Wow: House Dems Fire Staffers For Being White…
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, the House Democrats’ powerful campaign arm, has just abruptly purged half a dozen staffers. Why? Because they are white.
It appears that no one had anything against these particular staffers … except for the color of their skin. Although roughly half the committee’s full-time staff (13 of 27) were nonwhite, this was not enough for some Democratic members of Congress. They complained DCCC Chairwoman Cheri Bustos of Illinois had brought in too many white staffers when she won the position. And they put enough pressure on her that she sacrificed her loyal staffers to the god of diversity.
There are two possible interpretations of this mass-purge at the DCCC. Either a few Democrats are making a racial issue out of a patronage question, once again knifing each other under the cover of intersectionality, or Democrats are genuinely angry that half the staff at the DCCC are white. As often happens with the Democratic Left, it is difficult to tell just where the insincerity ends and the fanaticism begins.
But either interpretation implies that this is not a party fit to govern.
Tags
Who is online
67 visitors
If it were the other way around, we would never hear the end of the howling
They are so deeply involved with race and their own brand or racism!
Now that should keep Wynona busy for a while.
How many people know who Wynona is?
The seeded article is not a news story, although it is listed as "News and Politics" by the seeder. It should be under "Op/Ed" because that is what it is . It is an editorial by a fringey conservative online newspaper.
This is a link to the Politico story about the same situation. The word "white" does not appear in the Politico story.
That's not surprising. Politico is careful not to say negative things about left leaning groups.
This is further proof of who the real racists are.
This to me is mostly a debate about affirmative action. When you see disparities, do you choose to take "affirmative action" to fix the disparities? Or do you just turn a blind eye because it's easier to just get along with the status quo.
For nearly 200 years of our nations history we had white affirmative action with virtually every congressional campaign staffer being white. But I guess we should all get upset about black, female or minority affirmative action because that's just unfair to white people.
So skin color matters more than being qualified and doing a good job?
Or are you claiming that these staffers weren't fired because they had the wrong skin color; but based on their job performance? Despite all of the quotes from Democrats, and the head of the operation.
Affirmative action. Seems the left doesn't think minorities can compete on a level playing field; so quotas need to be enforced.
Spending more than 200 years with open prejudice, slavery and segregation, where people of color were denied their right to compete at all and then just saying the field is leveled because you took down the "Whites Only!" signs is beyond ignorant. But it is exactly what the bigots want, to continue their prejudices in silence and claim everything is fine.
Thank you for repeating the same BS over and over. A person's skin pigmentation is more important than their ability to do the job. Quotas are the only important thing. With that attitude we will never move past racial divides.
Here is an idea. How bout instead of worrying if someone is black or white or some minority or male and female, we just get the best most qualified for the job and forget quotas one other such affirmative action BA.
"Okay folks, we're running a bank here and we've only hired white employees since our founding. But that's all over now, the "White Only!", white affirmative action days are over! Now we'll go by qualifications only. Okay, black people, any of you have any bank experience? No? Any of you go to an Ivy league college? No? Didn't think so. Looks like it will be a while before we have a racially diverse employees, but hey, its not racist anymore!"...
As if the guy taking down the "Whites Only!" signs fixed racism in America, what a joke. The effects of racism are deep and last for generations, and black Americans were largely denied programs that helped build the middle class in just the last half century, we're not talking two or three generations back. We're talking one or two generations at most, millions of black Americans still able to remember vividly the open hate and racism from the 1950's and 1960's. The wounds are still fresh, the effects of their mistreatment still blatantly visible, still obvious racial disparities in the justice system, but some selfish self serving bigots want to wash their hands of it as if they never had anything to do with it so it's not their problem.
"African-American veterans received significantly less help from the G.I. Bill than their white counterparts. "Written under Southern auspices," he reports, "the law was deliberately designed to accommodate Jim Crow." He cites one 1940's study that concluded it was "as though the G.I. Bill had been earmarked 'For White Veterans Only.' " Southern Congressional leaders made certain that the programs were directed not by Washington but by local white officials, businessmen, bankers and college administrators who would honor past practices. As a result, thousands of black veterans in the South -- and the North as well -- were denied housing and business loans, as well as admission to whites-only colleges and universities. They were also excluded from job-training programs for careers in promising new fields like radio and electrical work, commercial photography and mechanics. Instead, most African-Americans were channeled toward traditional, low-paying "black jobs" and small black colleges, which were pitifully under-financed and ill equipped to meet the needs of a surging enrollment of returning soldiers.
