Since I was a kid sitting at my family’s dinner table in the ‘60s, listening to my parents discuss the issues of the day, there has been a black problem. That was over 50 years ago, and the issues are still here. Poverty, gangs, fatherlessness, an indifference to education, dependence on welfare. Why haven’t things improved for so man…
Since I was a kid sitting at my family’s dinner table in the ‘60s, listening to my parents discuss the issues of the day, there has been a black problem. That was over 50 years ago, and the issues are still here. Poverty, gangs, fatherlessness, an indifference to education, dependence on welfare. Why haven’t things improved for so many black people in America? At least Loury has the guts to say, You can’t put this all on Whitey. I appreciate that. Trillions have been spent, and still there are too many black people in the poor, uneducated category. I get the sense these three guys are carefully saying, ‘C’mon now, black people, time to fix yourselves. I hope so. I readily acknowledge that there are lots of highly successful, law abiding black people of intact families, and I applaud and admire their success. But as to the others, I have grown weary of their victimhood.
The same problems exist in Canada with Indigenous people. At age 18 they are given a $20,000. lump sum and post secondary education is free. Very few save a penny or finish high school. Canadian reserves are filled with inequality and nepotism. It's an endless financial drain.
The so-called "Black problem" (that's rich in a million and one ways) has NEVER been about the suppressed Black underclass that has little to no use for politics at all. They are either too busy striving to make the best of their situations or have totally checked out and, unfortunately, given in to a sense of hopelessness. Their concerns are only aired in light of some high-profile tragedy or egregious scandal involving actors of the state, and even then they are given short shrift as the media prefers to give more coverage to the professional advocates and critics of these folks who have the appropriate amount of bombast to keep ratings up unlike the actual members of the underclass who don't have the luxury of propagating partisan narratives at the expense of truth.
The "Black problem" has always comprised the lawless rabblerousers and lovers of freedom that refused to just sit down, shut up, stay in their assigned place, and accept what's been imposed upon them unquestionably. Leaders of slave rebellions, abolitionists, Black freedmen during Reconstruction, laborers and property owners who suffered violent racist attacks, founders of Black civic organizations, influential spokesmen and intellectuals, religious leaders, athletes, entertainers, veterans, early female civil rights activists, leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, brave young school desegregationists, 2A advocates, elected officeholders, Confederate critics, and so many others--including the children of the Second Great Migration whose parents migrated to Northern and Western cities for economic opportunity during WWII, crammed into substandard housing, and were victimized by deindustrialization and urban disinvestment policies who also became demoralized by the way Black Americans fighting for full equality and Black youth in major urban areas and in school desegregation procedures were unjustly treated by business owners, state/local government employees and officials, and law enforcement.
Anyone who ponders the so-called "Black problem" must necessarily do so divorced from the larger national and global contexts in which they are situated in reality since the name of the "problem" itself implies where it ultimately lies (which is by design). Consciously or subconsciously, such an approach is rooted in the oft-unexamined lie of the inherent racial inferiority of the enslaved and their descendants but clothed in more socially acceptable 'cultural' language in service of the advancement of a particular ideological narrative which also rests upon the lie. Little effort is necessary to challenge it when the fundamental humanity of a subpopulation is denied and selective aggregated demographic statistics (as well as popular media depictions) become completely representative of actual people in all of their beautiful diversity and details in the minds of countless individuals. The only silver lining here is that the uncritical embrace of one lie goes a long way towards disproving the other side of the lie regarding the inverse of inferiority.
In short, the trajectory of Black Americans over the past half-century or so highly resembles that of working- and middle-class America overall over the same period of time. Our particular exacerbated outcomes are rooted in our vulnerability to economic shifts and upheavals caused by prior political exclusion and disenfranchisement which ironically holds predictive power for the demographic majority (whose changing fortunes will no doubt be explained by structural macroforces almost exclusively as is the case today). There is zero justification for believing that drastically different explanatory factors sufficiently make the case.
This rings very true with me and I think we arrive at the same conclusion from different view points. Which is encouraging to me. I believe that the power in this nation is the individual citizen. All of the citizens no matter how long enfranchised. I also think that the political powers that be, particularly at the federal level, but not exclusively, do not believe that and see the individual as in need of control and has an army of self-professed, so-called well-educated "elites" to assume the mantle of control. So sometimes in furtherance of this government officials profess to lament the treatment of this group or that group as an excuse for this policy or that policy. But even if those lamentations are sincere, and frankly I am skeptical, the federal government is too massive and bloated to be administered effectively as are any policies it espouses. That is true whether the policy is the standard throw-money-at-the-problem as if enough money can fix anything or turn it into a law enforcement matter and have the FBI or IRS investigate. I see this going one of two ways. Either we continue down the road to hell of identity politics or the individuals in this country say I am done being classified by my government, unite as American citizens and vote accordingly.
Thank You for Your reply. I appreciate some pushback from liberals. Others might not. And You're very intelligent compared to me. However, I don't agree with everything You've "said." I'll hafta read over this a third time to make any more comments, if any. But I'll just bring up a few issues I would have with the first paragraph. My comments preceeded by ">>>".
"The so-called "Black problem" (that's rich in a million and one ways) has NEVER been about the suppressed Black underclass that has little to no use for politics at all."
>>> I dunno who You think the commenters here are referring to. Or, at least, who *I* believe they're referring to, when they talk of "the Black problem." Some have given praise to those who've managed to enter the middle class, despite the odds. Which is the majority of Blacks, right?
>>> No, it's this very underclass You "speak" of that is largely responsible for vast numbers of murders and abortions, right? Oh yeah. You "said" these are two of the typical shibboleths brought up, as if they didn't pertain. They do.
"They are either too busy striving to make the best of their situations or have totally checked out and, unfortunately, given in to a sense of hopelessness."
>>> True.
"Their concerns are only aired in light of some high-profile tragedy or egregious scandal involving actors of the state, and even then they are given short shrift as the media prefers to give more coverage to the professional advocates and critics of these folks who have the appropriate amount of bombast to keep ratings up unlike the actual members of the underclass who don't have the luxury of propagating partisan narratives at the expense of truth."
>>> Largely true. I didn't listen to the podcast, although I would-a been glad to read a transcript. Doesn't appear one is likely. But I suspect it was this very underclass of Blacks that Professors Loury and McWhorter were discussing, right?
>>> You're other two paragraphs were interesting, but would take more to unpack them. May, or may not, depending. TY again.
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. Here are my responses:
"I dunno who You think the commenters here are referring to. Or, at least, who *I* believe they're referring to, when they talk of "the Black problem." Some have given praise to those who've managed to enter the middle class, despite the odds. Which is the majority of Blacks, right?"
I was responding specifically to NCMaureen and pushing back on the notion that the "problem" is the Black underclass. It's largely the Black middle class, those who are motivated and ambitious, because the "problem" is challenging the system as is and it is Black folks who are climbing the ladder and not experiencing gains to the same degree as their White counterparts who are the most ardent about racial justice issues. Recall that the Civil Rights Movement was largely a movement of the Black middle class. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was the brainchild of Montgomery's Women's Political Council, a civic organization for professional African American women in the city, many of whom were educators and ministers' wives. Rosa Parks was a department store seamstress and well-regarded in the city.
In your view, who's the "problem" today: the poor in Appalachia or White liberal coastal-dwellers? Answering this question should shed light on the same question about the so-called "Black problem."
"No, it's this very underclass You "speak" of that is largely responsible for vast numbers of murders and abortions, right? Oh yeah. You "said" these are two of the typical shibboleths brought up, as if they didn't pertain. They do."
Yeah but those things aren't particularly problematic for the people talking about a so-called "Black problem." The rest of society doesn't care about the poor self-destructing; that's only useful as a political talking point. That's especially true as far as the Black poor are concerned; after all, the crack epidemic was never approached as a public health crisis.
"But I suspect it was this very underclass of Blacks that Professors Loury and McWhorter were discussing, right?"
Except the subject of discussion isn't the underclass at all. This is was simply yet another example of someone using a discussion about a racial issue--not a Black issue but a racial issue--as an occasion for a screed on what they perceive to be Black inferiority because that's all Black people are to them: not real human beings with human problems, but rather as a perpetual intractable melanated problem to be dealt with.
"I was responding specifically to NCMaureen and pushing back on the notion that the 'problem' is the Black underclass. It's largely the Black middle class, those who are motivated and ambitious, because the 'problem' is challenging the system as is and it is Black folks who are climbing the ladder and not experiencing gains to the same degree as their White counterparts who are the most ardent about racial justice issues."
> I think You've redefined the problem according to Your own designs. To me, and I believe NCMaureen, the problem *IS* the Black underclass. And the fact that this gets so little pushback from both Blacks and Whites. This is not a culture to be admired, yet Kendi states that all cultures are equal. Mebbe, but some cultures are more *lethal* than others. Plus, I don't see much congruence between the Civil Rights era and what passes for social "justice" these days.
"Yeah but those things aren't particularly problematic for the people talking about a so-called 'Black problem.' The rest of society doesn't care about the poor self-destructing; that's only useful as a political talking point. That's especially true as far as the Black poor are concerned; after all, the crack epidemic was never approached as a public health crisis."
> I'll go along with that to an extent. Like You "say," the poor get ignored, no matter the melanin. I think the problem comes up because all things Black are elevated these days. This despite the (don't care for the word) "problematic" culture of the Black underclass. The problem is people's ability to absorb such cognitive dissonance. If everything Blacks do is so great, howso this destructive culture?
> Also, it'd be a long discussion about the extent addiction is a public health crisis. Not saying it *isn't.* Just saying it isn't *strictly* a public health issue.
"Except the subject of discussion isn't the underclass at all. This is was simply yet another example of someone using a discussion about a racial issue--not a Black issue but a racial issue--as an occasion for a screed on what they perceive to be Black inferiority because that's all Black people are to them: not real human beings with human problems, but rather as a perpetual intractable melanated problem to be dealt with."
> I dunno about this. Like I said, I didn't listen to the podcast, so dunno what issue was. And I can only "speak" for myself. I largely agree with NCMaureen, and it's not a question of inferiority or superiority being defined by skin-color. I don't much cotton to a lotta J.D. Vance's politics, but I read "Hillbilly Elegy" with interest. It seemed there were some unfortunate similarities between that culture and the Black underclass. And that gets us back to:
"In your view, who's the 'problem' today: the poor in Appalachia or White liberal coastal-dwellers? Answering this question should shed light on the same question about the so-called 'Black problem.'"
