June 18, 2013

"White privilege" and those who've "made it"

First, you guessed it -- an MSNBC panel labeled pro-lifers as white supremacists: Panel Suggests Racist Motivation by Pro-lifers, Goal of 'Reproducing Whiteness'

So I think that there's a kind of moral panic, a fear of the end of whiteness that we've been seeing a long time in that I think, you know, Obama's ascension as President kind of symbolizes to a certain degree. And so I think this is one response to that sense that there's a decreasing white majority in the country and that women's bodies and white women's bodies in particular are obviously a crucial way of reproducing whiteness, white supremacy, white privilege. And so I think it's just a kind of clamping down on women's bodies, in particular white women's bodies, even though women of color are really caught in the fray.

Of course, what this dolt (University of Pennsylvania Assistant Professor Salamisha Tillet) fails to realize is that pro-lifers don't just care about white babies. And, since black women are approximately five times more likely to have an abortion than white women, how is lobbying to eliminate that statistic ... an example of wanting to preserve the white race??? Unbelievable.

Elsewhere, I was alerted to a recent (and past) post by one of my favorite scifi authors, John Scalzi, on the subject of white privilege. Scalzi has written the superb Old Man's War series, the most recent book of which is The Human Division. Unfortunately, Scalzi, like many other a successful liberal, feels the need to assuage his guilt over his having "made it" by giving a rhetorical hat tip to his fellow "progressive" academic types (like the above Professor Salamisha Tillet). But Michael Z. Williamson takes Scalzi to task:

Predictably, when invited to discuss the issue further with the above people, in a polite email, Scalzi completely ignored the issue. I can't presume his motives, but someone did suggest that the purpose of his posts is more to promote his books in the guilt-ridden, white, racist, liberal sellout market than to actually accomplish debate.

I have no doubt from his scribblings that Scalzi played life on the easy setting. Now that he's gotten rich, he needs to properly excoriate his success to avoid being a bad liberal.

An actual racist (I've met a few) would say, "Well, yes, I've done well, because I'm genetically and intellectually better than those lesser races." They would have no reason to get upset with his post, because it would tell them exactly what they wanted to hear: That they're at the top of the heap, awesome.

I had lengthy discussions with black writers and editors about Scalzi's post, and their concurrence seemed to be that it was shallow. I'll go a step further: It was an elitist white male passively-aggressively talking down to others about how awesome he is, but he feels guilty about it, so don't judge him too harshly.

How about going even further? If Scalzi is so guilty about having made it, partly (mainly?) because of the "leg up" he initially started with, why doesn't he abrogate the rights to his published properties to a minority writer and let him/her continue the stories? The same premise applies to the imbecilic Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell, Ed Schultz, et. al.: Really put you money where your mouth is. Resign your position and hand it over to a member of a minority group. Otherwise, you're a bloviating hypocrite like way too many a vocal "progressive."

"So then I said, 'What?? Hand over my intellectual
property to a transgendered Polynesian?'"

UPDATE: Nate notes in the comments a blogger who has dissected Scalzi's "progressivism" quite thoroughly.

UPDATE: Scalzi digs in deeper, claiming he doesn't feel guilty about being a straight white male, and delves further into the usual I-know-better-than-you condescension. In spades.

Posted by Hube at June 18, 2013 09:45 AM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

I like 'ascension to president'. Divinly appointed was he.

Posted by: Arthur at June 18, 2013 10:58 AM

"Hand over my intellectual property to a transgendered Polynesian."

LMAO!! I've never read Scalzi's books, but it's sad that he succumbs to white guilt like way too many progressives these days. This whole white privilege and white liberal guilt nonsense gets old.

Posted by: Carl at June 18, 2013 01:06 PM

It's sad, with Scalzi. I knew he was a lib, but to wallow in this moronic topic... *sigh* Ironically, it was Insty's Glenn Reynolds who linked to a post which included the Michael Williamson commentary from above -- and Glenn is a huge fan of Scalzi. He plugs his stuff all the time, and Scalzi has hat tipped Glenn in the books I've read.

Posted by: Hube at June 18, 2013 04:44 PM

Oh John Scalzi...

Ed Trimnell here has done SEVERAL posts on him and the ordeal he sparked.

Oh Hube, you've just started down the rabbit hole... lol

Posted by: Nate at June 18, 2013 04:46 PM

Judging from the links that Nate posted, it looks like Scalzi isn't very good at dealing with criticism.

Posted by: Carl at June 18, 2013 05:50 PM

Sounds VERY familiar, eh Carl?

Posted by: Hube at June 18, 2013 06:11 PM

Sheesh, I've been reading through a bunch of his stuff on Twitter and he comes off as an obnoxious douche. Just like those in comics we've had to deal with. I don't think I'll be spending any more money on his novels if this is how he treats readers/fans who may disagree w/him.

Posted by: Hube at June 18, 2013 06:15 PM

Yeah, it does, like our buddy Dan "Set the Record Straight Slott," to name just one example! I've perused his blog in the past, and he comes across as being obnoxious and close-minded. I won't be buying any of his books if that's how he treats fans.

Posted by: Carl at June 18, 2013 07:12 PM

Isn't Scalzi also friends with Ted Rall?

Posted by: Carl at June 18, 2013 07:30 PM

AWWE..I like Scalzi's books. I didn't know he was such a jerk. Pooh. Now his books don't look like fun reading material anymore ):

Posted by: Elise Ronan at June 19, 2013 06:48 AM

When racism was overt, "White privilege" was a valid observation of how opportunity was denied to non-whites. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was an implicit admission by a majority of whites that overt racism would no longer be tolerated. From a historic perspective, it died an amazingly quick death. White racism has progressively lessened, demonstrated by the fact that the days of whites blocking opportunities for non-whites are long past.

Today, charges of "White privilege" is an invented rationalization, used by the left to avoid looking at the reason whites have continued to do better than blacks and Hispanics.

In short, it's the cultural values embraced by a group that determine their economic success. Asian immigrants fiercely embrace education, have the highest college graduation rates, while also possessing a fierce loyalty to family. There are few absent Asian fathers. American's of Asian ancestry are doing exceeding well in today's America. That puts the lie to the left's attempts to cast America as a racist society.

The simple truth is that just three things are needed for a group to do well in America. Embracing education, familial loyalty and a strong work ethic are the main factors responsible for success.

Asians embrace all three.

Hispanics embrace two of the three; familial loyalty and a strong work ethic.

The majority of Blacks reject all three.

Obviously there are individual exceptions but in the main these characterizations hold true and the relative economic success of these groups exactly mirrors the degree of value that Americans of Asian, Hispanic and Black ancestry place upon these three factors.

It's not the color of skin that matters, it's the cultural values embraced.

Posted by: Geoffrey Britain at June 19, 2013 08:29 AM