The “dead fish” of affirmative action come to the surface

When you put toxic pollutants into a stream you don’t see the dead fish at the spot, you see them downstream. That is the way all toxic social policies work. You may not realise the mistake until it is very late in the day, maybe even too late.

Affirmative action is the toxic pollutant that was dumped into US policy some decades ago. The violence and arson of the BLM movement represent the dead fish that have come to the surface. Jacques Barzun sounded the warning in 1965 but it was too late.

From the comments, the poison was the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and there that would have worked in partnership with the Great Society welfare reform that destroyed the black/African American family. Did it have the same effect among the lower strata of the white population? Did anyone ever suggest affirmative action for white trash, along the lines of Pauline Hanson’s idea about assistance on the basis of need rather than pigmentation?

In terms of toxins in the stream, let me  mention two more [not to mention Keynesian economics and cultural Marxism]. These are the school curriculum reforms of the Rudd Gillard era and the injection of RE into the electric power supply.

On education, it must be fun to adjust the deckchairs on the university Titanic but there is a herd of elephants running wild in the primary school classrooms.

As to RE, contemplate the idea of a gigantic irrigation scheme built without checking on the frequency and duration of droughts in the catchment area!

To spread the word about wind droughts and other RE issues, these are the notes for talk at the Humanist Forum in Sydney last week.

Why Wind Won’t Work HH 8 July

This has been running every Wednesday for 45 years and it provides a drop-in centre for people in the vicinity who don’t have TV or access to a public library to keep warm on winter evenings. It is very much a sample of “people in the street” with scarcely a uni degree or a scientist in the room. There was a surprisingly good Q&A session. I think these ideas can be communicated effectively if the presentation is not derailed by the climate issue and it is not treated as a party political issue.

I also did a Zoom webinar with a group of primary school children, admittedly from families of climate realists, and they were  very keen to be Junior Windwatchers!

Also my son came to lunch and set up a Windwatchers Anonymous Facebook page but he went home before we put any content into it. Watch this space!

This entry was posted in American politics, International, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to The “dead fish” of affirmative action come to the surface

  1. stackja

    All created equal.
    Nothing special.

  2. Mak Siccar

    In his 2005 book Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study, Sowell observed: “Despite sweeping claims made for affirmative action programs, an examination of their actual consequences makes it hard to support those claims, or even to say that these programs have been beneficial on net balance — unless one is prepared to say that any amount of social redress, however small, is worth any amount of costs and dangers, however large.”

  3. Tom

    Never forget that affirmative action is the abandonment of merit. It is the mother of identity politics from the 1970s.

  4. Suburban Boy

    The “toxic pollutant” in the US was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Its devastating impact on American society in the half-century after its enactment is analysed by Christopher Caldwell in his recently-published book The Age of Entitlement: American Since the Sixties.

  5. NuThink

    “Remember, a dead fish can float downstream, but it takes a live one to swim upstream.”

    ― W.C. Fields

  6. Rafe Champion

    Thanks for the reminder Mac, this is my review of Sowell’s book.

    Suburban Boy, thanks for that reminder, someone told me that I had to read that book and I have it but not yet opened. Does he refer to Barzun? I suppose I should consult the index if I can find the book. So the act was in 1964, Barzun’s book appeared the next year, he was probably writing the Preface to the revised edition while the Act was being debated, I wonder what he said in the press at the time.

  7. Rex Mango

    Rafe, excellent post.

  8. Andre

    I understand the point being made and certainly the use of “white trash” in referring to poor, disadvantaged and ill educated people is common, particularly in the US. But if reference to similarly disadvantaged people was rendered using the descriptor of “black ****” what would be the reaction in these divisive times?

  9. thefrollickingmole

    the Civil Rights Act of 1964

    Which begat the grievance “studies” industries which have polluted the universities.
    Which begat very large numbers of credentialed (its a Degree!!) but functionally ignorant & useless people entering the civil service.
    Which begat programs
    And here we are.

  10. Rafe Champion

    Thanks Max, all compliments are accept with pleasure, nice to know some of these arrows hit a receptive target!

  11. John A

    thefrollickingmole #3511542, posted on July 13, 2020, at 10:29 am

    the Civil Rights Act of 1964

    Which begat the grievance “studies” industries which have polluted the universities.
    Which begat very large numbers of credentialed (its a Degree!!) but functionally ignorant & useless people entering the civil service.
    Which begat programs
    And here we are.

    I first read that word as “pogroms” and thought how perceptive, even if they were an accidental by-product.

    These days, I have read a lot more about the deep state and its perpetrators, and I am less sure it is accidental.

  12. Ed Case

    ***the Civil Rights Act of 1964***
    means that since 1964, every action of Government and Business is required to conform to the Act
    as the first priority.
    Government funding for this requirement has amounted to $40 trillion since 1964.
    Combined with the earlier Food Stamps programs of the 1953-61 Eisenhower administration, it means blacks on Welfare don’t have to pay for food, medical care or accommodation.
    Why has it been allowed to continue 60 years?
    Because blacks are merely the conduit for the money rather than the beneficiaries.

  13. Rafe Champion

    The same with Aboriginal Affairs (or whatever) post Whitlam. But don’t mention any names on TV.

Comments are closed.