> To me this is a tough question, because it's like asking which is blacker? The pot or the kettle? The way I would weigh it is like this: (And as I'm thinking about it, it's a tougher question still...) I think the poor in Appalachia are a very serious problem. Especially as it presents a situation that is likely to be exacerbated by AI and automation of the next decade or two.
> But I guess I'd say the White liberal coastal-dwellers are the biggest problem. You may be one-a these. What You call "challenging the systems as is," some others (like myself) would call it trying to bring the system to its knees. This delusional thinking that the system needs to be "dismantled" to eliminate (non-existent) "structural racism" is one *dangerous* piece-a clap-trap. Your views may, and likely will, differ.
> And I'm afraid that this problem of White liberal coastal-dwellers is a lot *more* intractable than the problem of the poor in Appalachia.
----------------------------------
That brings us to the second paragraph in what You wrote above:
“The ‘Black problem’ has always comprised the lawless rabblerousers and lovers of freedom that refused to just sit down, shut up, stay in their assigned place, and accept what's been imposed upon them unquestionably.”
> I’m sorry, but *TRUE* lovers of freedom don’t associate with lawless rabblerousers. Because *TRUE* lovers of freedom understand that there are responsibilities that go along with being allowed the freedoms.
“Leaders of slave rebellions, abolitionists, Black freedmen during Reconstruction, laborers and property owners who suffered violent racist attacks, founders of Black civic organizations, influential spokesmen and intellectuals, religious leaders, athletes, entertainers, veterans, early female civil rights activists, leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, brave young school desegregationists, 2A advocates, elected officeholders, Confederate critics, and so many others--including the children of the Second Great Migration whose parents migrated to Northern and Western cities for economic opportunity during WWII, crammed into substandard housing, and were victimized by deindustrialization and urban disinvestment policies who also became demoralized by the way Black Americans fighting for full equality and Black youth in major urban areas and in school desegregation procedures were unjustly treated by business owners, state/local government employees and officials, and law enforcement.”
> This sentence was too long. Nonetheless, I think it shows a romantic view that doesn’t really correspond with reality. I’m not “saying” it’s entirely incorrect. But that a lotta it just doesn’t have a lot to do with what’s going on *TODAY.*
> I would try to gently point out that Affirmative Action for the last 50 years has meant that it is, in actual *fact,* White males who are today fighting for full equality, right? You say White males hold most-a the positions of power? And how many of these White males in power are members of the Woke Religion? How many are fighting for the rights of women and Blacks at the expense of White males? (While maintaining their hold on power, of course.)
> I know this probably comes as a shock. May even sound ridiculous. But it’s an untold fact. That’s where we are *TODAY.* On the totem pole of life, in *way* too many ways, White males are below ground.
> I’ll just bring up the most ridiculous case: Reparations. There has never been a more stupendously stupid idea ever imagined. Looked at from multiple angles, it’s stupid in all respects. Yet it has gained some traction amongst White liberal coastal elites.
> The major problem, for one point that’s obvious to anyone with eyes to see, is that the issue that *should* be dealt with is to help POOR people withOUT regard to skin-color, right? Otherwise, You’d be looking at one-a the most blatant examples of racism anyone could imagine, right? Yet, for *some* reason, this is *not* as obvious as it should be. Why? As I “said” above.
> So, IMV (In My View), the idea that Blacks are treated unjustly needs to be balanced against how things are *TODAY.* Where, in a lotta cases, White males are treated “unjustly.” I put “unjustly” in quotes on purpose. Because the word “justice” has been extruded beyond all sense of meaning these days, is why.
Let me start with the middle of your post where you state "Like I said, I didn't listen to the podcast, so dunno what issue was. And I can only 'speak' for myself. I largely agree with NCMaureen..."
I think it's the fact that you don't see anything at all wrong with this is why we'll forever be at an impasse. No matter what the actual topic of discussion is, if it involves Black folks in any way, folks like NCMaureen and yourself feel entitled to hijack the discussion to talk about everything that's wrong with Black folks. Not only is the nomenclature, "the BLACK problem," a stark example of the identity politics that conservatives claim to loathe (obviously only when it comes from the other side), but it is offensive to all Black people because 1) you make the issue inherently racial--which is nothing more than racial essentialism--which erases any kind of distinctions that exist among us and 2) it's not at all reflective of the vast majority of Black Americans. This is why I'm firmly convinced that in you all's minds, the "worst" of us will always define all of us despite the fact that it doesn't at all even come close to constituting most of us. The only logical accounting for this is an undying embrace of the wicked, pernicious ideology of Black inferiority (which is the flip side of White supremacy).
At any rate, however you want to define the so-called Black problem, I'll just refer you to the eminent orator and minister, Frederick Douglass, who so masterfully dealt with this subject well over a century ago (the more things change, the more they stay the same I suppose):
"But I want however, to be clearly understood at the outset. I do not pretend that Negroes are saints and angels. I do not deny that they are capable of committing the crime imputed to them, but utterly deny that they are any more addicted to the commission of that crime than is true of any other variety of the human family. In entering upon my argument, I may be allowed to say again what should be taken for granted at the start, that I am not a defender of any man guilty of this atrocious crime, but a defender of the coloured people as a class...
But this charge thus brought against the Negro and as constantly reiterated by his enemies, is plainly enough not merely a charge against the individual culprit, as would be the case with an individual of any other race, but it is in large measure a charge constructively against the coloured people as such. It throws over every man of colour a mantle of odium, and sets upon him a mark of popular hate, more distressing than the mark set upon the first murderer. It points the Negro out as an object of suspicion, avoidance and hate...
I now come to the so-called, but mis-called 'Negro Problem'...
I say at once, I do not admit the justice or propriety of this formula, as applied to the question before us. Words are things. They are certainly such in this case, since they give us a misnomer that is misleading and hence mischievous. It is a formula of Southern origin and has a strong bias against the Negro. It handicaps his cause with all the prejudice known to exist and anything to which he is a party. It has been accepted by the good people of the North, as I think, without proper thought and investigation. It is a crafty invention and is in every way worthy of its inventors.
It springs out of a desire to throw off just responsibility and to evade the performance of disagreeable but manifest duty. Its natural effect and purpose is to divert attention from the true issue now before the American people. It does this by holding up and pre-occupying the public mind with an issue entirely different from the real one in question. That which is really a great national problem and which ought to be so considered by the whole American people, dwarfs into a 'Negro Problem.' The device is not new. It is an old trick. It has been oft repeated and with a similar purpose and effect. For truth, it gives us falsehood. For innocence, it gives us guilt. It removes the burden of proof from the old master class and imposes it upon the Negro. It puts upon the race a work which belongs to the nation. It belongs to that craftiness often displayed by disputants who aim to make the worse appear the better reason. It gives bad names to good things and good names to bad things."
Now, getting back to responses to your statements:
"the issue that *should* be dealt with is to help POOR people withOUT regard to skin-color, right? Otherwise, You’d be looking at one-a the most blatant examples of racism anyone could imagine, right? Yet, for *some* reason, this is *not* as obvious as it should be. Why? As I 'said' above."
So you're arguing that "the BLACK problem," which obviously isn't blatantly racist from your point of view, calls for colorblind solutions? Yeah that sounds about right.
"I’m sorry, but *TRUE* lovers of freedom don’t associate with lawless rabblerousers. Because *TRUE* lovers of freedom understand that there are responsibilities that go along with being allowed the freedoms."
This is very telling on your part. What do you think of the notoriously lawless rabblerousers like Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, John Lewis, MLK, etc.?
Also, I contend that your admission that the White liberal coastal elites are the more serious problem compared to the Appalachian poor (which is a proxy for all poor White Americans) lends credence to my argument that "the Black problem," as it were, is really all about Black Americans who are vocal about injustice--and they are disproportionately middle class and above, which is intuitive considering the fact that the greatest Black/White racial disparities occur at the upper ends of the socioeconomic spectrum, not at the bottom--and not simply the Black underclass. The only difference between the groups I asked you about and the groups actually under discussion is racial. It is the Obamas, the Ibram Kendis, Ta-Nehisi Coateses, Nikole Hannah-Joneses, Michael Eric Dysons, Ketanji Brown Jacksons, etc that are the problem. Opposition to the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory will drive more voters to the polls than any sort of policy designed to uplift Black poor folks every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Now I’ll point out where what You’ve written, KB, is simply illogical.
As far as Woke hypocrisy goes, what You’ve done is feel pretty daggone entitled Yourself and hijacked the conversation to talk about how great Black people are. Nothing so much wrong with that, other than the hypocrisy.
Where You say that all “folks like NCMaureen and yourself” wanna talk about is what’s wrong with Black folks? Take note how I group poor Blacks with poor Whites. Again, explain how You managed to ignore that?
I see You wrote, “2) it's not at all reflective of the vast majority of Black Americans.” Like NCMaureen wrote, there are LOT’S of law-abiding, &c., &c. I’ve written before, but not in *these* comments, that I believe the Black underclass make up 25% or 33% of Blacks. (Sorry, forget which at the moment. I’m thinkin’ 25%.) POINT IS You’re not saying anything we don’t know.
“This is why I'm firmly convinced that in you all's minds, the ‘worst’ of us will always define all of us despite the fact that it doesn't at all even come close to constituting most of us. The only logical accounting for this is an undying embrace of the wicked, pernicious ideology of Black inferiority (which is the flip side of White supremacy).”
I’ll repeat what I just wrote above. And add that AFAIK (As Far As I Know), only a Black racist would think this way about White people. And You’re not the first Woke hypocrite who’s slammed Whites for not dealing with Blacks as individuals, but feel free to do the *exact* *same* *thing* to Whites all the time. Very *convenient* for You Woke folk.
I read Frederick Douglass’s Fourth of July Speech a long time ago, so I’ll skip the long lecture.
I wrote: “…help POOR people withOUT regard to skin-color.”
You wrote right after that?
“So you're arguing that ‘the BLACK problem,’ which obviously isn't blatantly racist from your point of view, calls for colorblind solutions? Yeah that sounds about right.”
No. What I wrote means exactly, literally, what it “says.” I wrote nothing about “the BLACK problem.” It would appear that only a Black racist would turn around what a White person said in this convoluted manner, to make it appear like *HE’S* the racist. Or You have another explanation why You wrote this nonsense?
You don’t know much about me. Something funny? Due to a quirk of fate, I saw “To Kill a Mockingbird” when I was six. It had a lifelong impact on me. I haven’t known a lotta Black people. But with most-a them, it was a very *CLOSE* relationship. ALL-a them would be *real surprised* that You decided to call me a racist.
