Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Segregation is Alive and Well, Thanks to Progressives
This country has tolerated the attacks of Progressives who experience great satisfaction in calling Republicans and Conservatives racist. We are now seeing the downside of their crusade, as segregation becomes a reality once more. The history of Progressive racism has been ignored for many years, but the support of the Left for various forms of racism in the past can be tied to the call for segregation today, especially on college campuses. It is a frightening and ugly picture.
We need to take a look at the history that connects Democrats and the Left to racism. The most obvious relationship became apparent after the Civil War during the period of Reconstruction. The Democrats in the South were outraged about the freed slaves who chose to support the Republican party; after all, Abraham Lincoln’s declarations of emancipation were carried out by President U.S. Grant and both were heroes of the black community. As a result, Democrats essentially waged a southern war against blacks who became politically active; they brutally attacked and murdered blacks who met to become politically active as Republicans. President Grant was torn about the appropriateness of sending federal troops to regain order in the states, but it was clear that another war was on the horizon if he didn’t. The Ku Klux Klan was formed in 1866 and was active well into the 20th century. It was one of the most vicious terrorist and white supremacist groups that this country has ever seen.
Meanwhile, we can point to a number of “scholars” who supported the progressive cause and were racists and eugenicists:
Progressives spearheaded the eugenics movement, dedicated to reducing the reproduction of supposedly ‘inferior’ individuals and races. The eugenics movement spawned Planned Parenthood, among other groups. In academia, there were 376 courses devoted to eugenics in 1920 . . .
Progressive intellectuals who crusaded against the admission of immigrants from Eastern Europe and Southern Europe, branding them as genetically inferior, included many prominent academic scholars — such as heads of such scholarly organizations as the American Economic Association and the American Sociological Association.
Perhaps the most celebrated racist in our government was President Woodrow Wilson, who publicly made racist comments:
[Reconstruction government was detested] not because the Republican Party was dreaded but because the dominance of an ignorant and inferior race was justly dreaded.
Another telling quote:
In the matter of Chinese and Japanese coolie immigration, I stand for the national policy of exclusion. We cannot make a homogeneous population out of people who do not blend with the Caucasian race… Oriental Coolieism will give us another race problem to solve and surely we have had our lesson. (Italics added.)
We finally arrived at a time when the country realized that we needed to take formal steps against segregation. Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, 1955 declared that separate but equal schooling in public schools was unconstitutional. Efforts were made to correct segregated schools over the years, with mixed results. Still, the Supreme Court moved the process forward.
Another unfortunate step that we took to disempower and denigrate the black population of this country was the War on Poverty. This period taught black America that they couldn’t be successful without government assistance; that they were incapable of moving up in society without the help of others; and perhaps most important, they were entitled to this assistance, due to their grievances coming out of slavery (even though slavery had been ended over 100 years ago).
So what is the connection of these past grievances to the present state of blacks in America, especially on the university campuses?
The Left has finally convinced black students that non-blacks can’t be trusted. They tell our black citizens that white people see them as different, inferior, and they must unite as blacks to protect themselves. Most of this discourse comes from the Progressive programs of the past. Today, however, the attacks on non-blacks have escalated, and it’s no surprise, according to James Huffman at the Hoover Institution:
Whatever privilege students may have before they arrive at college, the reality of American higher education today is that students of color have been privileged by their institutions in ways that invite segregation and differential treatment, whether done in the name of reparations for past discrimination, as affirmative action to overcome societally imposed disadvantages, or in the belief that celebrating and encouraging differences improves education for everyone. There should be no surprise that students of color often self-segregate and are seen as different by their fellow students.
Just what is happening on college campuses that is establishing segregation on campuses?
Black college students across the country have demanded that they be segregated from white peers, calling for ‘safe spaces’ on campuses meant only for so-called students of color.
The requests for segregated spaces are found among some of the demand lists put forth by students who took part in protests this fall alleging their campuses are oppressive, discriminatory, and represent institutionalized racism.
The demands have been presented to campus administrators and are chronicled by TheDemands.org, a website run by a racial advocacy group called the Black Liberation Collective.
Not all of the 76 demand lists, each from a different university, seek segregated spaces — but several do.
