Since the 1970's I have come around to believing that while AA's premise is
good and it remains right at the level of individuals' spontaneous impulses,
AA's influence as government policy is bad, for a variety of reasons. First
and foremost, race-based AA contradicts the Fourteenth Amendment (which I
think embodies in our Constitution the American creed expressed in the
Declaration of Independence, "... that all men are created equal"; see
Bell v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 226, 286-287 (1964), conc. opn. of
Goldberg, J.), by predicating governmental actions on "race." As I will
explain, AA and the IP it feeds work to harden race-lines when these lines
should be softening. The hardened race-lines equate with Balkanizing "them
against us" racial identities, which might prolong racial conflict, or
possibly even threaten future conflicts reminiscent of the poor Balkan
countries themselves.
With the 1970's came too a political empowerment of minorities -- another
legacy, in part, of MLK's civil rights movement. Blacks and Hispanics,
especially, the largest minorities, began winning House of Representative
seats. For years, gerrymandered districts resulted in growth in numbers of
minority Representatives, largely based on the "race" of the voting majorities
in their districts. Strengthened minority political power accelerated the
growth of AA administered by minority leaders. Nurtured by this seductive
feedback, minority leadership found its interests progressively wedded to
its constituents' racial identities as these were reported on census and
other government data-collection forms.
This new meaning of "Identity Politics" refers to a powerful, growing,
socio-political movement, with its own agenda (a very leftist one). State
voter-revolts against AA and its side-effects, such as the successful
campaigns led by multiracial businessman, University of California System
Regent, Ward Connerly, seem to be
spreading very slowly across America, state-by-state. Also, recent U.S.
Supreme Court and federal circuit court decisions have reduced "race" as a
criterion for gerrymandering House seats considerably -- but they have not
eliminated "race" considerations entirely. It seems far too early to say
that IP is non-dangerous, or to safely predict its decline.
The people best placed to see IP's dangerous Balkanizing trends are
multiracials. Multiracials already are adversely affected by IP. It robs
them of their right to a distinct "racial" identity. (IP forces in 1997
defeated inclusion of a "Multiracial" category on the year 2000 census and numerous federal data forms. [See May 1997 Hearing Report.].)
The influential IP also objects to multiracials' birthright of racial
fluidity -- particularly, enjoyment of their "whiteness." The IP tries to
Procrustianize multiracials into minority monorace "pigeonholes," while
attempting to appropriate any public acclaim they have earned. A clear
example is the "African-American" IP Party (or "race") coveting golf
champion Tiger Woods, and not respecting his denying he is black -- his
saying he is a multiracial person. Each of the different racial minorities'
IP intellectual leaders try to apply the One-Drop Rule, hypodescent, and to
neutralize each's multiracials. (See, "Blood
Pressure".) All thus try to brainwash or coerce part-white multiracials
into self-identifying minority monochrome. However, only with part-blacks
do these efforts meet with much success -- so far. On the other hand, the
part-black multiracial community seemingly is where the greatest IP
awareness and resistance is found, too. (E.g., see "Check American Indian".)
Kidnapping mixed-race peoples' racial identities is rational from the IP
viewpoint. Almost like killing two, three birds with one stone, the IP
annexing a mixed-race celebrity, for example, (1) increases the census
count, (2) weakens the multiracial movement, and (3) appropriates the
celebrity's fame to the minority "race." The IP also like to deprecate and
discourage interracial marriage, hoping thereby to slow the geometrically
growing multiracial community. The IP paradigm favors pure races' clear
battle-lines.
Identity politicians seemingly took a lesson from South Africa a few years
ago on the dangers of having an intermediate "Coloured" voting block.
Those, in essence, bolted the South African, leftist, ANC party, and voted
with S.A. whites, instead. Just so, our leftist IP abhor a S.A.-style loss
of control over multiracials who, as Liam Martin recently observed (9/08/99)
in a letter to the
editor of Interracial Voice -- with claims on whiteness -- can have
white interests themselves. A still deeper reason IP oppose the Multiracial
Movement is the danger multiracial growth represents for IP and its
racially-divided world-view. Opposing any official recognition of
"Multiracial," identity politicians deploy several arguments: "We don't
need another 'race,'" they say. "'Multiracial' will reinvigorate the
moribund concept of 'race,' and then it will take longer to 'deconstruct'
race." I have also heard criticism of "stirring the 'messy' biology of
race." All of this is bogus.
"Multiracial" might bear facial resemblance to an Anglicized reflection of
the racially ambivalent Hispanic category. But at the end of the day,
"Multiracial" amounts to a STATEMENT of the irrelevancy of "race," much like
checking "None of the above." Government tracking of multiracials for
purposes of AA benefits seems unlikely. Anyway, multiracials' receiving AA
will not dilute IP (IP loves consciousness-raising for newfound "victims,"
e.g., women, gays, handicapped, ..., etc.). What the IP rightly fear is the
exact opposite: Identity politicians may, by some vision or foreboding,
sense the Multiracial Movement ushers the end of IP -- it is destined to
make "race" into a mere historical footnote. Clearly, that prescience
ultimately must underlie identity politicians' virulent opposition to the
growth and independence of our multiracial peoples.
The IP scare tactics warn that the KKK awaits any multiracial venturing
alone into the "white-dominated" outside world. At the very least, "white
rejection" or "non-acceptance" is assured, the IP promise. They are dead wrong.
Dr. King's spell still captivates white America. Moreover, the same tinge
of guilt which identity politicians lean on for milking government
concessions, makes white people the more accepting. (Arguably, MLK's
greatest accomplishment was his touching white peoples' conscience.) Most
all Eurasians and transracially adopted Asians, and almost a third of
Eurafricans, too, grow up in white neighborhoods attending predominantly
white schools. Furthermore, between people accepted as "white" there is
practically no mejorando la raza ("improve the race") color
stratification. "Whites" generally regard one another racially
indistinguishable, regardless whether blond Nordic, dusky Armenian, or dark
Italian.
As Gerald Reynolds, former president of the Washington-based Center for New
Black Leadership said recently to Ward Connerly, explaining why white CEOs
are so deferential to Reverend Jesse Jackson, "Jesse is a race hustler who
makes his living shaking down corporations. Whites would rather be
accused of being a child molester than a racist." (The "The Egalitarian," April
1999, p.5 [EG0499.PDF, 303K], my italics, without acknowledging truth of
the statement.) Notably, page 5 of the same April edition of "Egalitarian,"
also quotes Hoover Institution scholar, Shelby Steele, labeling Jackson "an
extortion artist for the grievance elite," cites his biggest failing as the
corruption of race relations in America. (EG0499.PDF, ibid..)
Clearly, master identity politician Jackson demonstrates this MLK "power to
make corporate chieftains cower" (ibid.), although he abuses it.
Just as clearly, Multiracials (anyone of color) should not let fear of
racism stop them.
The present N.A.A.C.P. reliance on IP and AA is a false lead for advancing
civil rights. Identity politicians, with their focus on statistical goals
and means, argue their divisive, Balkanizing, approach is necessary. But
the IP approach to achieving "equality" by the numbers -- statistically --
depends on a false premise of "group rights." Indeed, perhaps the whole IP
trend has oozed like a toadstool from this false notion. Anyway, the U.S.
Constitution does not guarantee "group rights." The Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment extends its guarantee of constitutional rights
to individuals, not to groups. (Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada,
305 U.S. 337, 350-351 (1938); Mitchell v. United States, 313 U.S. 80,
97 (1941); see J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127, 152
(1994), conc. opn. of Kennedy, J.) This is why the civil rights movement
now must be carried forward on the shoulders of individuals willing to push
the envelope of "whiteness," notwithstanding possible run-ins with racist
whites. "Martin Luther King told people they had to take on the
responsibility -- and risk -- to gain their freedom," Shelby Steele informed
Ward Connerly. (EG0499.PDF, supra, p.5.) "Jesse Jackson tells them
that they are weak, victims of prejudice, that have no responsibility for
their situation...." "In my opinion," Steele continued, "that message of
'victimhood' is a bigger barrier to progress than prejudice itself."
(Ibid.) In the nature of things, I think Multiracials are positioned
to penetrate the heart of whiteness first.
Pushing the envelop now is not so difficult as Rosa Parks and MLK found it
in the 1955-1968 years. Moreover, I am inclined to take the
anti-"racemixing" threats of the growing white supremacist movement with a
cautious grain of salt. White supremacists, who had nearly vanished under
MLK, reappeared in perfect lockstep with IP and AA. I think they are a
white echo of identity politics, not a consequence of racial blending.
Unfortunately, the needlessly tensed atmosphere causes crazies to run amok
sometimes.
I argue, full "equality," IP-style, will not be found (nor should it be
sought) in a "separate but equal" notion of apartheid "black," "brown,"
"red," or "yellow-power" racial identity. Notwithstanding socialistic
five-year plans for pan-minority "empowerment," any re-embraced IP apartheid
would dishonor our birthright borne on rivers of priceless blood from the
hearts of King, Ghandi, and innumerable and highly revered others remembered
from the days of the Civil Rights Movement and before.
Prospects for pushing the envelope of "whiteness" seem good. Dr. King's
1960's civil rights movement ended de jure segregation -- the Jim Crow
apartheid laws (e.g., the enforced separate drinking fountains, restrooms,
bus seats, etc.). Dr. King's work also laid a moral foundation for ending
de facto segregation -- a seed change he planted in whites' attitudes --
reexamination; a willingness to tolerate, to change. (See ACRI
"Egalitarian" cites, above.)
Surely the crowning glory of the 1960s MLK civil rights era was the U.S.
Supreme Court decision, Loving v.
Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). Loving did more than
legalize interracial marriage. The decision declared unconstitutional the
Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924, as amended. The Virginia Act had
worked by defining "white persons" as "pure" Caucasians (with an allowance
for 1/16 or less "pure" American Indian), and it imposed one to five year
felony prison time on anyone marrying across its statutory race-line. "Any"
ascertainable Negro blood defined "colored persons," too (Loving
supra, fns. 2-4, 7-11), and false racial identification under the
"comprehensive" Act was a separate felony. The Act had no "savings clause"
to save any constitutional parts from the scalpel of judicial review. The
"one-drop," absolute, "pure" "white" and "black" racial definitions
contained in the Act were so integral to its race-defining and
antimiscegenation functions that a savings clause would certainly have
failed anyway. The entire "comprehensive" Act fell. Loving declared
unconstitutional together, "One-Drop rules," "racial definitions," and laws
against interracial marriages -- all fell in one decision enforcing
individual privacy rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due
process and equal protection guarantees of our United States Constitution.
(Id., pp. 11-12.) They are gone.
The way to a new world stands open like a garden gate. A vision of a beige
America -- no longer a dream, but rather already a reality -- is moving
clearly into view. (E.g., Andre Mouchard,
"Rethinking Racial Identity".)
I think a good starting task for a new Multiracial Civil Rights Movement is
addressing the problem of chronic white segregation. Surveys show white
Americans are the most segregated "race" by far. (See "Changing America,
Indicators of Social and Economic Well-Being by Race and Hispanic Origin,"
by the Council on Economic Advisors for the President's Initiative On Race
(Sept. 1998)
CA.PDF [704K],
p.73.) Their MLK-inspired tolerance, however, can lead to acceptance of new
people in the white neighborhoods.
One objective measurement of white tolerance is "Whites' Attitudes Toward
Integration," shown as the percentage of whites who say they will move if
blacks come to live (a) "next door"; (b) "in great numbers in the
neighborhood." Repeated Gallup surveys of these trends between 1958 and
1997 show how sharply former "white flight" has dropped, to one-percent or
less now. (See CA.PDF, id., p.74.) The same graphs show that even
an influx of black neighbors "in great numbers" will flush fewer than
one-in-five whites into flight. (Ibid.) Clearly, time is ripe for
integrating the segregated white neighborhoods. The only remaining blockage
(beside IP) is illegal discriminatory practices by rental and home loan
finance offices. (CA.PDF, id., p.67.) Since discrimination in
housing has been illegal since 1968, it should be feasible to operate stings
and stop these residual discriminatory practices.
Integrating neighborhoods and stinging away illegal housing discrimination
seems a task tailor-made for the N.A.A.C.P. (Note: MLK's failed 1966
attempts to desegregate Chicago housing may have been stymied by then-Mayor
Daley; it also might have fallen prey to an early form of ghetto IP -- Rev.
Jackson was placed in charge. Certainly this was the direction which Dr.
King wanted to go.) One may wonder why the N.A.A.C.P. slumbers on,
seemingly oblivious to the golden opportunity presented it even since before
the 1990's to advance civil rights, light-years. But a moment's reflection
on the ends of IP provides the answer: Neighborhood integration will be too
effective. It will end racism far too quickly for liberal identity
politicians' retirement plans. Worse, racially mixed neighborhoods cannot
be gerrymandered into minority voting blocks for the IP's House Black
Caucus. In fact, the specter of Multiracials, accepted by whites,
dissolving away the gerrymandered voting districts into fully integrated
neighborhoods must clearly be a main reason why liberal identity politicians
staunchly oppose a multiracial identity today.
Multiracials today are pioneers -- blurring race-lines, penetrating,
expanding the envelope of "whiteness" -- making inroads more people of color
will soon follow. Dr. King would approve, I think, our inclusive movement's
including white people as "people of color," too. Before "whiteness" -- or
"beigeness" -- has grown and included everyone, all colors, our interest in
separate races will, no doubt, have long since faded away.
George A. Winkel
Biography: I practice appellate defense law in the California
Fourth Appellate District, the State Supreme Court, and occasionally before
the U.S. Ninth Circuit.
Identity politics (IP) names a movement which probably began as a rallying
call for minorities to pitch in, promoting their peoples' "race." The
1960's civil rights movement, now synonymous in memory with its leader, the
late Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK), so stirred America's conscience
(esp. white Americans') that the cause of promoting racial minority
interests acquired much-deserved dignity and importance. Moreover, white
America, wishing to atone its guilt, looked for guidance to minority
leaders. From their perspective, minority leaders discovered that their
counsel could guide federal and state governments. Affirmative Action (AA)
grew this way in the early and middle 1970's. The originally reasonable and
fair-minded rationale of AA was that lingering consequences from generations
of discrimination had left white and minority populations at unequal
starting-points; therefore a handicapping strategy was adopted to
"affirmatively" eliminate the disparity. The problem seemed amenable to
statistical methods -- more about that below.Also by George Winkel:
 |
 |
©2001 all rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part prohibited without
the express written consent of Interracial Voice.