I dunno You’ve ever been to Professor Loury’s Substack. He was one-a the first I found. I’ve posted a *lotta* nice compliments to him. (Don’t agree with absolutely *everything* he says, but who does? *Almost* everything.) I don’t have a problem with Black people. I have a problem with Woke Black people.
Obama doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Black racists like Kendi, Coates, and Hannah-Jones, IMV (In My View). You want me to elaborate on that, KB? Ketanji Brown Jackson? Pfffft. You want me to elaborate on that, KB?
As far as Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglas? Different era. I dunno enough about John Lewis, but as far as Rosa Parks and MLK? You and I have an *entirely* different ideas about what notorious rabblerousers are, because they’re not. Nice try tho. “Very telling.”
“Also, I contend that your admission that the White liberal coastal elites are the more serious problem compared to the Appalachian poor (which is a proxy for all poor White Americans) lends credence to my argument that "the Black problem," as it were, is really all about Black Americans who are vocal about injustice--and they are disproportionately middle class and above,”
Again, I believe only a Black racist would take what I “said” about *White* people, and go through intentional contortions to come up with negative conclusions about what I think of Black people. IOW, sorry. It doesn’t lend *any* credence to Your argument.
First of all, I’d like You to point out, in *any* comments I’ve *ever* written here on CS over the past year, where I’ve ever called any-a this “the Black problem.” Second of all, You’re simply delusional if You think White people see a lotta problems with the Black middle class and above.
I believe You’re conflating two different things. Again: People (especially ME) don’t have problems with Black people. They have problems with WOKE Black people. Woke White people too, of course.
You may wanna be cautious about what You wish for, KB:
“Opposition to the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory will drive more voters to the polls than any sort of policy designed to uplift Black poor folks every day of the week and twice on Sundays.”
If the TRUTH about these things gets out, that’ll surely happen. But not in the way You think. You’re lucky that lies and hypocrisy carry the day, at least at the present time.
Finally, I invite You to respond to what I *actually* *wrote.* You skipped most-a it, and conveniently interpreted it (incorrectly), so that You could put out some talking points that have nothing to do with what I wrote. Try again? I’ll put forth another question to You, KB: Isn’t it racist that only Blacks like Professors Loury and McWhorter can state the obvious, but White people are called racists if they say the same?
Seriously, I’d probably be interested. I just suggest You use *logic* instead-a Wokespeak.
"As far as Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglas? Different era. I dunno enough about John Lewis, but as far as Rosa Parks and MLK? You and I have an *entirely* different ideas about what notorious rabblerousers are, because they’re not. Nice try tho. 'Very telling.'"
They were all lawbreakers who disrupted the social order for a higher, more just purpose which is why they were considered lawless rabblerousers in their day by those who opposed their activism. That was the entire point of the civil rights movement: civil disobedience, which is simply a more acceptable way to say "nonviolent lawbreakers."
"I’ll repeat what I just wrote above. And add that AFAIK (As Far As I Know), only a Black racist would think this way about White people. And You’re not the first Woke hypocrite who’s slammed Whites for not dealing with Blacks as individuals, but feel free to do the *exact* *same* *thing* to Whites all the time. Very *convenient* for You Woke folk."
Actually, I believe that, to some extent or another, we have all come to believe in the notion of White supremacy and Black inferiority, and Black folks are no exception at all. Frederick Douglass himself alludes to this so masterfully in the speech I posted excerpts of, which actually is *not* "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" but rather "Why is the Negro Lynched?" which can be accessed here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59116/59116-h/59116-h.htm
Douglas says,
"Now what the real problem is, we all ought to know. It is not a Negro problem, but in every sense a great national problem. It involves the question, whether after all our boasted civilization, our Declaration of Independence, our matchless Constitution, our sublime Christianity, our wise statesmanship, we as a people, possess virtue enough to solve this problem in accordance with wisdom and justice, and to the advantage of both races.
The marvel is that this old trick of misnaming things, so often displayed by Southern politicians, should have worked so well for the bad cause in which it is now employed; for the American people have fallen in with the bad idea that this is a Negro problem, a question of the character of the Negro and not a question of the nation. It is still more surprising that the coloured press of the country, and some of our coloured orators, have made the same mistake, and still insist upon calling it a 'Negro problem,' or a race problem, for by race they mean the Negro race."
Such an astute and enduring observation.
"No. What I wrote means exactly, literally, what it 'says.' I wrote nothing about 'the BLACK problem.' It would appear that only a Black racist would turn around what a White person said in this convoluted manner, to make it appear like *HE’S* the racist. Or You have another explanation why You wrote this nonsense?"
First of all, I never accused anyone of being a racist for having used the phrase "the Black problem." I explained why the phrase, if understood in strict socioeconomic terms, was problematic and misleading. But if understood in the way I contend it always has, most likely as half of a double entrende in certain contexts, then I'd actually say it's appropriately descriptive.
Also, I'm aware that you didn't introduce "the Black problem" to the discussion or put your explicit stamp of approval on the phrase, but you also didn't appear to register any objection to its racialized terminology. Even if you wish to officially call it "the Black underclass problem," the point yet remains: if the problem is associated with a particular demographic to an exceptional degree, then why shouldn't the solution also be targeted towards that particular demographic to an exceptional degree--assuming the goal is actually related to the disparity that the problem highlights.
"Isn’t it racist that only Blacks like Professors Loury and McWhorter can state the obvious, but White people are called racists if they say the same?"
I can assure you that whatever you consider to be "the obvious" that Loury and McWhorter are stating, it's not only Black college professors who are saying the same but that doesn't mean you're aware of when and where such conversations typically take place (and regular everyday people aren't having them via podcast), which are first and foremost for our benefit as the real life issues that they are and not for partisan political fodder to entertain those who have the luxury of time to be studiously dedicated to intently following politics regularly as we are. If you think Loury and McWhorter are the only Black people who, for example, think these DEI trainings and whatnot are much ado about a whole lotta nothing, then you don't know Black folks. So in terms of broad themes, such conversations are ongoing in quite dynamic ways. Now some of the stuff Loury and McWhorter discuss are somewhat niche or limited in scope also, so it's not like they are high-profile enough to be discussed as widely across the population (I'd actually throw the 1619 Project flareup in that category).
I'd appreciate it if You'd read what I wrote a little closer.
I understand those You mention were lawbreakers. I never denied that. What I actually WROTE was that I don't view them as "notorious RABBLEROUSERS." (Your words.) I still don't.
And You write "we have ALL come to believe in the notion of White supremacy and Black inferiority"?? (emphasis added) If You really believe that, I feel sorry for You. Because, in actual FACT, that is not the default opinion of any White people I know. So if You're speaking for other Black people besides Yourself, I feel sorry for them, too. And also because if so, IN THIS CASE, You are exhibiting intellectual inferiority. IOW, why on *earth* would ANY people think this way? Yeah, I know some do. All the Woke White people that load a lotta inferiority on Blacks by believing we should all have low expectations of Blacks. That's just plain ignorant, right?
Again, read carefully. I didn't say what You QUOTED was FDs "Fourth" speech. I wrote I had already READ THAT ONE, and didn't feel the need to read the one You quoted. I still don't feel the need to read what You quoted. It sounds like a lecture. My bad.
Now I'm losing patience. I may not make it to the end. You're blaming me because I didn't register any objection to the terminology. I REPHRASED NCMaureens WORDS AND LEFT THAT PART OUT, DIDN'T I? Correct me if I'm wrong. Pretty sure I did that, somewhere in the two tomes.
I apologize. I'm not sure I'm understanding what You're writing about, referring the "the Black Underclass problem. I'm guessing I agree. But I would point out that where You said White people view the Upper Middle/Middle class Blacks as being any problem, I disagree with that strongly. YOu stated that at one point.
Finally, I'm glossing over some things. If You CAREFULLY read what I write, You would-a noticed I've STATED I haven't known many Black people. I'm getting tired of repeating and clarifying what I've already written. I also stated I've had CLOSE relations with the few I have known.
Yeah, You would know what conversations are going on amongst Black people better than I do. I Blacks feel DEI is a crock, I glad to "hear" it. Amongst the what-i-call "Woke Black folks," You wouldn't likely hear that. You're sure right about one thing. The two Professors are *definitely* niche, because a large number of both Whites and Blacks don't *want* their voices heard. I'm NOT "saying" You're one-a these. Please don't read more into what I right.
Finally, I'm afraid we'll disagree on the 1619 Project. That was propaganda. What one would expect outta the NYT. NH-J HERSELF stated it was NOT HISTORY. She called it a "JOURNEY STORY."
So, pray tell, why was it sent out to so many schools to be *taught as history.*
Yeah, Blacks need to feature in history lessons more. If it were me, I'd tell BOTH sides-a Tulsa Race Massacre. Yeah, the massacre was horrible. But what gets lost is that, in the face of some-a the *worst racism* this country has ever seen, these Black people were able to create the "Black Wall Street." How was that possible? But the MAIN point is that they *rebuilt it again* after it was destroyed. The story isn't JUST about the harms done to Blacks, but the strengths they exhibited, right?
You'll probably take this wrong, but here goes: I read another book that wouldn't pass Black Woke's muster. Trying to recall... Found it, It was called "Hidden Numbers," and was set during the racism of the 50s. But the *point* of it was these Black Women Mathematicians that were "human calculators" before there were computers. Problem is, it was inspiring. Nobody'd wanna read that these days, right?
The whole *point* of the 1619 Project was to make America look bad, right? You'll admit that was the brunt of it. Probably not. Because You'd probably see it as just telling history like it was. Well, yeah. ONE SIDE of it. That's why I called it propaganda. It was a hit job.
All that to say...
If You're gonna reply, I'd appreciate it if You replied to what I actually wrote. I'm trying to do same.
But, per what You mentioned before: Since I never listened to the podcast, and almost certainly never will, "we're good." It's all good.
Well, well, well... “Ain’t this sumpin.” You wrote way up above, “As Loury stated in the podcast, we can go ‘raceless’ without eliminating ethnic distinctions that are rooted in a common history and culture.”
I read by sensei smell. And I haven’t completely decided if You, KB, smell like a Black racist or like a totally ignoramus. I suspect both. You most *definitely* aren’t coming across in any way, shape, or form as “raceless.” And THAT’s why we’ll forever be at an impasse. It’s 100% on YOU, KB0679.
You wrote the following? “... folks like NCMaureen and yourself feel entitled to hijack the discussion...“
And then You have the *gall* to write the following?
“1) you make the issue inherently racial--which is nothing more than racial essentialism--which erases any kind of distinctions that exist among us”
To ease the tension a little, I’ll use a phrase from the olden times: “It’s snowing down south.”
