[Vision2020] Affirmative Action

Don Kaag dkaag@turbonet.com
Wed, 19 Feb 2003 07:02:21 -0800


--Apple-Mail-2-787748658
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset=ISO-8859-1;
	format=flowed

Rosemary:

You got me.  I was operating on memory(Something an Historian should=20
obviously never do in public.), and family wisdom passed down from my=20
grandfather.  That said, I think my several times removed grandfather=20
did his bit to destroy the institution of slavery at great personal=20
risk, both societally and militarily, and that is to his credit.

As for Truman, yes, his executive order was in '48, but based on the=20
Defense Reorganization Act of '47.  And of course it took time for the=20=

military to comply.  But not as much time as it took the country as a=20
whole after Brown VS Board of Education of Topeka Kansas in 1954.  It=20
took the Congress and the Supremes to impliment the Civil Rights Act of=20=

1964 to even get the ball rolling.

I have personal experience of the lack of prejudice in the military. =20
It is truly an institution in which merit and talent count for more=20
than color.  I point to Colin Powell and Chappie White, among others. =20=

Moscow is the "whitest" place I have ever lived.

And I still maintain that merit instead of affirmative action is a=20
better path.  It is demeaning to people of color to suggest that they=20
aren't smart enough to compete on an equal footing with other races. =20
Plus, it's just not true.

Regards,

Don

On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 01:49 AM, DonaldH675@aol.com wrote:

> Dear Visionaries.
> One of the most difficult issues for white people to acknowledge is=20
> that the color of their skin confers upon them a privileged status.=A0=20=

> This is particularly true in the United States and the Western=20
> European countries with colonial histories.=A0 In my experience, those=20=

> who complain most bitterly about the unfairness of affirmative action=20=

> legislation base their positions on the mythology that they, and their=20=

> families, are (were) free of the taint of racial prejudice. (This myth=20=

> is not dissimilar in type to the argument adopted by the majority of=20=

> French and German people following W.W.II.=A0 That is, all French =
people=20
> were really in the underground resistance - certainly they never=20
> collaborated; and all Germans really hated Hitler and tried to protect=20=

> Jews.)=A0=A0=A0 I wish that I could say with such self righteous =
certainty=20
> as Don Kaag that my family never oppressed anyone.=A0 Sadly, that is =
not=20
> the case.=A0 And indeed, if Don Kaag were to do a little research on =
the=20
> ancestor he so proudly claims, Gen. George H. Thomas, he would=20
> discover that those pesky slave owners, (which were never our=20
> ancestors) in fact were - although his family clearly operated on a=20
> much grander scale than mine.=A0 The following link=A0=20
> <http://www.aotc.net/Life1.htm> leads the reader to a contemporary=20
> biography of General Thomas, (written in 1872).=A0 Page 17 includes =
the=20
> following passage (the words "he" and "his" refer to General Thomas):
> "His departure from Texas brought to him a perplexing problem the=20
> disposition of a slave woman, whom he had purchased in Texas when it=20=

> was not practicable to hire a servant. This problem was not of=20
> difficult solution for an ordinary slave owner; but with Major Thomas=20=

> it was otherwise, since, to use his own words, he "could not sell a=20
> human being." He had been accustomed to the service of slaves all his=20=

> life, and felt no scruples in purchasing one, when in need of a=20
> servant. But when the question of the sale of a slave became a=20
> practical one, the nature of the transaction from this point of view=20=

> was so repulsive to him that it could only be answered in the=20
> negative, and although it was against his pecuniary interest to take=20=

> this woman with him to Virginia, he resolved to do it. He was a=20
> Southern man, at this time, so far as to introduce, by purchase, a=20
> slave woman into his family where she would always be treated kindly;=20=

> but he revolted at the possibilities of misery and cruel treatment=20
> which inhered in the system of American slavery. He was not then an=20
> abolitionist in the northern significance of that offensive term, and=20=

