As the 2010 decade comes to a close, one of the defining characteristics of her has been a re-emergence of 19th century type racism but with a modern face. The roots of it never disappeared, but changed form.
A common complaint about race comes in the form of admissions to major economic or social institutions, such as the workplace (public and private) or the university system. While there are legitimate complaints against racism that have been lodged and cannot be denied, the face of “discrimination” has changed so that instead of fixing a real issue, the burden is transferred from one group to another. Some of this is done out of genuine animosity, and some of it out of intentional political manipulation, for much of the current rise of racism today has been formed by legitimate grievances gone ignored or mocked and not able to be resolved in a reasonable way, and for a long time.
Much of these grievances come from “civil rights” legislation, which have resulted in the outright disenfranchisement of men, mostly of (as the US Census defines it) “white, non-hispanic” origins in favor of women, other ethnic groups, foreign immigrants, and increasingly sodomites. It is a well-known fact that being of any one or multiple of the above groups results in direct tax breaks for an employer, as well as stiff penalties for “violating” the rights of one of them, and as such employers tend to allow more leniency to them and has lead to the return of racially-charged language among those most affected. Because this is well-known, it is also a fact that said “protected classes” at times will abuse their positions intentionally, which only contributes to the animosity.
Another well-documented fact is that due to the fact that East Asian nations tend to send their wealthiest and most intellectually-promising students abroad, they tend to be disproportionately represented in the university system. It is not a bad thing in the sense that if the university is truly based on intellectual merit and hard work, then those most deserving should be given preference regardless of race. It is not the fault if a person is born with certain physical characteristics or not, but whether he has the capacity to successfully do the work demanded of him.
Major universities are known to have “diversity quotas,” in which they are required by law to allow in a certain number of students due to their racial background even if they clearly demonstrate an inferior capacity to perform the work asked of them. As one example I can speak of having seen it myself, an American woman of Afro-Latin heritage with a solid “B” average was offered two full-scholarships to two major universities, while multiple other women of “white, non-hispanic” heritage with 4.0 GPAs and many more qualifications received at most only a few thousand dollars in scholarship money.
I emphasize the issue here is not race, but the principle of academic work. The color of one’s skin does not make for a successful doctor, lawyer, professor, or businessman, but the ability to perform the task at hand. There are fools of all races just as there are intelligent people.
This phenomenon described above is an oft-cited complaint, as people who should not be receiving scholarships are getting them, and those who should are being denied them.
However, this pattern is going through a change that is now expanding to not only “white, non-hispanic males,” but to Asians of all genders, and is starting in the university system after a federal judge has ruled in favor of Harvard University in a high-profile court case centered on the college’s consideration of race in its admissions decisions.
U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs said in her decision that Harvard’s admissions process is “not perfect” but passes constitutional muster. She said there is no evidence of “racial animus” and no evidence “that any particular admissions decision was negatively affected by Asian American identity.”
The group behind the lawsuit, Students for Fair Admissions, claimed in the 2014 lawsuit that Harvard intentionally discriminates against Asian American applicants. The group is led by Edward Blum, a conservative activist who has fought against affirmative action and other laws involving race and ethnicity, such as the Voting Rights Act. Blum said the group will appeal the decision.
“Students for Fair Admissions is disappointed that the court has upheld Harvard’s discriminatory admissions policies,” Blum said in a statement Tuesday. “We believe that the documents, emails, data analysis and depositions SFFA presented at trial compellingly revealed Harvard’s systematic discrimination against Asian American applicants.”
The principle of the court case is simple, that Harvard University is holding students of Asian heritage to a higher academic and admissions standard than other races while at the same time giving preference to students of black or Hispanic heritage on the basis of race. In this way, they charge that the university is actively discriminating against not only “non-hispanic whites,” but also Asians.
This is an interesting case because it comes at a time of massive demographic changes in the US.
The “white, non-hispanic” population has massively declined since the 1960s and has been fueled by a number of factors, including contraception, abortion, and a refusal to have children.
It is estimated that by no later than 2043, America will be come “majority-minority.”
This poses an interesting problem to the current model of “inclusion,” as it operates on the assumption of a “white, non-hispanic” majority that is favored to the detriment of all other groups.
In this sense, the many laws meant to promote “diversity” have worked very well, as now a majority of people in college are women, and the participation of “non-whites” in the workforce, especially in white-collar jobs that pay a wage that one can support a family on, has greatly increased while at the same time, the former group has seen a significant decline in said jobs, resulting in an increase in poverty, unemployment, and indebtedness.
What I speak of here is not any sort of fantastical ideas about a “race war,” but rather a conflict brewing between different groups that were formerly allies.
Rivalries between blacks, hispanics, Jews, and asians are well-known. However, one could argue that among some members of said groups, there has been a general alliance between them among the more racially-inclined elements against, using racially-charged language, “the white oppressor.”
This ruling in the Harvard case sets up a precedent to allow for racial discrimination. The issue here is not about “non-hispanic whites,” but rather how the other groups will perceive it between themselves.
The frustration from the Asian bloc is understandable and justifiable. However, as different groups continue to intermarry and produce children with each other, as their numbers grown proportionately in society, (a) will legal precedents for racially-based discrimination increase, and (b) could there emerge a breakup of the current state of general unity between said groups that devolves into a tribalistic-type fight within the ranks of society? Likewise (c) what effects will this have on the state of “civil rights” legislation, and (d) how will the “non-hispanic white” bloc respond to it?
There are already complaints coming from the corporate world about how (almost entirely Hindu) Indian immigrants use diversity laws to come to the US and take positions of power in corporations, but then after taking power will only hire Indians and openly flout anti-discrimination laws, and then are not prosecuted. This has been a source of frustration for “non-hispanic whites,” but has been noted with frustration by blacks, hispanics, and Asians too.
Yet the issue is not per se just one group. It is part of a pattern that is emerging between an overenforcement of “discrimination” laws in one side while an intentional refusal to enforce them on the other side. This pattern has been happening for a long time, but its effects are becoming tangible in society and is causing social chaos to a point that in combination with demographic, social, and philosophical changes could redefined how people relate to each other as well as how laws are enforced.
We know that tribalism is increasing all around the world. This is immediately visible in Europe with the rise of nationalism, which is as ancient as the world of antiquity.
But America, being a comparatively “younger” nation and often in a state of motion, has constantly changed over the last five centuries. These changes have brought conflict as well as held major political and social implications.
Tribalism in the US is well known. The question becomes, what form will such tribalism take for the future?
This legal case and those related to it will need to be watched, as it will likely help to define the future of nationalist or tribalistic movements in the US.
Likewise, it is always important to remember, that while one should be happy with one’s roots, one can never forget the universality of all men, for the only “master race” in the eyes of God is those of the spiritual tribe of Israel, which comes through submission to His revealed truth in Christ, as the coming of Christ as revealed in the Bible has the answer to the racism of the modern world.