I dunno what sex You are, KB. Not important. This phrase was said when a woman’s slip was showing below their dress. When I use the phrase, I mean Your WOKE slip is showing. And the hallmark of Woke people is HYPOCRICY.
And ignorance. I would quote what I said, and what You quoted, and then explain it. Because You either intentionally interpreted what I “said” wrong, or You just lack understanding.
“I largely agree with NCMaureen..." Note that “largely” means “not entirely.” “Mostly.” Let us now try to analyze what NCMaureen wrote. I snipped some parts that I wouldn’t say. Let’s see where You disagree with the FACTS, KB.
<snip> “the issues are still here. Poverty, gangs, fatherlessness, an indifference to education, dependence on welfare.”
Are You gonna deny that these are issues in the Black UNDERCLASS, KB?
“Why haven’t things improved for so many <or as I would phrase it, “a minority of”> black people in America? At least Loury has the guts to say, You can’t put this all on Whitey.”
As I’ve “said,” I didn’t listen to the podcast. You deny this is what Professor Loury said, KB?
“I appreciate that. Trillions have been spent, and still there are too many black people in the poor, uneducated category.”
Amongst the Black UNDERCLASS. You see any problems like this, KB?
“I get the sense these three guys are carefully saying, ‘C’mon now, black people, time to fix yourselves. I hope so.”
Is this something You would be against, KB? Gang culture? Fatherless culture? (As I wrote above, not strictly a problem among Blacks, but Whites as well.)
“I readily acknowledge that there are lots of highly successful, law abiding black people of intact families, and I applaud and admire their success.”
I said same before. I believe somewhere here in these same comments. Now, You’ve very conveniently made the fraudulent case that White people only wanna talk about the so-call Black problem. The only way I can see why You ignore these kinds-a statements is because You’re a Black racist, or You’re ignorant, or You think You’re clever to just ignore the FACTS of the matter when You’re debating. ICBW, of course.
“But as to the others, I have grown weary of their victimhood.” <Me? I’d probably phrase that last a little differently. No biggie.>
Where do You contradict the above, KB? Don’t give me any more-a that Woke crap. Just stick to the above statements, as I’ve slightly modified, and tell me where You disagree with me, Professor Loury and NCMaureen.
I'm not ignorant nor am I a "Black racist" (which is somehow different than a racist that just so happens to be Black?).
Oh and trying to use "Woke" as a pejorative against a Black person doesn't really work. It's a politicized caricature of White progressives by White conservatives based on an old much simpler concept that arose in our community sometime during the first Great Migration if I'm not mistaken. But we also did the same internally, as it became a pejorative against certain Black groups that went to extremes like various Black nationalist groups. We've been doing that in Black TV and film as comedy relief for decades now. So to us, conservatives using "woke" as a way of politically tarnishing folks to their left sounds like an octogenarian grandma trying to be cool on Tik Tok.
And where did I ever claim to embrace or embody the concept of "racelessness"?
If you wish to listen to the podcast and then actually discuss the topic at hand, we can do that. If not, then we're good.
I'll step back, and "say" ICBW that You're a Black racist. I dunno. All I know is that Blacks can racists just as easily as Whites can be. Small percentages of each.
And I'm sorry. I already know where "woke" came from. You can say my usage is archaic. But when You use the same exact wording as the Woke, about the same fragile so-called theories the Woke hold, then I maintain that You act Woke. This is first I heard that Blacks were absolved of responsiblity of being logical, and UN-Woke.
I never said or implied You embraced the concept of racelessness, did I? Probably didn't write it too good. I meant that I embody it, and maybe You could grow into the concept. I know... But miracles never cease, right?
Of course Black folks, as well as folks of every race and ethnicity, can be racist. I just don't understand the point of qualifying "racist" with "Black," as though it's a different category or quality of racism when true of Black folks.
I never said Black folks "were absolved of responsibility of being logical." I simply said the "woke" slur doesn't land the way you think it does when applied to Black folks because practically all Black folks are at least a little bit "woke" on matters of race, regardless of political ideology (some of the most "woke" folks I know are Black Republicans). It works when applied to White liberals because the implication is that, in part, it's performative. For us, it's simply a part of life and comes with the territory of being Black in America. And for us, it's also primarily restricted to racial/cultural issues and isn't inclusive of all of the newfangled gender issues and what not. But at the end of the day, lambasting "wokeness" doesn't constitute a counterargument as none of my claims have been considered on their own merits and disproven logically. Characterizing my rhetoric as "woke" as a means of discrediting them is merely your run-of-the-mill ad hominem attack.
The implication on your part was that either I embraced racelessness or that I ought to embrace it when you stated, "You most *definitely* aren’t coming across in any way, shape, or form as 'raceless.'" You say you embody it, but I'm not seeing how since in your view I'm a "Black racist." There's absolutely no reason to qualify someone's racism by his/her race yet this is what you've done. So nah, you don't embody it and I don't claim to embody it either because it's so embedded in the nation's collective psyche that it's impossible to avoid thinking or talking about race in its conventional form at least sometimes. I happen to think that we're stuck with the concept of race and have to work through it. Once you've seen it, can you truly unsee it? And as a form of demographic categorization, it's not unreasonable as a higher level grouping of persons. The insidious aspect is the arbitrarily false value assigned to the concept as a way of advantaging or disadvantaging persons based on nothing more than phenotypic characteristics.
You're a breath of fresh air if You admit all races can be racist. Most Woke people won't. Black and White Woke folks, both, have said otherwise. Because, as Critical Theory would have it, racism is all about power differentials. (Like everything.)
I don't think You bothered to read what I wrote, Or not very carefully. Because I didn't base all my arguments on whether You were Woke or not. Nice try tho.
You *definitely* didn't read this carefully: "You most *definitely* aren’t coming across in any way, shape, or form as 'raceless.'" If You can up with the possibility that You embraced racelessness outta that, I dunno what to say. And this was already discussed. I won't quote, but I already wrote, in essence, that *I* embrace racelessness (as best I can) and I thought You *might* be able to "grow into it."
Like You say, it's impossible to avoid thinking or talking about race ... at least some times. Again, going by the number of times I've read that ONLY White people can be racist, then specifying a contrary opinion to that necessitated saying "Black" racist. And You must-a missed a memo. I admitted I was wrong to call You one. I dunno You well enough. You came across that way to me at first, is all.
No, where not "stuck with it [race]." No, it's "not unreasonable as a higher level grouping of persons." But if You *really* don't believe in "advantaging or disadvantaging persons based on nothing more than phenotypic characteristics" then *isn't* that, essentially, looking at things in a raceless Way??
And if You *really* look at things in that way, then, yeah, One doesn't need to provide advantages or disadvantages based on immutable characteristics, right? So I wonder how the Supreme Court will see the Affirmative Action case?
That doesn't constitute "pointing me to a source" to obtain in-depth information about the white problem. In other words, who's the Glenn Loury of white folks that I should be taking my cues from?
"I now come to the so-called, but mis-called “Negro[31] Problem,” as a characterization of the relations existing in the Southern States.
I say at once, I do not admit the justice or propriety of this formula, as applied to the question before us. Words are things. They are certainly such in this case, since they give us a misnomer that is misleading and hence mischievous. It is a formula of Southern origin and has a strong bias against the Negro. It handicaps his cause with all the prejudice known to exist and anything to which he is a party. It has been accepted by the good people of the North, as I think, without proper thought and investigation. It is a crafty invention and is in every way worthy of its inventors.
It springs out of a desire to throw off just responsibility and to evade the performance of disagreeable but manifest duty. Its natural effect and purpose is to divert attention from the true issue now before the American people. It does this by holding up and pre-occupying the public mind with an issue entirely different from the real one in question. That which is really a great national problem and which ought to be so considered by the whole American people, dwarfs into a “Negro Problem.” The device is not new. It is an old trick. It has been oft repeated and with a similar purpose and effect. For truth, it gives us falsehood. For innocence, it gives us guilt. It removes the burden of proof from the old master class and imposes it upon the Negro. It puts upon the race a work which belongs to the nation. It belongs to that craftiness often displayed by disputants who aim to make the worse appear the better reason. It gives bad names to good things and good names to bad things...
I repeat, and my contention is that this Negro problem formula lays the fault at the door of the Negro and removes it from the door of the white man, shields the guilty and blames the innocent, makes the Negro responsible, when it should so make the nation.
Now what the real problem is, we all ought to know. It is not a Negro problem, but in every sense a great national problem. It involves the question, whether after all our boasted civilization, our Declaration of Independence, our matchless Constitution, our sublime Christianity, our wise statesmanship, we as a people, possess virtue enough to solve this problem in accordance with wisdom and justice, and to the advantage of both races."
Stand in the Schoolhouse Door took place at Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963. George Wallace, the Governor of Alabama, in a symbolic attempt to keep his inaugural promise of "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and stop the desegregation of schools, stood at the door of the auditorium as if to block the entry of two African American students: Vivian Malone and James Hood.[1]
There isn't a black problem it is a white problem.
This is just a historical event that took place probably before u were born but while I was a Jr in high school
That I picked for example only. History is forgotten
10 million Africans were killed by Muslim slave traders yet it is forgotten history
You can blame whitey alright; the great society big white liberal government that replaced the black father. By design. Blacks were doing well in most places other than the south prior to this.
I'm still waiting for the panel discussions and think tanks to tackle the issue and link it all back to LBJ. Apparently he was only Black America's antichrist.
It is systemic, blacks are a tool of the Left and they are now forsaking you for hispanics coming across the border. Which is hirting blacks more than anything.
Something....something "plantation,"....something..."being tricked"....something, something..."stupid," etc.
That's good messaging/outreach, right there.
Odd, no one ever says that about American Jews, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
Gee, I can't seem to see why GOP isn't killing it with the black vote! Yeah...all that lived experience, post 1965 history, everyday observation and actually listening to what comes out of people's mouths might be getting in the way. Maybe Tommy Tuberville can weigh in?
Listened to Larry regularly when I lived in LA. Even watched his documentary "Uncle Tom" Have read Sowell many times....do you know any others besides them? No, you don't. And Candace Owens doesn't count.
Yeah - "equal footing," but segregated w/no voting rights - lol- which I'm sure you prefer as a better set-up. However, not unusual for black people of a certain generation/age to valorize/pine for the days segregation. My father has played along that line several times, but then he remembers OTHER things about is life - and kind of snaps back to reality. So, Danimal28, not only am I already very familiar with Elder and Sowell. I actually, unlike YOU, have LIVED EXPERIENCE with the issue.
ANYHOOOO.....ONCE AGAIN....I have to explain to someone else on this board (you) That when the GOP nominated anti-Civil Rights/pro-segregation Barry Goldwater for POTUS in 1964, the entire political ideology of the GOP shifted and black people, like baseball great Jackie Robinson, left the party in droves - because the writing on the wall was clear.
So, the "Great Society BS" - which helped FAR many more whites than blacks (why so resentful?) was a negligible part of the the shift. From Goldwater.....to R. Reagan's fake "Welfare Queens" and "Big Black Bucks" buying T-bone steaks, and States Rights Speeches in Missisppi.....to Donald Trump's Birthersism and Mexicans are "rapists and murderers"....and now Tommy Tuberville (R) is in on the act, receiving raucous cheers in NV with his reparations for the criminals speech. So, none of this should be a surprise or confusing.
Of course not a single one of his colleagues have, or will, condemn such language/ideology - because the GOP voters like it, as white grievance has always been great political fodder in America, even more so now, that demographics are changing in many areas.
I was just SOOOO shocked that Tuberville, a former college football coach, who made all that money off the backs of young, black athletes harbored such views/said something like that....aren't you?
The GOP just hasn't gotten the same numbers pre-1964/65....I wonder why?.....could it be their lived experience and paying attention to what the GOP actually says and does? Could it be paying attention to what the GOP supports like and respond to?.....nah.....let's just call them dumb and lazy people who are still living "on a plantation."
I always enjoy getting things off my chest (i.e. blowing you up). So, as long as you keep bringing up dumb shit re: GOP in the 1800s, pre- 1964/65, I'll keep doing it
What do you want to attempt to inform me about next, Danimal28? The long historical debate re: Washington vs. Dubois?
Why in the hell would I ever come over to your house?
Do it all the time. Especially with your "GoP In ThE 1800s" nonsense. Stop living in the past and move on.
That combined with your embarrassing lack of knowledge regarding African-American political, economic, social etc. discourses, yet your misguided insistence on discussion/opining is laughable.
Which is why you, and your colleagues, have been incapable of refuting any of the factual information. I have presented and are left with only pathetic, ad hominem attacks.
But, go ahead, surprise me Danimal28....put together a cogent response, that doesn't involve black social/political theorists that I already told you about.
Beautifully stated, NC Maureen. When I hear the word, "programs," I cringe. I am so tired of this discussion and I yearn for the day when black people will just get on with their lives. Do you think the average black man, woman or child knows who Glenn Loury is? What about Condoleezza Rice? Regarding the latter, in 2014, during the Obama years, she was scheduled to deliver a commencement speech at Rutgers University. There were so many protests that she wisely cancelled. Obama chose not to say anything; he shrugged off what could have been a teachable moment of supporting a black woman of great accomplishment if not someone of his political ilk.
I'm trying to reconcile your weariness of this discussion and your yearning "for the day when black people will just get on with their lives" (and by that statement, I can tell that you have extremely limited to no familiarity at all with the Black American community) with your desire for Obama to amplify another Black person's grievance for a so-called national teachable moment. It sounds rather contradictory to me but apparently you seem to believe that one's ideological disposition may serve as justification for an exception.
I'm not a suburban soccer mom. I grew up in East New York/Brownsville, Brooklyn and attended Catholic School with Italian, Black, Puerto Rican, Panamanian kids. We played together, jumped double-dutch but most of all, received an education together. The smartest girl in my class was a young Black girl, Carolyn. She lived in the projects with her mother who was a nurse and her father. She took piano lessons and had an average of 99. Please note, all of us had two parents unless one passed. Family and education were priorities; not making excuses for our hardships. My father worked construction and my mother sewed piecework. Do not school me as if I was raised in a cornfield.
I'm tired of seeing black and Hispanic kids throw their lives away; a young and promising young black student lost her life the other day as a result of getting caught in gang crossfire. Am I wrong to ask where are the parents of the the shooter? Am I wrong to ask where is his father?
Obama had many opportunities to stress education and I challenge you to site one speech when he or Michelle put aside victimhood and emphasized pursuing the dream of working and raising a family; an in tact family.
Yes, there are many teachable moments; consider this mine.
I never even remotely implied that you were "raised in a cornfield" but your comment about "yearning for the day when black people will just get on with their lives" absolutely reflects a lack of ongoing familiarity and engagement with the Black American community. I mean if you had to go all the way back to your high school years to make your point, then you really haven't made one at all. As a matter of fact, you even go on to prove my point later in your post which I will mention further down.
As far as your observation about Black and Hispanic kids throwing their lives away, I'm glad you're tired of it but what does that have to do with you "yearning for a day when black people will get on with their lives"? I know one thing I got tired of a long time ago: Black Americans being seen as nothing more but our challenges to the point that it doesn't matter what the actual topic of discussion is, if Black Americans are the subjects under discussion, then certain people take it as a license to provide a litany of everything that's "wrong" with us. To state what ought to be obvious: Black Americans are not caricatures to be perpetually criticized and lamented by those who perceive us as "other," but rather actual human beings that experience life as any other group of people in all the shades of its complexities. At the very least, temper your fatigue with some joy because we have much to be joyous about also. That's something you won't get from allowing media sources of any leaning, who need the most sensational and bombastic stories to dominate coverage so they can reap maximum profits, to shape your perceptions. You've got to actually KNOW us to know that.
As far as teachable moments go, I think you're about to learn quite a bit here. As I said, the lack of a present-day connection to the Black American community is all too obvious:
Sorry. That's not a speech about "victimhood" you know, the only thing black people talk about, right?
Who gives a fuck what Brown did or didn't do?( Rag doll. Really? Have you seen the video - stop being dramatic) It's not the POTUS job, when giving statement to international audiences, to make judgments, assertions on the particulars of a case.
You dared people to cite one example of a "criticize the black folks" speech by Obama. Gave you two. Feel better now?
Your whole thesis is bullshit. Just like the Ferguson effect.
Try again. Need to see a good old "blame whitey" speech from Obama....cause that's all he did, so you should have plenty.
Interesting how highlighting an actual problem that exists when it comes to law enforcement routinely abusing their authority, not just in dealing with Black Americans but all Americans, counts as "victimhood" in your book. We're all victims to this institution of the state that routinely violates the constitutional rights of citizens in so many ways, while also protecting the worst within their ranks via their unions. Familiarize yourself with the DOJ report that came out some time after the trial to understand why citizens felt the need to riot in the first place.
All that would have done is given the right yet another reason to be mad at Obama and accuse him of being a racist for speaking out in favor of a Black person who backed out of giving a commencement speech to the exclusion of all of the non-Black persons who did the same.: https://www.syracuse.com/news/2014/05/college_commencement_speakers_canceling_over_controversies.html And surely it is not at all the president's responsibility to be publicly commenting on such localized issues (as conservatives were quick to say during his time in office).
Yep. They fully expected "Racial Retribution/Payback"....and it didn't happen, so they have to imagine it did. The racial disrespect shown to Obama was off the charts, but he always bent over backwards to stay above it.
The same could be said of Whites particularly in the rural south. Such as this is not a race problem it is socioeconomic Class problem (where Class is not solely a question of money)...
Also, I would be careful about making assumption concerning what any of these three brilliant and thoughtful men are saying unless they in fact say it themselves...
So let’s have an issue of Common Sense on the poor whites problem.
This issue happened to be about the poor black problem discussed by three black guys. You can bring in the poor white problem, but it’s a deflection.
I have listened to many episodes of Loury and McWhorter. They do talk about it being time for blacks to stop being victims and start embracing what America has been offering them, like affirmative action and hiring preferences, so they can improve their own lives.
This issue isn't about the "poor black problem." It's literally titled "From Racial Reckoning to Race Abolition" which is about racial identification and the last time I looked, it wasn't just Black Americans who have a racial identification in America.
It’s a version of “if it bleeds, it leads” and garners clicks and views, so they continue to pick at the scab.
The New York Times was caught saying they were moving away from their Trump/Russia collusion hoax to focus on race, and, by God, they did. CNN, CBS, and others joined in the "creation of news, creation of a crisis," narrative journalism.
For the race hustlers behind all of this, there is far more profit (both monetarily and in notoriety) in perpetuating and hyperbolizing the problem than there ever will be in reaching any sort of solution.
MLK tried to lead his people to the Promised Land. What passes for leadership in Black America today only seeks ever more wealth transfers.
Why does the native American population have some of the same issues? No peoples can be uplifted or made successful unless they themselves have the desire to succeed and the only way is with hard work, not entitlement. IMO, racism is used as a guise for entitlement. Do racists exists? Sure they do, it's human nature to judge but it's nature's law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Treat others the way you'd like to be treated. I immigrated when i was young, legally, the process was long and difficult. I've lived most of my life in this great country looking different, I've lived in small cities and big, but have not once faced prejudice, racism or discrimination. I didn't receive favors either and i didn't need or want it. Progress only came with hard work and sacrifice. I could only access a portion of the opportunity available to those born here, but that is more than is available anywhere else in this world, and I was thankful for it. I've always followed the law, tried to treat everyone with kindness, be fair and work hard. It's simple, it's common sense.
Your personal saga cannot be universalized in this situation. What the various tribes that we call collectively American Indians (or Native Americans, though most reject this fairly new, but no less imposed, descriptor) experienced is vastly different.
First, the longstanding US policy was to make Indians like Whites, which in practice meant obliterating their customs, practices and even language - something I doubt you encountered.
Second, until 1924, Indians were (with vanishingly few exceptions) not US citizens.
Third, the US controlled them under the invented legal status of “domestic sovereign nations”, a relationship with which our country still struggles.
Fourth, reservations were for the most part placed in backwater lands of little value. When, by coincidence, that land became valuable (Oklahoma oil, for instance), most of those Indians lost their economic rights through abusive “legal” process. On a side note, the US itself fought for decades before settling a major lawsuit that shed light on its utter failure, as trustee, to safeguard the economic interests of its tribal beneficiaries.
So, it might be easy for us to wonder why the Indians just can’t get past all this and act with the enthusiasm of the new immigrant to better themselves. Well, it’s not as if they aren’t trying, and many have. But we should recognize the difficulties and roadblocks they still face individually and as a community.
I agree. I think most of the trouble comes from trying to Anglicize very tribal groups of people. Of course the same could be said of Great Britain's treatment of the Irish. Personally, I don't think the Europeans in general, and Brits in particular, are nearly as civilized as some do. Neither do I think they are evil Colonizers. They had a system they thought worked and sought to export it. ( The US is still doing the same thing trying to spread its version of democracy). But as for Natives, the fat lady has yet to sing and as Celia astutely points out, some tribes are doing well. I think some of the problem was prevalence of alcohol and it is my understanding that some Natives are not physiologically adapted to process alcohol whereas Europeans had been imbibing for a thousand years prior to their entry in the New World.
