn't saying that de facto segregation hurt white kids' ability to compete (although I do think it can make them less fit for modern society). Rather, the way things work out, privileged kids are being protected from competition by kids from less privileged groups. To be fair, thanks to years of effort and hard work - both by individuals striving to help their families succeed, and people coming together to fight for a fairer, less racist society - this has broken down a little less along racial lines - but we can see the furious reaction that set off.

" Experiments that festooned underclass black students with nearly unlimited funds, the best teachers in test cities and prestigious university teaching school "clinics" - have largely been dismal failures"

Yes, you and the AEI will always have Kansas City. The rest of us will tend to think that a bizarre 'experiment' in which a few years of actually above-average funding squandered on nonsense like olympic-sized swimming pools in a desperate attempt to attract white families (in order to fulfill deseg requirements) failed to magically fix a district staggering from the impact of years of specific neglect and underfunding (plus the wider weight of history) doesn't necessarily tell us that much.

Saner experiments - for example, Penn Alexander here in Philly - suggest other conclusions, though it's a bit soon to tell.

Posted by Dan S. | May 27, 2008 7:34 AM

Is it really wrong that, though I usually can't bear to read them through too thoroughly, I'm usually amused by the Chris Ford neo-Confederate Jew-fearing screeds?

Posted by El Cid | May 27, 2008 8:07 AM

"Saner experiments - for example, Penn Alexander here in Philly - suggest other conclusions, though it's a bit soon to tell."

Isn't it always?

Posted by vanderleun | May 27, 2008 8:49 AM

White liberal guilt is a form of RACISM that allows the elite racist to feel good about himself and his privileges. It allows him to absolve himself from guilt while continuing to reap the benefit from racial and class injustice and division. It goes hand in hand with elite class prejudice that insists that racism resides primarily in less affluent groups; working class whites and at times other ethnic groups (in this campaign, Hispanics). Positing racism as a problem of class allows the elite liberal to once again absolve himself of guilt for the advantages he enjoys at the expense of economic injustice. Doing so both allows him to place the blame for the continuation of racial injustice onto working class whites, who have little power, while absolving himself and his powerful cohorts, of any responsibility to address a system of economic injustice from which they reap enormous benefit.

Posted by esmense | May 27, 2008 10:29 AM

As a proud and lifelong liberal, I can tell you firsthand that rethuglicans are racist! Last Thursday, on the t.v., I saw George "Monkey Man" Bush giving a speech, and it occurred to me (hit me like the proverbial bolt of lightning, right out of the blue): This jerk is NOT African American! So I flip the channel in disgust and see Mr. Obama, the Lord's second child, talking to a mansion full of down-on-their luck types out in San Francisco. And it strikes me, almost as hard as the whole Bush lightning bolt thing: Hey, THIS fellow is an African American. And better yet, he knows how to speak to the common man. So you tell me, who's racist: George "McShrimpy" Bush, who is WHITE and short or Mr. Obama, who is BLACK and apparently tall.

Plus, Mr. Obama was brave enough to show the entire world that he cannot bowl worth a darn. It's no secret that (A) almost all good bowlers are white rednecks and (B) George "Stupid Big Ears" Bush carries a 234 average, and has since he reached puberty.

So there's all the proof you need! And you can quote me on that, too.

Basil Duke
Co-chair
Re-elect Robert "KKK" Byrd Foundation

Posted by Basil Duke | May 27, 2008 1:27 PM

As a proud and lifelong liberal, I can tell you firsthand that rethuglicans are racist! Last Thursday, on the t.v., I saw George "Monkey Man" Bush giving a speech, and it occurred to me (hit me like the proverbial bolt of lightning, right out of the blue): This jerk is NOT African American! So I flip the channel in disgust and see Mr. Obama, the Lord's second child, talking to a mansion full of down-on-their luck types out in San Francisco. And it strikes me, almost as hard as the whole Bush lightning bolt thing: Hey, THIS fellow is an African American. And better yet, he knows how to speak to the common man. So you tell me, who's racist: George "McShrimpy" Bush, who is WHITE and short or Mr. Obama, who is BLACK and apparently tall.

Plus, Mr. Obama was brave enough to show the entire world that he cannot bowl worth a darn. It's no secret that (A) almost all good bowlers are white rednecks and (B) George "Stupid Big Ears" Bush carries a 234 average, and has since he reached puberty.

So there's all the proof you need! And you can quote me on that, too.

Basil Duke
Co-chair
Re-elect Robert "KKK" Byrd Foundation

Posted by Basil Duke | May 27, 2008 1:30 PM

Dan S :If anything, for example, de facto school segregation is increasing - the result ends up being that certain kids are being protected from future competition from other children.

Chris Ford: Despite it being Gospel to liberal mavens of diversity, there is no evidence:

NPR: News & Notes , January 24, 2006 · A new Harvard University study finds America's public schools are more segregated now than they were 15 years ago. Ed Gordon discusses the findings with Harvard professor Gary Orfield, a co-author of the study, and with John Brittain, chief counsel and senior deputy for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Posted by dj spellchecka | May 27, 2008 3:03 PM