Thursday, March 28, 2024

AdvertiseDonateSubmit
NewsSportsArtsOpinionThe QuadPhotoVideoIllustrationsCartoonsGraphicsThe StackPRIMEEnterpriseInteractivesPodcastsBruinwalkClassifieds

‘Angry white males’ aim rage in wrong direction

By Daily Bruin Staff

March 6, 1996 9:00 p.m.

‘Angry white males’ aim rage in wrong direction

Attack needed against American policies which make affirmative
action necessary

By Joshua Silverman

Affirmative action, a modest policy supporting equal
representation in work and schools for groups traditionally
excluded from mainstream participation, is under attack, and the
loudest person sounding his alarm is the prototypical "angry white
male."

According to popular conservative rhetoric (Newt, Pat and Pete),
the "angry white male" is a nonracist supporter of equal
opportunity who just can’t seem to get ahead because "his job" is
occupied by an undeserving female or person of color.

However, history reveals that this characterization of the
"angry white male" does not present the public with an accurate,
comprehensive perception of the figure. The present and historical
"angry white males" use this mythical characterization, and ones
similar to it, to divert the public’s attention away from the true
nature of their actions.

Today’s "angry white male" is the same reactionary who landed us
in Vietnam, the same "angry white male" who started and fueled
McCarthyism; today’s "angry white male," though disguised under
many layers, is the same xenophobic paranoid this country has dealt
with for centuries. When American belts are pulled tight, it is the
"angry white male" who is first to invent a scapegoat for his woes,
his latest invention being affirmative action.

According to Pete Wilson, chief supporter of the ban on
affirmative action, racism is no longer an issue in America, and
the negative ramifications of policies such as Jim Crow
segregation, California Japanese internment camps and racist
property-zoning regulations (to name a few) are nonexistent.

Unlike eras past, modern racist policy is implemented in more
subtle ways, thus giving rise to the belief that everything is fair
and equal. With $5 billion invested in prisons in the past decade,
California has a higher proportion of its population behind bars
than any other country – South Africa and the former Soviet Union
included – with about 635 inmates for every 100,000.

The largest percentage of felons doing time are drug offenders,
and the largest percentage of incarcerated drug offenders are
African American.

In Bob Dole’s first year as senator, he started a campaign that
would establish a 20-to-1 ratio for powder-cocaine convictions
compared to crack cocaine, meaning that it would take a quantity of
crack one-twentieth the amount of powder cocaine to trigger maximum
sentencing of five to 10 years. Today the law stands at a ratio of
l00-to-l, and African Americans comprise 88.3 percent of those
doing time for crack distribution.

A recent study, summarized in the New York Times on Oct. 5,
indicates that although blacks represent about 13 percent of the
U.S. population and 13 percent of monthly drug users, they are 35
percent of those arrested for drug possession, 55 percent convicted
for possession and 74 percent of the total serving sentences for
possession.

Criminal justice and sentencing are just one locale in America
where racism is thriving. To assume that lingering effects of past
discrimination and the realities of current racist policy are
nonexistent is naive and ludicrous.

The argument that the policies of yesteryear (which I alluded to
earlier) were done by someone else in another time, and therefore
we modern Americans are exempt from ties to the ideologies they
professed, is highly problematic. That would be like saying
Shakespeare’s plays should not be studied because what was said or
done during 16th century England is irrelevant to our day.

Ideas and policies have a life of their own: The extent to which
historical perceptions are internalized in the present is open to
debate, but past art, ideas and legislation are key components of
present culture and economics. If for centuries students can relate
to Othello, Hamlet or Lady Macbeth, then, as modern Americans, we
must equally acknowledge our relationship to racism.

Unfortunately, the ban on affirmative action in the UC system,
the potential implementation of the California Civil Rights
Initiative (major misnomer) and the "three-strikes" law, coupled
with increased prison production, all mark a definitive breakdown
in a progressive dialogue.

The question then becomes "who’s gonna take the weight" of this
unequal system? Conservative ideology prefers to use
"each-man-must-pull-himself-up-by-his-own-boot-straps" rhetoric and
in so doing, places the weight of equal representation on the
traditionally excluded.

Affirmative action, on the other hand, acknowledges that
Americans of all races and classes benefit differently according to
which group they belong; therefore, those benefiting, along with
those hurt by our country’s past and present policies, are equally
responsible in making change.

Americans are afraid to confront race. For many, the symbolic
and actual role they’ve played in society is uncomfortable and is
to be avoided. However, discomfort marks the first step in tackling
the complex problems modern American culture presents.

People must feel comfortable to stumble and offend. Fear of
expression lends to the perpetuation of suspicion, scapegoating and
accusatory rhetoric.

In a class I once had, there was a conservative, right-wing
ex-soldier who largely believed America was truly "the land of the
free." This very diverse class, though at times silently cringing
when he spoke, was very tolerant of his views. Because he was
outspoken, it gave people a first-hand glimpse into a mentality
prevalent in society.

The ex-soldier spoke without fear, people challenged without
hate and the last day of class he came up to me and said, "The
first day of class when I heard you speak, I felt ‘what’s this
white boy doing talking trash about America?’ I wanted to kick your
ass. But now I can say I hear you. Though I still don’t agree with
you on many points, I respect what you’re saying."

Respect is the foundation of tolerance, equality and love. His
statements were, at times, offensive, but if we had jumped down his
throat and labeled him a racist and/or sexist (which may have been
true), the next time he wanted to speak he would have feared
reprisal and remained silent, and with his silence a progressive
dialogue would have been stunted.

At the root of oppression, frustration and paranoia is fear.
Fear of the Other, fear of your beliefs and personal feelings, fear
of being labeled and fear of financial security all lend to the
perpetuation of reactionary politics (the ban on affirmative
action) if not dealt with in open and honest ways.

Instead of projecting frustration at the supposed undeserving
person landing "his job," the prototypical "angry white male"
should be angry at the American policies that brought on the
necessity of affirmative action in the first place. The "angry
white male" should be angry at the cruel corporate policies that
have reduced personal income and exacerbated economic
insecurity.

Affirmative action is not the end-all solution in race and
gender relations; it is one policy that encourages freedom of
expression and equal representation. The lines of communication are
being squeezed at an alarming rate, and these are the very lines
that give us life.

Silverman is a fifth-year English/American studies
student.Comments to [email protected]

Share this story:FacebookTwitterRedditEmail
COMMENTS
Featured Classifieds
More classifieds »
Related Posts