You know what I really like? How they invented the term "Indian giver." So sneaky.
BTW, nailed it. You'll not be popular here. You see, Bari acolytes a probably quite cognizant of how their PERSONAL past experiences, good or bad, have influenced/shaped who they are today.
But the U.S.? Larger cultural/ethnic groups....nah. History starts over every 24 hours.
Native Americans are actually a good case study on this subject, because some tribes are well-led and have become quite wealthy, while others have frighteningly high rates of alcoholism and poverty. And yet ALL tribes were oppressed by the U.S. government (and their white neighbors) to a pretty similar extent.
Thank you for sharing your experience. I think many people have similar stories but those don't add to DIE budgets and jobs for DIE degree holders so they are ignored or worse those departments would probably call you a racist for sharing your real world experience.
The vast majority of people crossing our southern border are similar to you. Within 1-2 generations they will surpass many of the African Americans and Indigenous people from a quality of life standpoint. We've created so many 'safety nets' for blacks and indigenous folks, that allow them to survive, but not thrive, that there is no incentive to do advance, Also, those two populations have the highest rate of signal parent households, which also proves a significant hurdle to graduation rates, and promotes urban crime.
Native Americans were given the crappiest land for their reservations and are mostly in the middle of nowhere. Give them a reservation near some resources and things will be different.
Perhaps living on a reservation is akin to living under socialism. So Scott D wants reservations to be moved to other places? I thought NAs reservations were in the same areas the NAs originally lived--further, many were wandering tribes, taking their NA slaves with them. And many NAs have been extraordinarily successful in the USA due to their hard work, dedication to family and love of country...I honor them first and foremost.
You need to read up on American Indian history. It seems to derive from watching and/or reading too many Westerns.
The vast majority of Indian reservations were not anywhere near the tribe’s ancestral lands. That was the point of relocation efforts. The few that were, saw the lands increasingly encroached upon and taken. Also most Indian tribes were sedentary agriculturalist not nomads.
Living on a reservation has nothing to do with “socialism” and does not resemble that political system in practice. It’s a tribal structure.
There's truth to that, but if you've spent time on reservations you realize there are deep cultural issues that keep this community from thriving in many cases. Also, many NA's don't live on reservations and seem to do much better. In addition, reservations are figuring out how to make money - gaming, oil & gas, but they are still essentially conservatorships where Washington D.C. controls what they can and can't do.
In Palm Springs, CA the land is divided up in a checkerboard of 1 sq. mile squares. Every other square is designated "lease land" where property owners must pay rent for that land to the Agua Caliente tribe. We stole their land but as least we're reimbursing them for it.
Of course you don't write a check to the tribe directly, you write it to the Federal Bureau of Land Management department of Indian Affairs (!). There have been numerous lawsuits and other legal entanglements over the years between the tribe and the government as some of those monies seem to get lost along the way.
It started earlier than that. In the Fifteen Hundreds, 80-90% of indigenous Americans, both in N and S America were wiped out from plagues and disease, collapsing many of the worlds largest civilizations, and the tribes never recovered.
They can leave the reservation any time they want. It's not a prison system. If you are born in Appalachia, Mississippi, or any other economically depressed area you can relocate. Millions upon millions of Americans have done this.
That makes zero sense given the fact Dems have a lock on cities period, whether it's largely White, highly educated, and affluent cities like Pittsburgh, Madison, Boise, Salt Lake City, etc., cities with sizable Black/Hispanic populations but attracting tons of White, educated, well-to-do residents like Nashville, Austin, Charleston, Washington DC, etc, highly diverse cities that are well-balanced demographically like NYC, Houston, Oakland, Sacramento, Jersey City, etc, legacy cities like Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, etc, healthy Midwestern cities like Columbus, Indianapolis, Grand Rapids, Omaha, etc, Sunbelt sprawlers like Orlando, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Dallas, Phoenix, etc, in addition to the perennially troubled New Orleans, Memphis, Baltimore, Milwaukee, etc. Even huge military hubs, which used to be shades of light red, have decidedly tipped blue in recent years like San Diego and VA Beach. I think Fort Worth and Jacksonville FL are about it as far as GOP-led large cities go today.
If nothing else, Dems will likely retain their urban advantage in the foreseeable future just for being the melting pots they are and that encourages more liberal social attitudes.
It's very connected to your statement. My point is that cities of all stripes are reliably blue. Washington, DC, and Atlanta, two bastions of the Black middle class which have been experiencing much gentrification, are no longer Black majority cities but are also no less blue today than they were 30 years ago.
But I wonder if they'll maintain the edge in urban areas because they're the party of the urban college-educated elites. And also because they pass the social welfare policies that, essentially, buys votes right?
Democrats in general believe in having a strong social safety net, but I have yet to see evidence that this substantially increases the voter share of that population. Furthermore, policy is set at the state and federal level anyway.
Well I don't have data to prove the "social safety net" increases the voter share. I don't recall if Thomas Sowell provided any, either.
But I dunno why else the majority of Blacks would continue to vote D, when a lotta their interests are served, just as well, by the R party. Blacks among the most religious, right? And Ds about the least? Things like that.
I'm not fighting anything; I merely answered your question. But I wouldn't expect an Obama supporter to ask "Well why else would Black people vote for Democrats if not for welfare?"
I've read Professor Sowell since then. Would still vote for Obama. (Tho am less impressed, the more I learn about him. Wasn't all that impressed when I voted for him the second time.)
I hope You widen Your views beyond stereotypes, is my point.
And you know what generates votes: outrage. These intentional policies result in outrage that Dems say they can fix, but of course they never do because issues are for campaigning, not solving.
For the most part, the politicians who were bold enough to even publicly mention such as a policy stance hail from safe districts that afforded them the "luxury" to do so or they reversed course quickly afterwards.
Those trillions added significantly to the bureaucracy that is federal government. At this point it is massive, bloated and incapable of effective administration. Also I find it, well let's just say odd, that the party who laments loudly and often about trickle down economics think that trickle down benefits works.
The goal of course is to keep welfare recipients dependent upon the government to sustain them in perpetuity. There is no incentive to improve oneself or to strive for independence. Poorly performing government run education systems ensure a populace too ignorant to see the bars on the cage.
And as only one political party advocates for this scam, they are guaranteed a lifelong dedicated base of voters...if they can be bothered to get off the government-provided couch to vote.
Except the less educated working-class voters (who are likely to have utilized public assistance programs at some point) have been migrating to the GOP in droves in recent years thanks to Trump's populist ideology. Partisan affiliation is shifting in that respect.
I'm almost 63, and I can't tell you how many Black people "of a certain age" - friends, coworkers, and acquaintances - have echoed similar sentiments to me. These were the ideas that animated the "middle-classing" of many millions of Black Americans. Good ideas that, sadly, seem to be dying out along with the generation that made them reality. Let's honor their hard work and sacrifice, and end the racialist BS ASAP.
I'm of a similar age, and instead of moving to a 'raceless' society, we've systematized racism and victimisim. There is far too much money invested in victimization to turn around. Those 'Studies' grads need jobs, and they've built a DEI industry to keep racism/genderism prominent in the workplace, marketing and education.
Also, until African Americans acknowledge and identify single parent households as the most prominent hurdle for them to overcome, no progress will ever be made at closing the 'equity' gap. With urban youths exposed to 75+% single parent households, these kids will never get the type of supervision to close the gap on graduation rates in HS and college (without dumbing down grades or testing) and crime will continue on it's current trajectory.
Yes, that's what he thinks. However, that's not what the majority on this board want....because that "common history and culture" often makes America look bad.....so needs to be banned from school.
Yeah I don't see the folks that live to decry "identity politics" whenever the other side makes mention of race or gender but love to play the same three perennial race cards (i.e., birth rates among unmarried mothers, homicide rates, abortion rates) at the mere mention of Black Americans regardless of context being first in line to embrace "racelessness."
Yep. Deep and true observation. They certainly love to talk about slavery a lot, too. Especially the fact that war captives, criminals were sold into slavery. Oh, and Lincoln/GOP of the 1800s. Man, they sure love "living in the past." Love skipping over the entire inconvenient, modern timeline.
Along with any non-white person expressing a different lived experience /opinion as being a "victim," "angry," "bitter," etc. Which is why it is often pointless to have discussions.
America was founded on the "identity politics" of white, land-owning men" OK. That's just a fact. No big deal.
However, whenever non-white people vote in large numbers it's just because of race or because people use "identity politics." Y'know, kind of like a chicken in a Skinner box.
Yeah....like white people haven't voted on race or identity politics ever...or legalized specific practices and laws based on THEIR racial "identity politics".....cause they're the "Real Americans," right?
It would seem that the gleefulness in the discussion of slavery is mostly limited to modern-day partisan politics with talk of plantations and what not.
Agreed. It's become quite the talking point. Nothing more than gas lighting.
Is there anything wrong with being a black conservative? No. But to act like those who are not are being "tricked" and are "on a plantation" is incredibly bigoted....like they have no judgment of lived experience, history, etc. in America.
"The transitions/changes of the GOP cultural & ideological platforms from Lincoln to today, did not happen. You did not see/experience what you saw/experienced. Also, what about Robert Byrd!!!"
You nailed it for sure. And the same folks who love talking about Black Americans and "Democratic plantations" would never in a million years think to utilize, say, Holocaust terminology/imagery to describe Jews' affinity for the Democratic Party. And when called out about it, the ones I've dealt with simply dig their heels in. At this point it's more sad than maddening to me.
Yes...but they will use the Holocaust for COVID stuff.
Good point re: the Jewish involvement. I had a talk w/a friend of mine, who is Jewish, and he brought up a point that has stuck with me.
He's independent, but his opinion of why GOP/white Evangelicals are so supportive of Israel was in essence, " Need Armageddon to happen, so Jesus comes back for the end times where 75% of us get sent to hell and the other 25% gets converted."
Which was a take I'd never heard before. He has a different view on what all the GOP "love" for Israel is really about. I'm not sure if he's an outlier, but it was interesting.
Yep. Constantly. You just don't like the answer. Who cares about one man (Byrd)? Means nothing, zero, zilch, nada....when compared to the political ideology of an entire political party.
Where do you live? It seems awful. I don't know anyone that sounds like that and I live in 2 states. Perhaps I could understand where you're coming from personally if you shared some background. So far you only criticize but never offer nuance, perspective or personal experience.
