From: revpk@cellar.org (Brian 'Rev P-K' Siano)
Newsgroups: soc.men
Subject: Re: Yet Another AA Argument
Date: 23 Jul 92 05:00:51 GMT
Organization: The Cellar BBS and public access system

sheaffer@netcom.com (Robert Sheaffer) writes:

> In article <1992Jul17.193404.25537@ncar.ucar.edu> gary@colossus.cgd.ucar.edu 
> >
> >  Suppose a white man is incredibly racist, and via this racism, becomes
> >  extremely wealthy. He leaves this vast wealth to his son, who feels guilty
> >  about his father's racism, and the son decides to use his father's wealth
> >  to promote blacks, via gifts, scholarships, etc. Are these blacks of the
> >  same status as the racist man, since they benefitted from his racism? It's
> >  an interesting point of view, I'll have to say that.
> 
> This kind of statement betrays a gross misunderstanding of economics. How
> does one "profit" by becoming a racist? If anything, racism works
> *against* one's wealth and success, not in favor of it. A true capitalist

        Never mind the existence of wealthy racists-- Adolph Coors, for 
example, who tended to refer to blacks as 'monkeys,' or H.L. Hunt, who funded 
all sorts of crackpot reactionary schemes. Or, on a smaller scale, Willis 
Carto, founder of the Liberty Lobby and other anti-Semite initiatives. He's 
wealthy-- and a racist.
        The fact is, wealth and racism are not causally related; one doesn't 
become rich _because_ of being a racist, and wealthy people are not, because 
of their wealth, racist.
> will work with or for anyone, and trade with anyone, so long as their
> money is green. But a racist says, "I won't do business with Company X,
> because they're black-owned." At the very least, that attitude limits
> his ability to get a good deal; more likely, it ends up costing him
> money, since if it is true that blacks are discriminated against, they
> would *have to* work harder for less than others. So the true capitalist
> would expect to find better value in black workers and firms. A racist
> will say, "I want an all-white work force in my business", and let's
> say the going rate for white laborers is $8/hour. A black would say,
> "But I'm willing to do the same work for $6/hour, since all those
> racists won't hire me," and thereby give the capitalist a chance
> to make a buck. So, where racism is real, it offers the capitalist a
> chance to get rich by *ignoring* it.
> 
> All this talk about "getting rich through racism" is just Politically
> Correct propaganda that they dish up in colleges these days.
> -- 
        The above example of 'logic' -- for want of a better term-- might 
make sense in some kind of hermetically-sealed world. But there are such 
things as race conevnants on properties, where the properties cannot be sold 
to blacks or Asians, REGARDLESS of the economics or limiting of the market. 
In fact, there are people who would be willing to pay more to live in an area 
where there are fewer blacks, or where the minorities are 'handled' by the 
local bacon. Where do you think the phrase "white flight" came from?

        And when a large section of the country existed under vitual 
apartheid only forty years ago, we can easily see that business in the 
racially-unequal South certainly didn't suffer. Rather, institutionalized 
racism helps ensure cheap labor; if a black man can't start a business 
without the Klan burning it up, it's a lot easier to get him to work for low 
wages.

        This doesn't mean that someone can't reason according to Robert's 
scenario above; I'm certain that someone out there has. But it's nutty to 
believe that a 'capitalist' would reason in precisely that way. Chances are, 
he'd be on good terms with whoever helps to keep the labor cheap and willing; 
the mayor, chief of police, town selectmen, etc.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian "Rev. P-K" Siano                                  revpk@cellar.org
"Best Reason Not to Vote for Perot-- If he wins, it might encourage Bill 
Gates to run."