It’s Not Racism, It’s Majority-ism

There’s an 800lb gorilla in the room that everyone seems to be ignoring when discussing racism and the supposed “privilege” of being born white.

I maintain that whatever privilege may be attributed to a person’s skin color pales (pun intended) in comparison to the difference in sheer numbers. In other words, any privileges enjoyed by whites aren’t due to the color of their skin, but because they constitute a large majority of the country’s population.

In practically every social construct, majorities, especially a large majority, will become the dominant force – it’s natural. It suggests that the primary reason for white people historically being dominant over blacks can be more accurately attributed to there being roughly 5.8 times as many whites as blacks in the United States.

As of 2015, whites (alone) made up 77.1% of the U.S. population while blacks (alone) accounted for 13.3% (latest census.gov figures).

It’s counterintuitive to expect a majority so large to voluntarily cede control to the minority. The “majority rules” is a cultural norm and commonly accepted practice. It governs our elections as well as almost all group decisions. Barring any specific racial component, decisions affecting the entire country will necessarily affect far more whites than blacks and consequently, consideration must be given to the resultant effects on both segments.

That is not to say that the effect of a decision on the minority should be dismissed, only that it necessarily must be given less weight than the larger majority. This has been true throughout history in any sort of government that pretends to be more or less democratic. This consideration is no less valid today.

However, today we’re seeing unscrupulous activists trying to gain the advantage by attempting to convince gullible white people that they are guilty of some misdeed simply by being born white – the activists are selling the concept that there is an “original sin” of whiteness and those who are born white need to recognize that sin and accept their guilt.  Even though they are guilty of nothing more than being born white.

Once they’ve convinced enough gullible whites that (somehow) they are at fault for the tribulations of scores of unidentified and nameless black victims, they’ll be expected to pay for their misdeed (of being born white) with some form of financial atonement, e.g., reparations.

Nowhere is the ratio of whites to blacks mentioned. The activists don’t consider the disparity in sheer numbers among our population; instead, they intentionally misdirect attention to focus on what they’re selling: that blacks are being under-represented and slighted simply because of the color of their skin. They’ll never admit that their minority position in the population might not warrant any more representation in a disbursement of goods or services. The fact that they are outnumbered by almost 6 to 1 is never considered.

A similar situation exists when we are faced with issues concerning the LGBT groups, especially the “transgender” segment. According to a Gallup June 2016 study, there is about .6 percent of the population that identifies as being transgender. Note that value, it is .6 percent, not 6 percent. In other words, less than one percent identify as transgender, while those identifying as LGBT account for 4.1%.

That prompts the question of how much accommodation is reasonable to assign to .6 percent of our population (1.4 million of 325,114,000)? How much accommodation can be tolerated if it creates hardship for the majority? Would that be “fair”?

Once again, we see significant majorities of heterosexuals and one would expect that decisions, policies, and rules would be made with that fact in mind, while still providing reasonable accommodation for the LGBT minority.

My point is that instead of making everything a black vs. white issue or heterosexual vs. LGBT argument, it would be far more equitable to frame the discussion as one of a majority/minority relationship. Of course, that would take the race and sexual orientation issues out of most negotiations, and I can guarantee you that the “social justice” activists won’t hear of it. It would remove the personal component and make the issue simply one of proportionality – basing the distribution of goods or services on the ratio of one group to another.

But we know that the “social justice” activists won’t accept that solution since it won’t make them more equal than others. They’re not protesting for equality, they’re protesting to gain an advantage over those whom they consider less deserving (especially hetero white males).

Garnet92.

 

 



Categories: General

Tags: ,

2 replies

  1. They would lose the whine factor if they looked at it with your kind of logic, Garnet. Despite the minority status, they were already equal before the protests, but that’s not good enough – they want to be special and receive special treatment.

    A good example of that is the black students demanding a black only graduation ceremony. They seek elevation while completely ignoring the fight for equal rights that took place some 60 odd years ago.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: