Statesman.com’s Patrick George reports on a new scholarship aimed at a group that has been downtrodden and discriminated against like no other in American history: white males.
Have no fear, though. The group, which goes by the moniker “Former Majority Association for Equality,” is clearly run by some intellectual heavyweights.
[Colby] Bohannan, the group’s president, said the name comes from the idea that “if you’re not a male, and if you’re not white, you’re called a minority.” However, he said, “I’m not sure white males are the majority anymore.”
I’m going to guess that Bohannan is a little hazy about a number of political issues, but the whopper here is that he seems confused about the definition of “majority” – which, as you will recall, is featured in the name of his organization. From Merriam-Webster:
Photo: Kelly West (Statesman.com)
Definition of MAJORITY…
3 a : a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total <a majority of voters> <a two-thirds majority>
b : the excess of a majority over the remainder of the total : margin <won by a majority of 10 votes>
c : the greater quantity or share <the majority of the time>
So with the exception of rare societies where most of the women died off, white men have seldom been a majority. And re-incorporating themselves as the [slightly more correct] “Former Plurality Association for Equality” wouldn’t help, because there tend to be approximately equal numbers of men and women.
Unless, of course, the group proposes that we roll back that pesky women’s suffrage legislation [and, how foolish of me, the fifteenth amendment], and get back to basics:
4: the group or political party having the greater number of votes (as in a legislature)
The more likely explanation, of course, is that what Bohannan really intended was to create a scholarship – and associated sympathy points – for a group which retains disproportionate political, financial and social prowess in the US: again, white males.
But then again, Bohannan is majoring in mass communication – so who would expect him to play the numbers game? And like many white men, he’s also known for his keen sense of fiscal responsibility:
A search of public records indicates Bohannan pleaded no contest to charges of theft of property of less than $500 in 2001 and of issuance of a bad check in 2003. William Lake , the group’s treasurer, pleaded no contest to issuance of a bad check in 2008.
Ouch! And ever-vigilant for intellectual depth, Youth for Western Civilization’s John Anderson picked up on the story, sagely noting that “[w]hat is remarkable is the lack of deranged left-wing opposition to this that past attempts have receieved [sic].”
The scholarship, which nobody has applied for yet – and which has so far raised only $485.00 – would require that applicants demonstrate financial need and are at least 25% Caucasian.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Applicants only have to be 25% Caucasian but I doubt anyone less than 100% Caucasian would win their pathetic scholarship. 9_9 Obama is 50% white after all….
If I wasn’t a senior, I would totally apply for this.
Pingback: Who am I arguing with now? Vanderbilt edition « Unamusement Park
Let’s see if I can summarize this post:
Bohannan: “It’s time in our society to look at the way our culture views race . . . It’s time to give everyone an equal shot.”
Jon Christian: “Not if you’re a white man! (PS u are stupid racist sexist criminal)”
“Unamused”:
I fear you have misread my tone. I could care less about who this money is going to, since it is, you know, their money. Affirmative action, targeted scholarships and the metaphysics of race are complex and fascinating issues, and probably not ones that you or I have anything original to say about (although you are welcome to try.)
But none of that has the slightest bit to do with this post, which – in the spirit, you will note, of the “just for fun” categorization – merely points out that in spite of whatever else the ladies and gentlemen of FMAE are, they appear to be poorly-spoken imbeciles. While I, and most rational persons, would kindly suggest that they target their efforts at making university more affordable for everybody, I do not resent their use of free speech, and begrudge only their poor sense of semantics.
Best of wishes,
JC
I acknowledge that this post was “just for [your] fun” at someone else’s expense. But the reason for the joke, the reason you’re going after these students in particular and looking for anything to give them shit over (they do not really come off as poorly-spoken or imbecilic), is that you think it’s ridiculous for white men to want scholarships of their own.
You aren’t writing “just for fun” posts about the scholarships exclusively for women, for gays, for blacks, and so on (there are hundreds of these). This is all about affirmative action and targeted scholarships. You think that “most rational personals” want these white students to help make university more affordable to everyone, but you’re not making fun of blacks-only scholarships and the people who support them: it’s fine for them to not give a shit about making university more affordable to everyone. Your post is explicitly racial: you don’t think white people can be discriminated against, even though they are, college scholarships being the relevant example.
You are a non-white (as far as I can tell) person ridiculing white people who want what can only be described as “fair and equal treatment” with regard to targeted scholarships. So, “just for fun,” let’s try it with the races reversed, okay? I’ll write about some stupid, poorly-spoken black people whining about discrimination, then tell you I wasn’t talking about “the metaphysics of race.”
Dear interlocutor,
I will struggle, for our mutual benefit, to respond in a non-mocking tone. Please understand that for two reasons, your puffy indignation has made that endeavor exceedingly difficult:
1) The astute HBD reader will note that my WordPress “gravatar” (I still wonder: what does gravy have to do with it?) and, with a cursory effort of stalking, my Facebook profile display my pasty white mug for the world to see – a luxury that anonymous
cowardse-warriors will never be able to enjoy. So as greatly as it tickles me pink that you assumed otherwise, you should pick a new label for me – maybe “race traitor,” in the lingo of some of your friends.2) I haven’t thought enough about restitution theory to know where I stand on targeted scholarships (race isn’t really my thing, as reading comprehension clearly isn’t yours) but the “reason for the joke” is to highlight the position of privilege from which a project like this arises. That our friends so densely and innacurately refer to themselves as a “former majority,” illustrates that their conception of white maleness is one of recently diminished stature, as in def. 4 rather than def. 3. You follow? Examining the biographies of historical and contemporary right race activists (see Marcus Epstein for an example with – at least – a genealogical similarity to yourself) I suspect that is the real crux of the issue: the intellectually mediocre and sexually frustrated spawn of an entitled lineage respond, instead of banking some hard work to succeed, by claiming a victim status of their own – apparently, in some cases, from behind the safety of an anonymous persona.
And the idea of me “in a rage” over this piddle? Your only hope of wiping the grin off my face at this point is to retreat to your basement for long enough that I forget about you.
Radically white,
JC
One. You haven’t addressed any of my points. Did you think I wouldn’t notice?
Two. Although it’s hardly relevant, take another look at your gravatar—the small version that appears next to each comment. You don’t look white. Must be a shitty photo—strange, considering you work at a magazine. (And why would I look at your Facebook profile?)
Three. It’s disingenuous to suggest that I’m friends with Stormfront members. I could list all the other ad hominem fallacies in your comment, but there’s no point. What kind of argumentation are they teaching you kids at Vanderbilt?
Four. Whites are, in fact, a former racial majority in Texas (source: the article you linked).
Five. As for your, er, “exploration” of the reasons why white men would think this way (“the intellectually mediocre and sexually frustrated spawn of an entitled lineage respond, instead of banking some hard work to succeed, by claiming a victim status of their own”) . . . well, as I pointed out, you think only non-whites and women can be victims. White men couldn’t possibly—they’re just stupid and can’t get laid and should work harder. Again, try it with the races reversed, and see how you sound.
You should be embarrassed for having written this; doubly so, for also being white.
Not only did I address your points, but I numbered them for you. 1) addresses the charge that I am a non-white person belittling white people, and 2) addresses your concern that my post merely pokes fun at the unfortunate. The more likely hypothesis is that you simply failed to notice.
And if I have inadvertently soiled your shadowy online identity, please take assurance that in each case it was either relevant or amusing (unlike the dismally shrill content of your “who am I arguing with now?” featurette). I apologize, then, for not taking you seriously.
[I cringe to waste any more of my time on this, but in order to direct this conversation in a constructive direction (again with the careful reading bit, I know) please note that my charge is that white men are seldom a population majority - and haven't been in Texas in recent history - not that white men and women have never been the majority. That is the central terminological idea of the post, and how the suffrage point is raised, with regards to def. 4. In general, please read more carefully.]
I did notice, but sadly neither of those was one of my points. There was no “charge” of non-whiteness—I just had to call you something. My mistake. If your Gravatar looked white instead of green-brown, I would have referred to you as a white person belittling white people. As for #2, my concern was actually that your post insults fun white male students because they are white males, under the false assumption that they still belong to a privileged class and therefore have nothing to complain about: “The more likely explanation, of course, is that what Bohannan really intended was to create a scholarship – and associated sympathy points – for a group which retains disproportionate political, financial and social prowess in the US: again, white males.”
Actual points of mine include: (1) whites actually are a minority now, so Bohannan is right; (2) everybody except white men gets their own scholarships—lots of them—and you don’t see anything funny about that, and don’t seem to care if they are trying to make “university more affordable for everybody”; and (3) you call these students unintelligent, illiterate, and sexist, but I don’t believe you would dare write this under your real name if the races in the story were reversed (i.e., it was about black students wanting blacks-only scholarships, saying the exact same things). What does that tell you about the balance of racial power in America?
If you want to know why I’m posting anonymously, just consider what well-meaning progressive types do to people who mention inconvenient racial truths, like James Watson. Some people—I don’t mean you—just want to shut down any real discussion of race. Talk about cowardice.
Apology accepted, with a caveat: there is a difference between using four-syllable words, in complete sentences, to make an argument which Jon Christian disagrees with versus dropping pretentious phrases like “your puffy indignation has made that endeavor exceedingly difficult,” and for that matter “interlocutor”, and the latter cannot satirize the former; and also, a difference between counter-arguments and scattershot insults about cowardice, Stormfront, reading comprehension, intellectual mediocrity, sexual frustration, and living in a basement (?).
Speaking of reading comprehension, and since you like definitions so much, here’s one of minority group: “A minority is a sociological group that does not make up a politically dominant voting majority of the total population of a given society. A sociological minority is not necessarily a numerical minority . . .”
Then a majority would be not necessarily a numerical majority, but merely a “politically dominant voting majority”—which, it seems to me, white men no longer are, because white people are on the decline in Texas, now under 50% (making white men less than 25%).
Is it possible this is what Bohannan meant? No, of course not; he’s just illiterate. And racist and sexist, obviously.
I know, I know. You just wanted to take cheap shots at white guys. You didn’t want to actually defend your beliefs with arguments. Ugh, why can’t everyone just understand that white men are privileged and bigoted and keeping everyone else down and we need to stop them?
U.A:
This conversation is not going to move forward constructively until we can agree that there is a difference between white men and white people. For your benefit, I will copy and paste what I wrote before:
“[I cringe to waste any more of my time on this, but in order to direct this conversation in a constructive direction (again with the careful reading bit, I know) please note that my charge is that white men are seldom a population majority - and haven't been in Texas in recent history - not that white men and women have never been the majority. That is the central terminological idea of the post, and how the suffrage point is raised, with regards to def. 4. In general, please read more carefully.]”
White men were never a population majority. They were a voting majority back when women couldn’t vote. It is fairly obvious that this does not mean that white men are automatically sexist etc.
Well, my last comment already acknowledged the difference between white men and white people, as well as the obvious fact that white men have never been more than 50% of the American population. So let me just spell out my claim again, this time in mind-numbing detail:
Bohannan was contrasting minorities, which today means “disadvantaged sociological groups” (e.g., women before suffrage and blacks before civil rights), and does not mean numerical minorities (because every group of interest is a numerical minority, as you have so often pointed out, so what would be the point of labeling them as such?); contrasting them with the majority, which—being the opposite of “minority” in the above sense—would mean the dominant, advantaged group (e.g., white men were dominant before suffrage and civil rights). That’s what he meant by “majority” vs. “minority”; I suppose this is why “some writers prefer the terms ‘subordinate group’ and ‘dominant group’ rather than ‘minority’ and ‘majority’, respectively,” according to Wikipedia. Less confusing for you.
Now, white men are no longer “the opposite of a minority,” because they are not a dominant, advantaged group (in light of suffrage + civil rights + their declining share of the population). Thus, if you insist on calling blacks and women “minorities” (i.e., disadvantaged groups; not minorities in the trivial sense that they are less than 50% of the population), then you have to accept that white men aren’t a “majority” (i.e., dominant group) anymore. Therefore Bohannan is correct.
Keep staring at it until you see why I’m right.
Of course, my real point was that you were only calling him stupid because you’re biased against white people acting in their own interests. But that seems to have fallen by the wayside.
LOL
Pingback: Big Lies « Unamusement Park
Pingback: Unamusement Park » Blog Archive » Big Lies