Lol. I've learned long ago, that it is pointless to talk about race with 99% of white people.
Let me explain my philosophy:
I have a poker group that meets two times a month (black white, asian, latino) etc. Let's say one of my Latino friends is complaining about something that happened to him, or even discussion American culture. You know what I DON'T do:
1. Tell him his lived experience is false and try to gaslight him.
2. Tell him is view on a cultural/social, etc. issue is mistaken.
3. Tell him what America is/is not.
4. Don't tell him that he's "mistaken" or "overly sensitive" re: an individual that he feels wronged/offended him. And I certainly don't claim they must've been "mentally ill."
5. I don't assume I have the same American experience he has, or that he should view it through my cultural background, etc. - cause I'm not Latino
6. Don't tell him what he should consider racist or not.
7. Don't try and tell him that American history starts over every 24 hours.
7. Tell him that he's "angry," "bitter" or "unhappy."
8. Don't view an critique of America as an attack on me personally/my ethnic group and tell him to leave the country.
9. Call him "ungrateful" and act like America "gave" him something, when HE'S the one who actually did the work - which is what we're all told, "Equal opportunity, not equal results."
Now, Mark (our resident white friend/buddy) doesn't have too many stories about racial invective and/or issues - primarily because, well, he's white and let's be honest there's really no good racial slurs for white people anyway. But when he does talk/share we treat him with mutual respect/kindness, as he does us, because we all realize that we all experience America differently on occasions. He doesn't lecture us. We don't lecture him. Mark is an awesome dude. Not woke, not a Trumper - just simple, middle of the road, good dude. Our kids play together, etc. If Mark has a diversity training at work (which, btw, I think are pointless and stupid) he doesn't flip out into a mouth-frothing rage. He just does it, and moves on with his day. I like Mark a lot. However, Mark is rare.
On this board, and IRL, as I've found. 1-8 is done constantly. So, there is really no point in "communicating." Gave that up a long time ago. There is no understanding to be had. I'm just here to comment when I feel like it, debate a bit, point out some hypocrisies, etc.
I appreciate the respectful approach with which you posed that question. That does not happen very often here and I hope you feel I have responded in kind.
Oh, yes. American finally embraced that idea very recently. How convenient it's being suddenly being trumpeted.
Nothing more than covert anti-affirmative position, which is fine.
Might believe you if schools weren't trying to ban Ruby Bridges autobiography because it doesn't have "redemption" for white people, or banning books about MLK, Jr., or taking down a teachers classroom photos of Tubman, Booker T. Washington, King, etc. in FL. because it's CRitICaL RaCE TheOry!
Like I said, all of those countries are politically stable, economically viable, with excellent infrastructure, strong healthcare systems, etc. You asked for one, gave you more than that. Never said other countries don't have racial issues. Because as we know, America has a great track record in regard to indigenous people.
They have racial issues just like America does, so apparently America is not really that exceptional/different at the end of the day, right?
What aren't you understanding?
And you can spare me your faux concern over indigenous people.
Oh, don't worry. Moving full-time in 2028. Already in the works.
From what I've heard, especially from Black American military personnel, Spain and Germany get high marks in this regard.
But America is unique when compared to the rest of its Western peers as a hybrid settler colony and large-scale slaveholding republic, combining elements of each type of New World society. Brazil comes closest to approximating America in this regard, but rigid binary racial categorizations--supported by the notion of hypodescent (e.g., the "one drop rule")--did not arise there as they did here which is a huge point of differentiation.
Spicy when you finally got him to answer about which countries finally caused me to give up on him. I really tried to be nice and kind and have a debate but it is futile. The countries listed is so laughable. The central and South American countries is jaw dropping in its absurdity. Kinda can't blame him for throwing Scandinavian countries on the pile because many are misguided enough to think that. I spend a whole lot of time there, have lots of relatives there and have dual citizen children. I can assure you it is not all that. ESPECIALLY on health care. I guess he didn't read the recent column here on Common Sense about Sweden. It makes me sad for him that he is so combative and cares nothing about what anyone else thinks no matter how hard they try to understand him and come to common ground. If this is his style with neighbors, colleagues, friends and relatives then I fear he has a lonely life. He should donate his subscription fee to a charity that is meaningful to him. I will continue to wish him well in life despite his unfounded hatred of people he doesn't know.
Haven't moved the goalposts one bit. "Racial issues" was never in your original proposition. So, YOU have moved the goalposts, by adding a measure that was not included originally.
Wow. You've really escalated with all the "snivling" and who seeking validation, etc. You seem really angry. Think I touched a nerve that flipped a switch. Certainly don't need validation from white people. Why would I? Most I've met are not really that impressive, so could care less - and definitely not resentful. Retiring at 58, so I'm a happy camper.
White accredidation is worthless, so it's odd you think it has any value to someone. Actually, I try to avoid them as much as possible.
Enjoyed my extended time in all the countries mentioned, but appreciate your input re: places you've never been.
Don't really care what you call and/or believe. Already split 6 mos between Costa Rica and Panama. You people are always saying if you don't 100% love everything about America, then leave, right?
Well, I'm leaving. What's it to you? You certainly seem REAL emotionally invested in/opinionated on where I'm moving to. Why is that? Man, you wrote a WHOLE bunch. Seems like you're the snivling one trying to validate yourself to me. But see...I don't care what you think, in any way shape or form.
You live where you want to, I'll live where I want to. So, move on. Your white input is irrelevant.
Named several. All those countries are quite stable, well-run, economically viable and excellent places to live. They do not need your aaccreditation to be valid.
Where we went wrong? Lol. What are you talking about? America is perfect and is the greatest country on the planet and all improvements have happened due to reason, logic, ethical appeals and discussion, because America is just that morally awesome, as compared to every other country on the planet.
Good for you! I KNEW you'd get there eventually. You held out longer than most of your colleagues. Kudos.
Anyway, why are SO emotionally invested in where I'm moving to? You know that's weird, righ? Go share your white input with someone who cares what you think and stop seeking validation from me.
Here are specifics, not some right wing conspiracy web site:
Remember when the Democrats said asking for a photo id was keeping people from voting? Well if that is the case, why do all of the Democrat state conventions and their national convention ask for a photo id to gain entrance? Isn't that restricting people from participating in the conventions.
To get on an airplane you have to show a photo id. Isn't that restricting access to travel?
I could go on and on. For example, if the Dems aren't at all racists and are such wonderful protectors of minorities why did they elect Robert Byrd senate majority leader and minority leader multiple times? Robert Byrd was a Grand Cyclopes in the KKK. He filibustered the 1964 civil right bill, the longest filibuster in senate history. It to 20 Rep votes to help the Dems break the filibuster. You will never hear that little fact out of the mouths of these defenders of the minorities.
"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
Paula Dean lost her TV show over something she said 20 or 30 years ago and your wonderful Woke jerks got her fired. How come the Woke morons don't hammer the wonderful Democrats for lionizing the racist Robert Byrd?
For years the Democrat party was the racist party and, in some ways, still is. The Democrats keep minorities in poverty by portraying everybody as a victim. If you believe you are a victim, you will never climb out of the hole.
Ignorance. 74% of democrats in the House voted against CRA; 78% of democrats in the Senate voted against CRA. Everett Dirksen got 77 republicans to pull CRA over the finish line. You know, like the republican party was formed to abolish slavery. And give women the right to vote. I wish people would blame black slave owners in Africa for once.
Lol....gotta go back to the 1800s? "Stop living in the past!" Yeah....too bad the Republicans nominated Goldwater in 1964 running on an anti-Civil Rights/Pro-segregation platform.
Yes, African slave owners had captives from war and also as punishment for crime. You like being tough on crime, don't you?
Goldwater lost to the racist JBJ. who said, if the 1964 civil rights bill passed, “I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years. [Said to two governors regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan]”
I suppose this is the lone exception to the rule of not judging historical actors by today's moral standards.
Otherwise, I find the caricature of LBJ as archvillain to Black Americans based on the above quote, to be mildly amusing. ("Let me sign this civil rights bill into law....that'll show those n*****s who's boss!")
The GOP doesn't claim to be the self-righteous defenders of minorities the Dems do. Instead of changing the subject, how about the Dems electing Byrd as senate majority leader.
Give it a shot at actually address the subject matter instead of diverting.
Oh, yes. The GOP are definitely not defenders of minorities, that has been clear for a long time.
Not a diversion, Goldwater, was a major moment of ideological shift for the GOP - which is why the constant crowing about the 1800s is stupid, as is the tired, one-man Byrd canard.
So, if anyone needs to take a shot at discussing the issue, it's you.
An excellent book called “Coming Apart” from about 20 years ago described exactly that. Turns out that certain behaviors produce bad outcomes, regardless of skin color. Who’d a thunk?
Thank You. From quick study of Table 9, they don't combine the births of 15 to 24 year-olds. I'm no math genius, but the weighted percentages look pretty close. Actually low for Blacks. But footnote says data doesn't meet standards of reliability, so there is that.
#metoo. It may take a generation to make a big turnaround. But the time to start is now, from where we're *at,* right? Can't start from where we'd like to be, like the lame Woke wanna do.
You're delusional, per usual. You wrote, correct me if I'm wrong, "lol" to *my* comment. That's it. You blew up nothing. You talking about Your replies to *other* people, mebbe? If so, they don't pertain to *my* comment.
I leave off the *fact* that You're pretty light on historical facts, data, etc. You're pretty strong at trolling on occasion, so I'll give You that one. For example, Your reply to me, directly above.
Sorry pal. I'm the FIRST person to lecture You about civil discourse.
You, delusional as You are, can pretend in Your own mind that You've blown me up. Just like in the present case, You've blown up nothing but Your own self-image. Which, unless I miss my guess, is not shared by many people on these comments.
I bow down to Your greatness, and slather Your feet with spit, Your Highness.
Apparently a lot of people don't seem to believe that Black Americans have been harmed by deindustrialization, globalization, and lopsided trade deals in large numbers. No, it could only be welfare....which apparently individuals of other races/ethnicities don't qualify for.
I'm not sure that I exactly get your point, but my belief is that it's been far more the elites against the serfs in the US and globally, than racism. Racism is what keeps us divided so that the poor whites in Appalachia don't start pulling in the same direction as the poor urban black to create real change.
Massive tax reform, that includes huge increases on corporate and top level income
Federal tax that extends far lower than current bottom rates so we all have a stake.
1800s: OK, poor white people who don't own land or slaves, pick up gun to go fight the Yankees to "preserve our way of life."
