Posted on 02/21/2003 9:33:36 AM PST by yankeedame
Home » Top Stories »
Whites Swim in Racial Preference
By Tim Wise, AlterNet February 20, 2003
Ask a fish what water is and you'll get no answer. Even if fish were capable of speech, they would likely have no explanation for the element they swim in every minute of every day of their lives. Water simply is. Fish take it for granted.
So too with this thing we hear so much about, "racial preference." While many whites seem to think the notion originated with affirmative action programs, intended to expand opportunities for historically marginalized people of color, racial preference has actually had a long and very white history.
Affirmative action for whites was embodied in the abolition of European indentured servitude, which left black (and occasionally indigenous) slaves as the only unfree labor in the colonies that would become the U.S.
Affirmative action for whites was the essence of the 1790 Naturalization Act, which allowed virtually any European immigrant to become a full citizen, even while blacks, Asians and American Indians could not.
Affirmative action for whites was the guiding principle of segregation, Asian exclusion laws, and the theft of half of Mexico for the fulfillment of Manifest Destiny.
In recent history, affirmative action for whites motivated racially restrictive housing policies that helped 15 million white families procure homes with FHA loans from the 1930s to the '60s, while people of color were mostly excluded from the same programs.
In other words, it is hardly an exaggeration to say that white America is the biggest collective recipient of racial preference in the history of the cosmos. It has skewed our laws, shaped our public policy and helped create the glaring inequalities with which we still live.
(Excerpt) Read more at alternet.org ...
Posted as a public service...
Black conservative ping
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Yes, after Mexico "stole" it from Spain. And after Spain "stole" it from...
Ask Poohbah about our February special.
And even this is BS. Something technically true that is actually false. Here's another angle on that -- the history that most are ignorant of. Maybe we could have a White History Month to teach this.
In the 17th century the average life expectancy (in England) was around 35 years. More accurately however, if one lived to 15 then one had good odds of hitting 50. BUT! A large number of those "transported" were teenagers, and many died on the trip. Why?
Because the exact same kind of ships, and sometimes the exact same ships that were used in the slave trade were used to transport criminals from England to the colonies. And criminals could be transported (or hanged) for a variety of things that today would be considered misdemeanors. The magistrates were paid money by the ship owners to assign petty criminals for transport (in preference to hanging.) "Trials" were often held in the magistrates living rooms or a private office, where 12 year old kids were convicted of the crime of petty theft - stealing so they wouldn't starve to death. The local "watch" or cops would get a kickback from the magistrate. The ship captains would then sell their "indentures" when they got over here.
The death rate on the transport ships was similar to the slave ships. The conditions were the same - the transportees were chained down and packed into the holds. Where the African slave ships were hot, the Northern route was COLD (and wet.) Many died of lung congestion and fevers. While fewer transportees died on a ship that made it compared to the slave ships, because of storms in the North Atlantic more ships were lost entirely, which tended to balance out the total losses as being about the same.
When a transportee had their indenture sold, it was normally for a period of seven years. The men were often used for clearing land and other hazardous activities, women were often used for prostitution, although many were used for house servants. However, in many cases the indentured servant had to pay for extra clothes, meals, etc. Thus their length of service was added on to the original seven years.
While the children of indentured servants could not be "sold", their parents could be charged for their childrens food, clothing, and housing, thus adding to the length of the parents indenture. Thus many indentured servants had many years added to their terms of indenture. The lucky childern would be apprenticed off around the age of 6 - 8. This was a good deal for them, because they could learn a trade and would be free. For those who weren't apprenticed, they would go on to be servants or laborers themselves.
Many transportees who were indentured never became free.
The above notwithstanding, the significant difference between the indenture system and slavery is that the children of the indentured servants could be free, and most were.
It's hard to focus on advancing our collective interest as fellow Americans when so many want to loiter about, complaining.
Or Lasher and Grand River...........
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.