It’s impossible to know how many universities are acquiescing to these demands. And of course, there are many ways to describe safe spaces. But a number of colleges are dedicating specific buildings or organizations to blacks-only, as well as dormitories and special events.
These demands can be credited to the Progressive movement, as it supposedly strives to help those who have been shut out or left behind.
The discouraging and even frightening conclusion we can draw from these activities is that they encourage segregation and emphasize differences. They do nothing to bring people together in activities, discussions, and debates. There is no exchange of ideas or outcomes of understanding. In the absence of communication, misunderstandings, misconceptions, fear, and anger will only grow. Racial tensions in this country will continue to broaden and escalate.
As James Huffman of the Hoover Institution states:
The concept of white privilege is a logical outgrowth of the concept of institutional racism. In reaction to the now quaint notion that intent to discriminate must be proven to establish illegal race discrimination, lawyers and race scholars came up with the concept of institutional racism. The idea is that racism is so deeply rooted in American society that it persists even amongst institutions that have made genuine efforts to correct for any intentional past discrimination.
But there is nothing subtle about the most pervasive form of racial discrimination prevailing at most American colleges and universities today. It is done in the name of lifting up those who have been discriminated against in the past. But there should be little wonder that the intended beneficiaries of this allegedly benign discrimination feel themselves isolated and treated differently. By design, universities have isolated them and treated them differently.
Such a tragic outcome for those, black and white, who sacrificed to overcome racism.
What do you foresee regarding segregation and racism in this country?
Published in Culture
Exactly right.
If only, in 1957, Governor Orval Faubus had explained that by keeping those little black girls in their exclusively black school he was “empowering” them, President Eisenhower would not have needed to sent my unit from the 101st Airborne in to integrate the Little Rock schools. Faubus could have been a modern “Progressive” hero.
A great summary of the history of this problem.
The only thing omitted is the added pressure of the supposed privilege and wealth being afforded to the white people. When you add that into this mix of emotion, you get a lot of civil unrest.
This type of agitation of those lower on the wealth scale has been going on at least since the French Revolution, which is probably the model upon which socialist and communist takeovers has been based.
In our economy, the agitators become nonprofits, and their CEOs and speakers make a lot of money stirring up these emotions. They’ll get theirs–no one else matters to them. After they’ve created a terrible social mess, they will get on their private jets and fly off to some remote island and enjoy their newfound wealth.
An excellent post.
You saw something similar a half-century ago during the original student uprisings on campus, but it’s more widespread now, and even has spread to off-campus, to the point even some of the big media outlets saw a concern last week with the meeting in Georgia where only black journalists were allowed in.
Basically, it’s the old rules flipped, where instead of the former laws where blacks were segregated out of venues and told they had to settle for separate-but-equal facilities (allegedly equal, but almost always not), you now have black activists demanding they be the ones who can segregate everyone they don’t want out of venues, though we’re not at the separate-but-equal stage yet. And left unanswered from the Georgia incident is what would have happened if some news outlet had sent a Latino, Asian or Native American journalist to cover the meeting (the incident reminds me of one in Texas about 20 years ago in the Rio Grande city of El Cenizo, where the city council eventually was reprimanded for conducting all city business in Spanish. Nothing untold may have happened, but it was the exclusionary nature of the action compared to how business was/is conducted in the rest of the state and the nation that caused alarm bells to go off).
This picture of the Little Rock Nine in 1957 should be the poster and image for the Republican Party (from the U.S. Army, public domain, National Archives):
It accelerated under Obama and his awful cohort Holder, who recently stated when was America ever great? It’s infuriating, but some people of color see through it – I wish there were more prominent African Americans and other minorities who would speak out against the new segregation movement. The last administration went further – men against women – gender battles – something for everyone to fight about – I guess it’s the Alinsky way. I saw something on TV the other night about a local political race somewhere – it may have been Chicago and there was a small gathering at some local function and the signs said black media only – can you imagine?????
This issue will get worse as we approach the elections and people like Elizabeth Warner will use it to try to get ahead. Excellent post.
@jimmcconnell, it sounds like you’ve got a story there! A post, maybe?
Right! Actually, there was much more I thought about including, @marcin, but it would have been a tome! The names of the exalted eugenicists, names of specific universities who have caved in. So I’m glad you found it helpful, even if it’s brief. And you are so right–so many lies have been perpetrated to make their points–and damage everyone else.
