welsch@houxu.UUCP (10/01/83)
In a recent article the following statement was made. White men make the vast majority of important decisions in this country. There are a number of false connotations that such statements promolgate. First, is that all white men make "important" decisions. This is false. Fact - very few (less than 1% of the US population) people make "important" decisions. The second false connotation, is the connotation that if we can just be certain that minorities participate in the making of "important" decisions then all (more) "minority" problems will be solved. Fact - there are more black people in more important decision making positions today than there were in 1960. Fact - the average adjusted income for a black family today is less than it was in 1960. Third, is the false connotation that we can create equality by simply shifting who makes decisions. Fact - there is more discrimination between white males than between members of any any other groups ie. decisions as to which white male to hire are not made less based on ability than on who you know, what school you went to, what economic class you are a member of, how you dress, what religion you are, etc. Fourth, is the false connotation that "white men" as a class are responsible for the situation that a small percentage of white men make most of the important decisions. Fact - this is a historical remnant of the emergence of Western Europe as a dominate force and later the emergence of USA as a dominant force. Fifth, is the false connotation that this can be changed without changing our culture. This is false as long Judeo / Christian / Moslem ... religions teach that "men" make important decisions. How can we keep people from believing other wise. People will act on their beliefs. Larry Welsch houxu!welsch
notes@ucbcad.UUCP (10/02/83)
#R:houxu:-21100:ucbesvax:10300023:000:6238
ucbesvax!turner Oct 2 08:57:00 1983
Larry:
Boy, you sure read a lot into this very simple observation:
White men make the vast majority of important decisions
in this country.
I note that you do not try to dispute it as a fact, but choose, rather,
to see how many ways it can be distorted into an exaggeration. As such,
your analysis lacks anything resembling balance.
[The] First [false connotation] is that all white men make
"important" decisions. This is false. Fact - very few (less
than 1% of the US population) people make "important" decisions.
Perhaps you take "country" as establishing the context of "state power".
(By extension, corporate power as well). I immediately took the context
to be "national culture." In which case, we have allowable interpretation
that applies to the following (admittedly somewhat cliche'd) "important
decisions":
"My wife should support me through graduate school, since my
earning power will be greater in any case--it's in her best
interests."
"My job is more important than my wife's, so if I want to advance
in the company, and if that requires moving around the country
a lot, then we will move."
"No wife of mine is going to work, if I can help it."
No, not all white men make these sorts of decisions. (Nor are all such
decisions made by men who are white.) But I did not take the statement
in that sense--rather, that the vast [?] majority of important decisions
are made by people who are white and male. It is sad that it takes
economic crises to shake these attitudes--and it's not clear that most
women are benefitting anyway (Schlafly's arguments are lent support in
this, that much "liberation" comes down to "free to be exploited more.")
The second false connotation, is the connotation that if we can
just be certain that minorities participate in the making of
"important" decisions then all (more) "minority" problems will
be solved. Fact - there are more black people in more important
decision making positions today than there were in 1960. Fact -
the average adjusted income for a black family today is less
than it was in 1960.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see how the "White men..." statement implies
that the simple installation of minorities in prominent positions is going
to make a difference overall. Certainly, this statement is used as
ammunition in such arguments. But, taken in the meager context you
provide, that interpretation is not a foregone conclusion.
Third, is the false connotation that we can create equality by
simply shifting who makes decisions. Fact - there is more
discrimination between white males than between members of any
any other groups ie. decisions as to which white male to hire
are not made less based on ability than on who you know, what
school you went to, what economic class you are a member of, how
you dress, what religion you are, etc.
This is an excellent point. And a good argument argument against AA/EOE
policies -- that they are meat-axe solutions for problems that are at best
"surgical" in nature, and quite often (to extend the metaphor) "inoperable".
You do not mention, however, that with all this coterie-politicking, class
warfare, in-group behavior, and religious prejudice, it seems still that
women and minorites get squeezed out of the picture. Surely, weakened by
constant struggle, these white men would fall prey to more organized outside
groups? But that doesn't seem to be happening. Could it be that, as
mutually hostile as they are, they still have some edge?
Fourth, is the false connotation that "white men" as a class are
responsible for the situation that a small percentage of white
men make most of the important decisions. Fact - this is a
historical remnant of the emergence of Western Europe as a
dominate force and later the emergence of USA as a dominant
force.
Again, the "White men..." statement is a comment. It says: this is roughly,
the composition of the elite in this country. The connotation you ascribe
to it here is not poorly founded: all elites are motivated to perpetuate
themselves. To call while-male predominance an "historical remnant" seems to
say that, as a phenomenon, it has momentum, but no means of self-propulsion.
Do you really believe that? No, you say:
Fifth, is the false connotation that this can be changed without
changing our culture. This is false as long Judeo / Christian /
Moslem ... religions teach that "men" make important decisions.
How can we keep people from believing other wise. People will
act on their beliefs.
Ah, you leave us with a large smoking hole in your own foot. These cultures
"teach" that "'men' make important decisions." Again, you ascribe to
the above statement the idea that no cultural changes are required to
bring women and minorities into real decision-making roles. This is just
ridiculous--every feminist worthy of the name, and many of those working
for racial justice in this country, will readily admit that if the "White
men..." statement has any value as a prescription, that it is a statement
for cultural change.
In general, your whole polemic reeks of an attitude of "powerless before
the tidal forces of history". Right. Don't struggle. Take what you can.
These attitudes are realistic, if you assume that we live in some sort of
timeless, feudalist backwash of human events. Personally, I'm glad that
the world is NOT like that, today.
I think, however, that there is the kernel of a profound truth in one of
your observations: that nominal access to power for minorities has not
yielded much progress--that in fact, there has been some general regression,
in some ways. This says something about how power is exercised here: it
corrupts, no matter what. Power is not the solution, it's the problem.
It's structural, and largely static. Is there any way out of this? What
kind of world *would* you be glad to work toward, if only at the rate of an
inch per lifetime?
Flame Off,
Michael Turner (ucbvax!ucbesvax.turner)
P.S. In the future, you should consider that prefacing every refutation
with "Fact - ..." becomes tedious, not to mention that it's an
invitation to be proved wrong at every turn. Stylistically, it's
a wart. It's small-town editorialism.engels@ihuxs.UUCP (10/04/83)
Less then 1% make important decisions? Please define an "important" decision. Whogets the job? Who gets the promotion? etc.....