People will often throw the word “racism” around just to suit their political ends. For example, many white supremacists claim they are the “victims” of “anti-white” racism in the United States.
This is a suggestion that’s easy to disprove, but it requires an exploration of history. I understand that white supremacists don’t like the idea of books. This is why they ban books. They also want to ban higher education. Eventually, they’ll probably ban reading itself.
When you look at the history of the United States, you see that there have been many structures implemented to benefit white people at the expense of all other races. One example can be seen in the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act signed into law by Franklin Roosevelt in 1944.
This bill is more commonly known as the G.I. Bill, and probably everything in it would be decried as “socialism” by modern Republicans. Essentially, it gave white soldiers funding for education and housing.
It’s important to note that these benefits only went to white soldiers even though black soldiers also served honorably during World War II. It’s important to remember that World War II happened during the Jim Crow era in the United States. It was an era of blatant racial oppression.
Historians like to view the signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 as the end of the Jim Crow Era. That law provided protections to the American people from various forms of discrimination. It could be seen as the anti-white supremacy law.
Unfortunately, the Civil Rights Act was largely gutted in 2013. Gutting the Civil Rights act is why we have gerrymandered districts that essentially allow minority rule in the United States. This is why we can’t have things like health care reform even though a large majority of the American people have expressed support for these ideas.
This is also what it means when we discuss concepts like institutionalized racism. There is a structure in place in the United States that allows white men to have easier access to wealth and power. This structure also denies this access to minorities, women, and other marginalized groups.
Nevertheless, even though white men enjoy huge advantages in the United States, they like to claim that they are the targets of “anti-white” racism. However, this statement is a deflection.
The truth is that nobody is targeting white people for violence or exploitation. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of social justice activism that’s meant to protect individuals who have become wealthy through various mechanisms of exploitation.
Take, for example, the debate surrounding minimum wage. The modern federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009. It stands at $7.25. With increases in the cost of living, it’s no longer possible to survive on $7.25 an hour.
Employers that only offer minimum wage are therefore exploiting people. However, it’s interesting to see how this debate is often presented in the media. In recent years, there have been a large number of articles that blame workers rather than employers.
People say things like “nobody wants to work anymore” or they accuse employees of “quiet quitting” rather than demonstrating the proper respect and commitment to their jobs.
These arguments are dishonest. They’re designed to present the exploiters as “the true victims,” even though there would be plenty of workers if these employers simply committed to fair compensation.
The same thing is true about the concept of “anti-white racism.” The reality is that anti-white racism doesn’t exist in the United States. The easiest way to prove this is to simply follow the money. It’s impossible to escape the fact that white people control a disproportionate amount of wealth compared to their percentage of the population.
Naturally, white people will turn around and say that they have more wealth because they “worked for it” or they “earned it.” However, the roots of modern wealth were established back in 1944 by the G.I. Bill, and non-white people were deliberately denied that advantage.
Deceit is always an obstacle on the road to equality. The true villains of history always want to rearrange the narrative and present themselves as the victims. However, assessing the distribution of wealth is a convenient way to achieve an unbiased viewpoint of the situation.
It’s shameful to think that anyone who speaks up for the marginalized is likely to be called an “anti-white racist.” Decent, hardworking, honest people don’t have to look too hard to see unjust situations. For some reason, there are groups in the United States that are more interested in providing subsidies and tax breaks to the obscenely wealthy than helping out working-class people who are struggling.
Before you accuse somebody of being an “anti-white racist,” take a moment and consider what they’re saying.
It’s not anti-white to fight for working-class people to get a higher wage.
It’s not anti-white to fight for affordable health care for everyone in our country.
It’s not anti-white to work to protect Social Security and Medicare.
It’s not anti-white to insist all our children should have access to high-quality education.
These are common-sense reforms that would substantially improve the working-class white community, along with everyone else. Insisting that these policies make somebody an “anti-white racist” is only doing the work of the true oppressors.
Comments / 277