Oh! I hadn’t heard this story. You bring up good points, @jon1979. Only black journalists? That brings up so many points. Do they assume that the politicians don’t need our votes? I’ll let someone else pursue this line of thought. Thank you!
Thanks, FSC. Yes, I saw Eric Holder and I thought the same thing–he wants to create the chaos that so many of them desire. Alinsky would be proud. And I’m very concerned.
I learned a lot from your history lesson, Susan. Thanks for doing the heavy lifting.
I saw segregation and discrimination first hand when I was a professor. It was largely the bureaucrats who promoted segregation and discrimination, in particular through the hiring process. (See my last post regarding the unbelievable ratio of liberals to conservatives in universities.)
I think it was a feather in the deans’/vice presidents’/ chairmen’s hats to promote segregation and discrimination, which was done mainly through a revised version of affirmative action.
The college bureaucrats thought that the bureaucracy just above them would look favorably on their efforts.
If blacks wanted to self-segregate, they can do so at one of the many HBCUs across the country. They tend to be 98-100% black, and provide a quality education at an affordable price. Sadly, many of these schools are in financial trouble due to mismanagement and decling enrolment. It’s time the big school step up and say, “There are no such things as ‘safe spaces’, and if you want a separate dorm, student union, or graduation ceremony, go to an HBCU.”
No doubt caucasians who wanted the same separation treatment would be labeled “white supremacists” . . .
I see tribalism . I see the Dem party becoming the POC party and the republican party the White party. We will have no choice. We will have to embrace our tribe and fight for it, or be swept away and politically powerless. When white people are the minority (this is a primary feature of open boarders) does any one think the POC will vote for white people. Same thing will happen in Europe.
This is what happens when the hordes are let in and not assimilated.
Other than that, things a peachy. ;)
Susan,
For a brief time between the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1973 Quota-Based Affirmative Action ruling, this country had a standard of behavior in respect to race and a rational means of enforcing it. With the 1973 ruling, both the standard of behavior and the rational means of enforcement were made irrelevant. Now some vague historical mass collective happening was to replace the reality of individual responsibility. The progress that was rapidly being made in eliminating racism not only stopped but in fact the net effect of this collectivist enterprise exacerbated race relations and further damaged the black community.
An additional negative effect of the Quota-Based ruling was the relentless debasement of academic standards. Those in favor of the quota system needed ever increasingly absurd excuses for their hopelessly failing policy. False claims about academic standards became their favorite target. One lie to shore up the disastrous results of the first lie.
What a tangled web we weave.
Regards,
Jim
Progressives are the pinnacle of projectionism. One finger pointing at you; three fingers pointing back at them.
Thanks, @jamesgawron. You are spot on! Also, the activities of the 1960’s ignored the facts that the black middle class was growing. Either they were ignoring the data, didn’t care, or didn’t want to ruin their plans to further victimize the black community. Ugly, isn’t it?
It amazes me how often it is true!! And it also reflects on their inability to self-reflect on the impact of their actions and on how destructive they are. Sigh.
The problem with this tactic is those pushing it have to assume that the Democratic coalition is a monolithic hive mind of special interest groups who will support each other and treat each faction as co-leaders.
That never happens on the left — the history has always been of fracuring and factionalization, because even in the current era of trying to gain power through victimology, every group and leader there wants to be the Alpha victim, who can tall all the other factions what to do (the Soviets in the 1920s and 30s were rife with it between the Leninists, Stalinists, Trotskyites and minor factions like Bukharinism, and as much as some Christians disliked Monty Python’s “Life of Brian”, it had a pretty savage takedown of 1960s-70s era factionalization on the left with the battle between the Judean Peoples Front and the Peoples Front of Judea). In the case of the current demand for segregation, it’s pretty much a given those demanding to have their own areas would try to play the victim card on any other faction of the coalition that attempted to keep them out via their own segregated locations.
I (a 62 year old white male) am more likely now than I was 30 years ago to have negative thoughts about a black person about whom I know little to nothing else.
I certainly no longer think racism is completely illogical. Activists claiming to act on behalf of blacks have been telling me for decades (through their demands for special treatment) and now are telling me by their demands for separate spaces and systems, that these activists think that the black people they claim to speak for are incapable of dealing with the world most of us function in. If they don’t think black people can deal with my world, why should I think black people can deal with my world?
