White Men are the new minority. They can’t get scholarships for school because of the colored and lady folk. Except, that’s not true. Not even a little bit. […]
Well, I have the numbers for the Nationwide study. I’ll admit it, these are the numbers that dance in my head when I hear “White people/white men are the new minorities.” Ready? Here we go…
White: Scholarship Recipients-798,400 Total Private Scholarship Funding-$1,891 Million
Black: Scholarship Recipients-129,000 Total Private Scholarship Funding-$345 Million
Latino: Scholarship Recipients-103,900 Total Private Scholarship Funding-$236 Million
Asian: Scholarship Recipients-52,800 Total Private Scholarship Funding-$186 Million
American Indian: Scholarship Recipients-19,000 Total Private Scholarship Funding-$56 Million
Native Hawaiian: Scholarship Recipients-6,200 Total Private Scholarship Funding-$30 Million
Multi-Racial: Scholarship Recipients-40,200 Total Private Scholarship Funding-$156 Million
The study goes on to say that LESS THAN FIVE PERCENT of ALL scholarships and LESS THAT TEN PERCENT of INDIVIDUAL scholarships consider the student’s race among their eligibility criteria. Soooooooo….What were you saying about white men being the new minority?
With all this information, I was still able to find page after page of race baiting white only scholarships. The sick part is that although I was able to find many white only scholarships, I was not able to find one (at least not on any web site that I looked at) that didn’t preface the information with some form of “Minorities get everything handed to them. Now it’s our turn.”
“White power secures its dominance by seeming not to be anything in particular. As the umarked category against which difference is constructed, whiteness never has to speak its name, never has to acknowledge its role as an organizing principle in a social and cultural relations.”—George Lipsitz, The Possessive Investment in Whiteness (via sociolab)
“Part of the racialized sexism wants everyone to think that a 15-year old Mexican is not a girl, she’s a woman. We know she’s a girl. We can never emphasize this enough, because this is the fate of colored girls globally right now: the denial of their girlhood, the denial of their childhood, and the constant state of risk and danger they are living in.”—bell hooks, Homegrown: Engaged Cultural Criticism (via nyx2701)
“This is a pretty common perception of White Identity that should definitely be talked about more. Nobody wants to be left out of shit, but the fact that Whites literally cannot handle it (while other races put up with it day-in/day-out) and feel personally attacked when excluded from Non-White safe-spots tells you 1. how rarely White people experience someone excluding them based on skin color and 2. how completely White culture has failed to provide tools for sharing space, instead teaching Whites that all space is White space (“because all space is space for everyone”, a perception Whites share with no one).”—foxtalbotnegatives (via humanformat)
“You improve them, my boy! Can’t you see that yourself? You stimulate them! You make them think and scheme. You drive them to poetry, science, religion, all that makes them what they are for as long as they last. You are, so to speak, the brute existent by which they learn to define themselves. The exile, captivity, death they shirk from—the blunt facts of their mortality, their abandonment — that’s what you make them recognize, embrace! You are mankind, or man’s condition: inseparable as the mountain-climber and the mountain.”—The Dragon (Grendel by John Garder)
“Insensitivity can cover a range of sins, from the minor (being unhelpful) to the more serious—say, treating others like they are less than human. Further studies by Vohs and her colleagues have shown that prompting people to think about money—a technique known as “priming”—makes them less likeable and friendly, and more likely to agree with statements that support an unjust, social-Darwinist status quo (for example, “Some groups of people are simply inferior to others”). In a particularly disturbing part of one study, the team primed people with money, then gauged their empathy by eliciting reactions to a theoretical scenario involving a belligerent homeless person. The researchers offered the subjects a chance to agree with statements that dehumanized others (“Some people deserve to be treated like animals”). The money-primed group was more likely to agree.”—Why it matters that our politicians are rich - Ideas - The Boston Globe (via sociolab)
So way back during my school days, when pseudo-taboo topics like socialism were brought up, I was actually very surprised by how they weren’t immediately condemned and shoved under the rug. But it was presented in an extremely peculiar way.
Whenever a teacher would talk about socialism or communism it would follow this formula of:
works great in theory. Supposed to be wholly beneficial to society
a few countries tried it out for a while and subsequently “lost”
fails due to “human nature” corrupting it and resulting in totalitarian regimes
We would be told these things and just accept them because to us, the way they were presented made perfect sense. After all, they weren’t “bashing” socialism, but simply saying that it can’t work due to our own imperfections as human beings.
But after a while I began to see the fallacy in this argument, primarily due to the fact that capitalism (which was usually equivocated with democracy and therefore untouchable), was never questioned. They theory behind it was explained but the results never addressed. A grade school teacher would probably never bring up the environmental and political exploitation of the developing world or the oppression of the working class that’s required for our capitalistic system to function, and it was always just implied that it’s the natural continuation of human nature. That this is simply the only way for us to function as a people.
Personally, I feel like neither of these systems work in real world application, and although I lean heavily towards socialism, I feel like a balance needs to be struck between socioeconomic ideologies in order to bring out the best in all of them while buffering against the negative consequences.
But I’d also like to call into question the concept of corruption by “human nature.” Most people write off this selfish, capitalistic way of life as the biological necessity for evolutionary success, but I see it more as a dominant Western discourse. Just like we’re all trained into this Eurocentric way of seeing the world, I think we’re all trained into seeing this materialistic, capitalistic way of life as simply natural and biological.
And even if the tenets of competition and inequality were set in our genes, why would we allow ourselves to be constrained by them? It makes no sense to base an advanced, post-industrial, globalized society off of concepts that were necessary for our prehistoric ancestors’ survival. Just like racial division and gender binaries, I feel like this is a purely social construct that we desperately need to move past if we seek a prosperous, healthy planet in the next century and an egalitarian human society.
“Yes, the government can help, but the idea that the federal government should be running schools, frankly much less that the state government should be running schools, is anachronistic.”—Rick Santorum, calling for the abolition of public schools (via underthemountainbunker)
‘When it comes to reproduction there are,’ a student reminded me at a college event, “inevitable differences between boys’ and girls’ bodies you can’t get around.’ Of course there are. But the question has always been how much difference that makes.
Sex is not just about reproduction and the interesting property of some bodies to produce offspring when they are rubbed together at the right time. On the contrary, Sex is the primary property of all human bodies, including those that cannot now or never will participate in procreation, such as infants, adolescents, transsexuals, the very old, women past menopause, sterile and infertile people, vasectomized men, hysterectomized women, the seriously infirm, and some intersexuals.
If Sex is not just about reproduction, it is not just about genes, XY chromosomes, and hormones either. Sex is introduced to explain skeletal structure, mental aptitude, posture, emotional disposition, aesthetic preference, body fat, sexual orientation and responsiveness, athletic ability, social dominance, shape and weight, emotional lability, consumer habits, psychological disposition, and artistic ability. It is also supposed to explain any number of so called ‘instincts,’ including the nesting instinct, the maternal instinct, and perhaps even the Budweiser instinct.
”—Riki Wilchins, Queer Theory, Gender Theory (via croatoan)
“No one could blame American women here if they all suddenly decided to leave the country saying, ‘That’s it, we’re fucking out of here, this is complete bullshit.’ There has been a debate on contraception in the last week so ludicrous that part of me was wondering if it was in fact a performance art piece, to make us all question how terrible it would be to live in a country where something like this could actually happen.”—John Oliver on American contraception debates, The Bugle 183. (via futureabortiondoctor)