The statistics on disparate treatment are staggering. By October 1946, 6,500 former soldiers had been placed in non-farm jobs by the employment service in Mississippi; 86 percent of the skilled and semiskilled jobs were filled by whites, 92 percent of the unskilled ones by blacks. In New York and northern New Jersey, "fewer than 100 of the 67,000 mortgages insured by the G.I. Bill supported home purchases by nonwhites." Discrimination continued as well in elite Northern colleges. The University of Pennsylvania, along with Columbia the least discriminatory of the Ivy League colleges, enrolled only 46 black students in its student body of 9,000 in 1946. The traditional black colleges did not have places for an estimated 70,000 black veterans in 1947. At the same time, white universities were doubling their enrollments and prospering with the infusion of public and private funds, and of students with their G.I. benefits.
When we all go back in time to the 1940's, 50's no or 60's I will try to remember that but the last I looked it was 2019. Get up with the times.
As if that time period was another planet and not connected in any way to 2019, right? As if many of those who lived through the 1950's aren't still alive today, the damage done to themselves, their families, their neighbors, their kids. We're not talking about the 1860's that some apparently only want to remember with statues of the bigots who fought to protect their owning of humans as cattle, we're talking one generation back.
I'm sure many white Americans don't see any reason they should have to bear any of the burden for the previous generations open discrimination, but just hiding your racist grandparents, the legacy they left you and how they got it in the closet and acting like everything is fixed is just cowardly.
Imagine that one of the white bank employees from my above parable shouted out to the bank boss "Hey, why don't we train and hire say, 5 blacks to fill the lowest paid jobs here, like security guard or bank teller, but of course, never management?" to which the bank President relied "What? Are you crazy? Taking away five jobs from qualified white workers? How could you even suggest such a thing?"...
Affirmative action isn't just for black Americans either, it's been used for disparaged and persecuted groups before.
"After the war, the JDC (Joint Distribution Committee)—working together with the Jewish Agency for Palestine, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS), and other organizations—became the central Jewish agency providing support and financial assistance to Jewish survivors of the Holocaust residing in the displaced persons (DP) camps in Germany, Austria, and Italy. The JDC provided food to augment official rations, supplied clothing, books, and school supplies for children, supported cultural amenities, and bought religious supplies for the community . Between 1945 and 1950 alone, some 420,000 Jews in Eastern Europe become beneficiaries of the Joint, which spent over 300 million dollars on assistance and sent an army of professionals (doctors, nurses, teachers, social workers, and administrators) to serve the needs of approximately 700,000 people each month —both in and outside of the DP apparatus. From 1947 on, an increasing part of the JDC budget was devoted to assisting refugees to emigrate from Europe ."
Affirmative action can take many forms, but its central concept is helping other humans who have experienced tragic loss, whether its systemic generational discrimination, segregation, genocide, forced from homes and homelands turning people into refugees who are often discriminated against by their new host countries if allowed in at all.
Affirmative action: noun - the practice or policy of favoring individuals belonging to groups known to have been discriminated against previously.
Eventually, the need for affirmative action disappears as those previously discriminated against truly do blend into the societies that eventually embraced them, even if they didn't at first. Most today can't recall the fact that Irish and Polish immigrants were initially discriminated against for decades. It was easier for them to integrate of course, and after a generation or two, not many could even tell what racial community they came from and much of the discrimination naturally evaporated. Sadly, that hasn't happened as quickly with black Americans since they were, of course, far more visible in the community and easier for those still harboring deep seated generational prejudices to avoid and move away from. The integration is slowly happening, and yes, in 2019 we've made a lot of headway. But for many Americans like myself, watching the Trump Presidency and his followers feels as if we're losing ground in the fight for equality for all regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof. The criticism of the DCCC's choice of affirmative action is evidence of this backsliding.
I don't know who "they" specifically is, but the way these things go, I wouldn't be surprised if it was one person - maybe two - and probably on Twitter. That's all it takes anymore.
If they would have just pulled a Rachel Dolezal and told them they identify as black they probably would have been given promotions.
Firing people based on skin color. It's obviously bad enough such blatant racism exists in this day and age, but for a major political party to be the perpetrator is truly depressing. But when said party fixates on racial identity rather than the individual (much like when they implemented Jim Crow laws) , I suppose such deplorable acts are inescapable.
Could it be that these fired staffers were low job performers who just happen to be white?