From: johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Art Johnson)
Subject: Re: Who cares what whites think about racism ?
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 23:43:18 GMT

In article <38114@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> djohns@elm.circa.ufl.edu (David A.  
Johns) writes:
> In article <1992Dec28.230123.24444@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>  
johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu (Art Johnson) writes:
> 
> #      This leads to the question of why so many whites approve of,
> # say, Italians, or Jews, or Koreans, helping themselves through
> # group solidarity, but disapprove when Africans propose doing the
> # same thing.
> 
> What makes you think "whites" approve of other groups' groups?  I grew
> up hearing that Jews were "clannish", for instance, because of all
> their self-help groups.

     First of all, please note that I wrote "many whites", not "whites"  
(or even "most whites"), so as to avoid making a blanket accusation. What  
makes me think that "many whites" approve of other groups' groups? A lot  
of personal experience talking to whites, mostly, as well as a fair amount  
of my own historical reading. Incidently, I too have heard some whites say  
that Jews are "clannish". However, in most of these cases, the level of  
disapproval tends to be significantly less when the topic is Jewish  
self-help than when it is African self-help.
   
> # In the other cases, the size of the groups is quite small, so they
> # pose no real or imagined power threat, no matter how well organized
> # they may be.
> 
> You've obviously never heard of the "International Jewish Conspiracy",
> the Mafia, the "Yellow Peril", or "Papal control of the presidency",
> etc., to say nothing of the fear of communist subversion.

     Oh, I have heard of them, but I think that the grip of the first four  
"ideas" on the imagination of the overwhelming majority of white Americans   
is now very minor (and I am thinking in terms of the present). The fear of  
Communist subversion (until two years ago) *was* a significant fear among  
a lot of whites, true. Strangely enough, some of these people also tended  
to say that Communism ==> "Negro rule".
 
> I think the objections you hear from whites with respect to black
> associations is not their existence, but their insistence on
> government (or school) support.  Here, at least, the arguments aren't
> over the Black Student Union as such, but over its demands for
> funding.

     I have often heard criticism of black associations by whites,  
although the criticism is louder whenever the question of government  
funding is the issue.
 
> On the other hand, I've never heard any criticism of the NAACP or
> other privately funded black organizations.

     I have. The type of criticism depends on how the black association is  
funded, however. If the association is getting (or trying to get) public  
funding, the objection is that the state should not be supporting  
something that directly benefits one particular ethnic group. If the  
association is funded privately, the objection is more philosophical, i.e.  
that a private self-help association for blacks, while not illegal, is  
*morally* indefensible, because any such association is a priori a  
*separatist* organization.
 
> Just what "objections to black solidarity" did you have in mind?

     For the most part, objections to black economic solidarity.
 
> David
> 

Arthur Johnson
johnson@whitewater.chem.wisc.edu