<< NC RJA Repeal Passes House | Main | Former AUSA Becomes US Senator >>


A History of Discrimination

| 5 Comments
In recent days, here for example, I have criticized the reigning theory of Political Correctness.  The theory takes root in what is called "white privilege."  The main idea, in the abstract at least, is that white males have spent almost all of American history pushing everyone else around. The result is that women, minorities and, most recently, (domestically) smaller religions such as Islam have suffered discrimination.

The criminal law implications of this theory are clear and important.  One specific manifestation is the argument that crack cocaine offenses, committed disproportionately by blacks, have been penalized with excessive harshness borne of racism.  Another is that our reaction to Jihadist attacks, on 9-11 and in Ft. Hood and at the Boston Marathon, has unfairly targeted the huge majority of American Muslims who, like everyone else, want only to live in peace and safety. Thus we need to be, uh, careful about what we say.

The most ambitious goal of Political Correctness as applied to criminal law goes a great deal farther, however.  It is, by ginning up guilt, to erode the moral confidence we need to remain resolute in dealing with violent and dangerous people, whatever their race or religion. It is in no way to dismiss or diminish the cruel abuses of Jim Crow or of religious bigotry to understand that it is no favor to minorities to be timid in confronting crime  --  crime that, it should be noted, disproportionately and grievously injures them.

But the PC crowd is in a sense correct in pointing out that white males have shoved their way to the front of the line.  Today, June 6, is an apt occasion to remember yet another place where they are over-represented.
image

5 Comments

Kent,

By using that particular picture, and noting that today is June 6, I intended to refer specifically to the soldiers who stormed the beach at Normandy 69 years ago, paying a fearsome price for the freedom the yelpers in the PC crowd enjoy today.

Kent's Heritage report fails to make distinction between branches of the service as well as military occupational speciality. The enormous majority of enlistees in combat arms specialties are the much maligned white males. Below is a link to combat fatalities from '03 to '08 in Iraq. White males STILL sacrifice their lives in service to the country three times as often as all other race groups combined, and 100 times as often as women.

http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000671#miltfatstat

I can't speak for all combat arms branches, but in mine, the Field Artillery happens to be about 50% minority in the enlisted ranks and close to 95% white in the officer corps (at least in my battalion where I was S-1). I don't think it really means much beyond white people goto college at higher rates, though it should be noted the beloved Asian americans are largely absent in either the officer or enlisted ranks.

And, supposedly as a percentage of the population Native Americans have the highest service rate.


I think the point of my entry here might not be clear. It's to invite the PC pushers, whose anthem so often seems to be, "White Males Are the Devil," to reflect on who's buried at Normandy.

And there are three points behind that: (1) white males are not the devil; (2) whether you're white and male, or black and female, or whatever, has no moral significance of any kind (but what you do does); and (3) therefore using race and sex to try to tarnish the moral confidence America has earned and will need is so much perverse hogwash.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives