Senator Jim Webb certainly decided to take advantage of the moment to inject his ideas on racial matters into the conversation, didn’t he? I guess Webb has always been an advocate for the non-elite whites of the South.
After five more novels, he wrote a work of nonfiction, Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, tracing the role people of Scots-Irish ancestry have played in American history and culture. Webb argues that, contrary to the “cracker” and “redneck” stereotypes often applied to the Scots-Irish, many of whom settled in Appalachia, the American Midwest and the American South, the Scots-Irish were central to defining American working class values and culture. He lauds the fiercely independent streak and individualism of the Scots-Irish, and explains how their political pragmatism has often led them to play the role of swing voters in elections, for example as Reagan Democrats, and as voters for Ross Perot and Reform Party. Critics complain that errors in this book include incorrect time frames, omissions, misinterpretations (such as viewing the American Civil War as a continuation of the centuries-old Celtic-Saxon conflict), and bias stemming from Webb’s feelings of persecution as a veteran of the Vietnam War.
I think his column suffers from some of the same shortcomings as his book, but I don’t begrudge him his self-anointed role as champion of the cracker/redneck. I guess my main objection to his piece is that he whitewashes poor white southerner’s role in fighting for slavery and then supporting Jim Crow. I mean, in one sense he is only echoing Shirley Sherrod’s observation that white elites pitted poor whites against poor blacks in order to control both of them. That’s true, but it seems irrelevant for assessing how blacks experienced Jim Crow. I don’t think anyone can plausibly argue that the Ku Klux Klan was an elitist institution, for example.
I see his point about enforced diversity helping people (like Korean immigrants) who never faced anything like Jim Crow. And he’s right that the demographics of the country are changing and have been changing since immigration policies were relaxed in the 1960’s. But he falls into the trap of thinking that Affirmative Action is primarily about atoning for slavery. Affirmative Action actually has done more for women than it has done for blacks.
I don’t know. I’m not wedded to policies put in place 45 years ago, as if they can’t be revisited. But I don’t think Webb has an accurate picture in his head about where the balance of injustice lies in this country. He points out some legitimate shortcomings in our policies and he balances the picture a bit by talking about the historic academic and economic underachievement of poor Southern whites, but his solution is too all-embracing and a bit premature.
His ideas are provocative, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. What do you think?