[Also contributing to the logic of racism is that such a high proportion of crime and other violent and otherwise anti-social behavior in the United States is carried out by black people.]
If you want us older white people to interact favorably with black people, stop telling us that black people are incapable of functioning in our society.
Georgia Campaign Event: ‘Black Press Only!’
Susan, with apologies for the tiny photo, it actually does say what is depicted above, and below is a note I sent out to friends yesterday which reflect my total incredulity that such a message would put up for all the world to see:
“It is not hard to imagine, but absolutely impossible to imagine, anyone in this day and time putting up a sign reading “White Press Only”; this is just sheer, unadulterated madness. The phrase “You can’t make this stuff up” applies now to events practically on a daily basis; anyone have an idea where all this is likely to end? Not a pleasant thought, is it?”
Susan and @jon1979, I should explain that I started this comment before reading thoroughly your excellent post–thank you for this!– and Jon’s comment referencing this astonishing incident in Savannah which I learned about from a news article carrying this photo of the sign barring all but black press. The article and photo appeared in the Washington Free Beacon and can be found here. A short excerpt from the article will show just how far this insanity has gone:
“CBS affiliate WTOC 11 first reported one of its journalists had been turned away from the event in Savannah, Georgia. “We were not allowed to attend the meeting because of the race of the reporter we sent to cover it,” they shared.
WTOC reported:
The meeting, publicized as a community meeting to support only one of Savannah’s two African American mayoral candidates, also had the condition that only black members of the media could go inside the church where it was held.
The Associated Press noted that “television cameras and recording devices were also prohibited” in the church.”
This trend, which is, to put it mildly, potentially not only disturbing but potentially quite dangerous, will continue until at least some of our leaders overcome their severe aversion to being called a “racist” every time someone tries to raise legitimate concerns about these matters, such as this great post did.
I cannot leave this subject without mentioning the Jussie Smollett-Kim Foxx-Crook County disgrace as it is as perfect an example of where Critical Race Theory can lead as any we have seen in a very long time. But, by all means, don’t take my word for it, check out Foxx’s Op Ed in the Chicago Tribune of a few days ago and it just jumps off the page at you. (My apologies as it appears to have been put behind their pay wall.)
Finally, @jimmcconnell, I heartily second Susan’s suggestion as that is a fascinating piece of history you relate and I look forward to your excellent post on your experience at Central High in Little Rock!
Thanks again, Susan, for such an enlightening and excellent post.
Sincerely, Jim
The Earnest Greene story was one of my favorite movies when I was a kid…
All of this was apparent in the 1980s, and detailed by Prof. Allan Bloom in The Closing of the American Mind.
The danger of violence has become worse, largely due to the Obama administration, in my opinion. The false narrative of the BLM movement contributes to the problem.
If you are interested in this mess, the reports of Prof. Brett Weinstein regarding the Evergreen College disaster is worth looking up. He has several excellent talks on YouTube. He’s a far-Lefty guy and a biology professor, who witnessed a takeover of the college by what he called black supremacists. If I remember correctly, the campus police were actually ordered to stand down and decline to protect him and his family, while gangs of students (mostly black) roamed the campus looking for him, intent on mayhem.
I have decided that I am going to use the term “White Identity Politics” rather than “White Supremacist” or “White Nationalist”. I am doing this for the following reasons:
(1) those people are mostly Leftists, so they should be lumped in with the other Identity Politics types.
(2) those people are not necessarily Supremacist or Nationalist or even Segregationist, but “White Identity Politics” fits them all.
(3) those people should be disassociated with people on the Right, that are race agnostic and tolerant.
I can’t figure out why some are hellbent on vilifying understandable reactions to the left’s extremism that does cause harm.
There is nothing evil about people, feeling threatened, to group together and defend themselves from a threat.
You should be grateful that they currently are vastly more content to work within the frame of bloodless politics.
I am not sure what is meant here, but Identity Politics is wrong.