> doubtless he would have claimed, that, as a political matter, the=20
> institution of slavery was recognized by the National Constitution,=20
> and that any direct interference with it by Congressional legislation,=20=

> or partisan efforts to free the slaves, trenched upon the rights of=20
> the Southern States. But he could not sell a human being, one that he=20=

> had made is slave by purchase, a transaction which made chattels of=20
> men and women. A strong feeling obtained among the more cultured and=20=

> more humane classes in the South against the sale of family or=20
> inherited slaves, and with many, as with Major Thomas, there was a=20
> strong repugnance to the sale of purchased slaves, apart from any=20
> opposition to the institution itself. In the purchase the horrid=20
> possibilities were put out of view; but in sale they would force=20
> themselves into sight. Deciding not to sell his slave, Major Thomas=20
> took her with him to his home in Virginia, and did not see her again,=20=

> after going north, until as a free woman she became his voluntary=20
> servant. After the war this woman claimed for herself and her husband=20=

> and children the protection of her old master, and although it was=20
> both inconvenient and expensive for General Thomas to take them, he=20
> had them moved from Virginia to Nashville, Tennessee. They afterwards=20=

> caused trouble and anxiety. He tried to train them for a more=20
> independent life, and made an effort to induce them to start for=20
> themselves. But they were unwilling to leave him for an uncertain=20
> living, and they therefore remained with him until he was ordered to=20=

> the Pacific coast in 1860. It being then impracticable for him to give=20=

> them further personal care, he induced his brother living in=20
> Mississippi to give them employment, and with their consent, he sent=20=

> them to him."
> The point of this post does not rest on noble or abhorrent ancestors.=A0=
=20
> Their actions neither exonerate nor shame us.=A0 But, we cannot begin =
to=20
> address the pernicious effects of racism until we acknowledge the way=20=

> in which class, color privilege, and family history shape our present=20=

> opportunities and lives.
> As a historian I can resist clarifying another point in Mr. Kaag's=20
> post.=A0=A0 "In February 1948, President Harry S. Truman directed the =
U.S.=20
> armed forces to desegregate as quickly as possible. In July, he issued=20=

> Executive Order 9981 calling on the military to end racial=20
> discrimination. It would take several years-and another war-before the=20=

> military actually ended segregation."=20
> <http://www.gliah.uh.edu/historyonline/integrating.cfm=A0>.=A0
> Regards,
> Rosemary Huskey
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

--Apple-Mail-2-787748658
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/enriched;
	charset=ISO-8859-1

Rosemary:


You got me.  I was operating on memory(Something an Historian should
obviously never do in public.), and family wisdom passed down from my
grandfather.  That said, I think my several times removed grandfather
did his bit to destroy the institution of slavery at great personal
risk, both societally and militarily, and that is to his credit.


As for Truman, yes, his executive order was in '48, but based on the
Defense Reorganization Act of '47.  And of course it took time for the
military to comply.  But not as much time as it took the country as a
whole after Brown VS Board of Education of Topeka Kansas in 1954.  It
took the Congress and the Supremes to impliment the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 to even get the ball rolling.


I have personal experience of the lack of prejudice in the military.=20
It is truly an institution in which merit and talent count for more
than color.  I point to Colin Powell and Chappie White, among others.=20
Moscow is the "whitest" place I have ever lived.


And I still maintain that merit instead of affirmative action is a
better path.  It is demeaning to people of color to suggest that they
aren't smart enough to compete on an equal footing with other races.=20
Plus, it's just not true.


Regards,


Don


On Wednesday, February 19, 2003, at 01:49 AM, DonaldH675@aol.com wrote:


<excerpt><fontfamily><param>Arial</param>Dear Visionaries.

One of the most difficult issues for white people to acknowledge is
that the color of their skin confers upon them a privileged status.=A0
This is particularly true in the United States and the Western
European countries with colonial histories.=A0 In my experience, those
who complain most bitterly about the unfairness of affirmative action
legislation base their positions on the mythology that they, and their
families, are (were) free of the taint of racial prejudice. (This myth
is not dissimilar in type to the argument adopted by the majority of
French and German people following W.W.II.=A0 That is, all French people
were really in the underground resistance - certainly they never
collaborated; and all Germans really hated Hitler and tried to protect
Jews.)=A0=A0=A0 I wish that I could say with such self righteous =
certainty
as Don Kaag that my family never oppressed anyone.=A0 Sadly, that is not
the case.=A0 And indeed, if Don Kaag were to do a little research on the
ancestor he so proudly claims, Gen. George H. Thomas, he would
discover that those pesky slave owners, (which were never
<bold>our</bold> ancestors) in fact were - although his family clearly
operated on a much grander scale than mine.=A0 The following link=A0
<<http://www.aotc.net/Life1.htm> leads the reader to a contemporary
biography of General Thomas, (written in 1872).=A0 Page 17 includes the
following passage (the words "he" and "his" refer to General Thomas):

"His departure from Texas brought to him a perplexing problem the
disposition of a slave woman, whom he had purchased in Texas when it
was not practicable to hire a servant. This problem was not of
difficult solution for an ordinary slave owner; but with Major Thomas
it was otherwise, since, to use his own words, he "could not sell a
human being." He had been accustomed to the service of slaves all his
life, and felt no scruples in purchasing one, when in need of a
servant. But when the question of the sale of a slave became a
practical one, the nature of the transaction from this point of view
was so repulsive to him that it could only be answered in the
negative, and although it was against his pecuniary interest to take
this woman with him to Virginia, he resolved to do it. He was a
Southern man, at this time, so far as to introduce, by purchase, a
slave woman into his family where she would always be treated kindly;
but he revolted at the possibilities of misery and cruel treatment
which inhered in the system of American slavery. He was not then an
abolitionist in the northern significance of that offensive term, and
doubtless he would have claimed, that, as a political matter, the
institution of slavery was recognized by the National Constitution,
and that any direct interference with it by Congressional legislation,
or partisan efforts to free the slaves, trenched upon the rights of
the Southern States. But he could not sell a human being, one that he
had made is slave by purchase, a transaction which made chattels of
men and women. A strong feeling obtained among the more cultured and
more humane classes in the South against the sale of family or
inherited slaves, and with many, as with Major Thomas, there was a
strong repugnance to the sale of purchased slaves, apart from any
opposition to the institution itself. In the purchase the horrid
possibilities were put out of view; but in sale they would force
themselves into sight. Deciding not to sell his slave, Major Thomas
took her with him to his home in Virginia, and did not see her again,
after going north, until as a free woman she became his voluntary
servant. After the war this woman claimed for herself and her husband
and children the protection of her old master, and although it was
both inconvenient and expensive for General Thomas to take them, he
had them moved from Virginia to Nashville, Tennessee. They afterwards
caused trouble and anxiety. He tried to train them for a more
independent life, and made an effort to induce them to start for
themselves. But they were unwilling to leave him for an uncertain
living, and they therefore remained with him until he was ordered to
the Pacific coast in 1860. It being then impracticable for him to give
them further personal care, he induced his brother living in
Mississippi to give them employment, and with their consent, he sent
them to him."

The point of this post does not rest on noble or abhorrent ancestors.=A0
Their actions neither exonerate nor shame us.=A0 But, we cannot begin to
address the pernicious effects of racism until we acknowledge the way
in which class, color privilege, and family history shape our present
opportunities and lives.

As a historian I can resist clarifying another point in Mr. Kaag's
post.=A0=A0 "In February <bold>1948</bold>, President Harry S. Truman
directed the U.S. armed forces to desegregate as quickly as possible.
In July, he issued Executive Order 9981 calling on the military to end
racial discrimination. It would take several years-and another
war-before the military actually ended segregation."
<<http://www.gliah.uh.edu/historyonline/integrating.cfm=A0>.=A0

Regards,

Rosemary Huskey













</fontfamily></excerpt>=

--Apple-Mail-2-787748658--