@stina, I’m not clear on what you’re saying (apparently @dong is also unclear). It isn’t “evil” for people to feel threatened. My concern is there is nothing helpful about their separating themselves. In fact, in that kind of insulated environment, their irrational fear and anger could intensify, and they could come to the conclusion that the terrible white people who “threaten them” must be dealt with more assertively. What looks peaceful right now could easily develop into aggression. Nothing good will come from their isolating themselves.
When America is ruled by people of color (POC), and it will be. It is a mathematical certainty with open boarders and a welfare state. How do you think they will treat the white man ? Today we are already being vilified in the culture.
Same goes for Europe, they have demographic nightmare looming in the future.
I would love to live in a cosmopolitan country that shares the values of the country I grew up in. This is not likely. Dare I say, not going to happen.
You may not be interested in identity politics, but it is interested in you.
I wish it weren’t so.
The answer isn’t to go after white identity groups who are forming in defense.
If you don’t like them forming, telling them they are wrong for doing so while ignoring all the groups forming who hate them (and have more political power) is going to make them more defensive.
Half the people criticizing the formation of white identity groups are Jews – who have formed a very strong identity group in order to defend themselves… and there you have an answer to why these groups tend to have antipathy towards Jews. (Ben shapiro, Jonah Goldberg)
If you want them to stop identifying, then get the rest to stop vilifying. When the pressure is off, they won’t feel a need to group up as a matter of survival.
It doesn’t take a lot of scholarship to know how the holocaust started. Why dehumanizing white people is somehow different than dehumanizing Jews demands an explanation. Many Jews didn’t think they’d be slaughtered early on and just tried not to make too many waves. Would they have done things differently if they had known what came next?
Many of these white identity groups are concerned that the more people who come here that hate them, bloodshed will happen. As a response, they want the same kind of right Israel has – a place to call their own.
And that is white identity and white nationalism in a nut shell.
This isn’t directed at you, SQ… just to answer tour question. My beef is with DonG who can’t seem to grasp that there exist physics in human behavior at the population level – for every action there is a reaction. Want to stop the reaction? Stop the action that started it and stop vilifying the reaction.
Thanks for elaborating, @cm. So I’m confused–are you saying that Jews as a strong identity group cause others to vilify them? Are you likening their wanting to be a strong group to white nationalists or blacks who want to form exclusive groups to “defend themselves”? (I’m puzzled, not angry.) I’m also not clear on what you are saying about the exclusive black groups. Are you defending them? Criticizing them. Help!
No.
I’m saying that Jews (who have and cultivate a strong identity group) are very outspoken in their criticism of white identity groups… saying that identity groups are wrong.
The antipathy towards Jews is because they are seen as hypocrites (do what I say, not what I do). Ben is a Zionist Jew… a Jewish nationalist. He is very proud of that identity. But he is very vocal on how evil it is for whites to have that same kind of identity or pride.
Most white nationalists support Jewish Zionism.
Yes. Jewish identity is a defense to preserve their group – so they are not bred out of existence and so their culture and bloodlines remain in existence. Jews are among the very few longest surviving ethnic groups in existence because of this. It is just like blacks and whites doing it. (Except I don’t think this is why blacks are doing this now).
Most white identity groups and nationalists believe/accept that people form groups along common criteria – on identity. It is a natural instinct to protect themselves from outsiders who might wish them harm.
They do not resent other groups for forming around their identity and wanting their own space. What they resent is other groups doing it while telling them they are evil for doing it, too.
So, I would say I defend black groups’ rights to free association, but I criticize their preventing white people to exercise that same right.
I mentioned I think blacks have other motives than defense. Black people already had their own spaces for defense – their own black colleges. I think their segregation of the mainstream campuses is to get back at white people for segregation in the past. It’s more of a power-play dressed up in victimization… not born of actual fear. If they were actually fearful, whites would have their own “white only” spaces with no issue and blacks would be going to their own colleges. These aren’t the actions of a scared people.
– I am a nationalist. I’m not clear on where I stand on ethno-nationalism. Currently, I’m sympathetic, but not in lock step agreement. My views track with Yoram Hazony’s Virtues of Nationalism pretty closely –
Moderator Note:
This is taking Stina's comment in very bad faith. There are other ways to respond if you object to her remarks.Susan, let me translate what Stina is saying: the Jews deserve what is coming at them.They are responsible for the “antipathy” towards them just like German Jews were for stabbing German nationalists in the back.