1960s: OK, "poor white trash" let's get to lynching, church bombing and murdering Civil Rights workers to "preserve our way of life."
2000s: OK, remember. In America, there are "makers and takers." Y'know what I mean?
Unfortunately, a lot of struggling/poor white people have been gaslight into think "the coloreds" in same economic position, are they reason they're poor.
Maybe one day, they'll start voting their economic circumstances/interest and not their race....or at least separate the two.
Comprof - I grew up in lily white Minnesocold - a product of a single mother raising two boys in the 70's(times werent great for single mothers here then) and in the 80's and joined the Army where I was a minority in every unit I was in. My leaders were of any color than white... and it mattered not. Men are men, women are women regardless of immutable characteristics; you work hard and people respect that.
Please know that there are forces out here that depend on you/us being divided, always have been. Like Morgan Freeman says "You want to eradicate race... quit talking about it."
Some of my favorite times are when stationed in the South and my friends black mama's cooked wonderful food with the utmost of respect and manners and we cleaned up to their standards. That is it brother...
Yeah...that's how things are eradicated...just like never mention it....why haven't we tried that with cancer? Brilliant!
Let me know when America decides to go that route, ok?
Yeah, whatever, wrote a long post yesterday day to someone about my father's move from living under Segregation/Jim Crow, through his time the military, getting a PhD, to his retirement. And my personal philosophy/diversity of friends
Ignorance, personified. That's great Your self-satisfied. But if *all* You are is self-satisfied, You're only half a man. Sorry. Wasn't it You who said "truth hurts?"
No, pal. People can see pretty easy where Your words are coming from. You're as racist as they come. No, You don't say honky or cracker or white supremist.
Yeah. I know that words aren't violence. Everybody who knows *anything* knows that much.
But what You don't seem to understand is that words convey an *attitude* of the writer. Yours brings a particular odor. But, as I'm sure You know, a person can't smell their *own* odors, right?
1. Have a biracial son, beats your "I get along with black coworkers."
2. The ONLY thing that is "racist" is a direct, racial slur. Everything else is "wokeness," oversensitivity and taking things out of context.
Don't give fuck what odor you think exists or not. You've been consistently one of the most foul and belligerent people from the second I arrived. Go share your white input/opinions with someone who cares and stop whining like a bitch when YOUR rules/attitude are applied to YOU.
Go to Appalachia and you'll see the same desperate plight of white people trapped in perpetual poverty. Its a socio-economic issue, but politicians play the race angle to keep us divided and protect the powerful.
I say this often Pops. I'm white and started my life in severely economically and family challenges. Single parent, no support etc. In my neighborhood the black families were all much better off than ours. I think this is in large part due to 2 parent family units. I didn't attend college and worked 3 jobs at a time to make ends meet. I waited to marry a hard working person and waited a little longer to have children. Stayed married. Sure, luck is often at play in life but hard work and good choices is the main reason I live a comfortable life now. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Delayed gratification? Not viewing yourself as a victim. I wholeheartedly agree (from tough personal experience) that economics and class have much more to do with this then race.
Comprof I have asked you several polite questions about your background and what shaped your views but you are choosing not to engage in a calm debate and allow us to understand you. It's all sarcasm and insults. Did something terrible happen to you? Where do your feelings spring from? I have shared (directly above) what my background is and what has shaped my world view. And to politely answer your snarky question of No one is born with any privileges I say I SURE WAS NOT BORN WITH ANY ADVANTAGES. Severe poverty, single absentee parent, roach infested rental properties, constant moves, multiple crappy schools, unreliable transportation, unsupervised time, no club or school activities, couldn't afford sports or have a ride to get there, latch key little kid, bad influences all around, no one to ask for advice. And you know what? I don't feel sorry for myself at all. I worked my ass off, didn't make too many jack ass mistakes, treated others the way I wanted to be treated, respected and tried to emulate those that succeeded and was always NICE to people. I would love to know what shaped you. Were you financially well off as a child? Are you a person of color? Have you always lived in big urban settings? Did you attend college? Was your life full of supportive people? Did someone treat you badly? Were you witness to a great injustice? It appears you believe only YOUR perspective matters. It would be helpful to know where your perspective comes from. If you're not willing to give and take then there is little reason to engage here at all. I don't see the upside for you to spend the capitol of your time reading these or paying for a subscription if you don't want to learn or influence.
BTW, I do enjoy how me expressing an opinion is evidence of me believing "only my perspective" matters.
Treated badly? Yep, but that's America.
Witness to a great injustice? Not me, but my father lived through one.
And you know what? Don't feel sorry for myself either, because according to your background, I have made far more money and been far more "successful" than you. You know why? Because I know what America is and how it operates.
Well the point is being white DIDN'T help me. I'm confident in my share. I've asked you at least five polite questions in multiple threads with how ever many witnesses are listening here. But ok.... we are getting somewhere. Your experience is shaped by being black. Is that correct? That is what you said. It would be helpful to know so much more. Why are you so radically opposed to what is being shared here? Please share YOUR personal experience. Why are you so angry and argumentative? Maybe because of hurt? Perhaps you have seen and experienced things we haven't? You never offer a real world perspective. Experiences. What you and your siblings and formative years were like. What school consisted of for y'all. What your struggles and support system felt like. We would really like to know what has shaped your views. You are clearly VERY convinced that YOUR world experience and perspective are paramount. What happened in you life to form your opinions? Please. Kindly. I pose this question with complete respect. Everyone else has shared. Please talk through why your perspective is so different from ours. Perhaps you can convince us of your side of things. We are listening with an open mind and heart. Debate style, kindness style, I choose to optimistically believe we are are more alike than different. There's 3 options. Lets debate, and calmly talk. What shaped you? You continue to come to this community to insult us but if you wanted to make a difference in the world and bring us around to your perspective and cause we would listen intently and give you respect and space. Please take it. Please tell us about yourself and explain why you views are different. Not wrong. Different. What if all the time you spend here could make a difference and you could get others to understand WHY you feel the way you do. PLEASE...use your words. Use your intelligence. Use your debate skills. People here are open minded. You can do it. I believe in you!
Wow! I was trying to engage as little as possible with Comprof, but you've managed to say something worthwhile. Your patience and tact are as a balm unto my internet-weary soul. ("Do you even know what a balm is?" --Comprof)
Awww thanks dvb. It's not all bad news for me. I did manage to create a pretty successful and economically comfortable life but more importantly I did not continue the cycle of poverty and neglect with my own children. They are blessed in every way I was not and they are polite, hard working, well rounded individuals. That is my proudest accomplishment. And somehow my immigrant spouse and I were able to do it without college degrees. Not an endorsement for that route but it is the truth about our circumstances.
I'm from a small economically depressed town in the south. Thousands of examples of systemic poverty there and it didn't matter what race you were. Some climbed out on their own accord but many don't. Prioritizing what you choose to spend money on matters as well. Look on the ground outside convenience stores in poor neighborhoods. You will find beer bottles, cigarette butts and scratch off lottery tickets. Choices DO matter but that is an extremely unpopular viewpoint these days.
Yeah....such a shame that the GOP makes political hay out of convincing poor white people the reason they're poor is because the poor black/brown people are "taking" from them.
Maybe if they voted their economic self-interest rather than their race, they'd be better off.
I'm white. And you still haven't shared the back ground of the life that shaped these views. Did you attend college? Did you have a 2 parent household? Are you socio economically challenged? Are you a parent? We are kind of a family here. We care about each other and want to be kind and sensitive to everyone's needs. Please share so we can be good people to you.
Black in America, that's all you need to know. Don't need to justify/provide evidence or anything else to you.
"We're kind of a family here. We care about each other and want to be kind and sensitive to everyone' needs. Please share so we can be good people to you."
LOL!!!!!!!!! What Bari Weiss fantasy board are YOU on?
'Tis a mystery. It might be unfair, maybe even a bit paranoid, but when I see someone reply with pure invective to every comment in a thread, I can't help but wonder if they're being paid by the post.
Man, you are correct about small town poverty. I grew up in a little farm town in Wisconsin, and we were middle class - both parents civil servants. But when I was in junior high I started hanging out with the "hoods", cuz the jocks didn't want a kid who was afraid of the ball (guilty as charged.) Most of them came from the wrong side of the tracks, and if they were any better off than the poor black folks in the city 15 miles away, I sure couldn't see it. True, nobody looked down on them because of their race, but their socio-economic status did make them pariahs among most of the middle class.
Since I was a kid sitting at my family’s dinner table in the ‘60s, listening to my parents discuss the issues of the day, there has been a black problem. That was over 50 years ago, and the issues are still here. Poverty, gangs, fatherlessness, an indifference to education, dependence on welfare. Why haven’t things improved for so many black people in America? At least Loury has the guts to say, You can’t put this all on Whitey. I appreciate that. Trillions have been spent, and still there are too many black people in the poor, uneducated category. I get the sense these three guys are carefully saying, ‘C’mon now, black people, time to fix yourselves. I hope so. I readily acknowledge that there are lots of highly successful, law abiding black people of intact families, and I applaud and admire their success. But as to the others, I have grown weary of their victimhood.
The same problems exist in Canada with Indigenous people. At age 18 they are given a $20,000. lump sum and post secondary education is free. Very few save a penny or finish high school. Canadian reserves are filled with inequality and nepotism. It's an endless financial drain.
The so-called "Black problem" (that's rich in a million and one ways) has NEVER been about the suppressed Black underclass that has little to no use for politics at all. They are either too busy striving to make the best of their situations or have totally checked out and, unfortunately, given in to a sense of hopelessness. Their concerns are only aired in light of some high-profile tragedy or egregious scandal involving actors of the state, and even then they are given short shrift as the media prefers to give more coverage to the professional advocates and critics of these folks who have the appropriate amount of bombast to keep ratings up unlike the actual members of the underclass who don't have the luxury of propagating partisan narratives at the expense of truth.
The "Black problem" has always comprised the lawless rabblerousers and lovers of freedom that refused to just sit down, shut up, stay in their assigned place, and accept what's been imposed upon them unquestionably. Leaders of slave rebellions, abolitionists, Black freedmen during Reconstruction, laborers and property owners who suffered violent racist attacks, founders of Black civic organizations, influential spokesmen and intellectuals, religious leaders, athletes, entertainers, veterans, early female civil rights activists, leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, brave young school desegregationists, 2A advocates, elected officeholders, Confederate critics, and so many others--including the children of the Second Great Migration whose parents migrated to Northern and Western cities for economic opportunity during WWII, crammed into substandard housing, and were victimized by deindustrialization and urban disinvestment policies who also became demoralized by the way Black Americans fighting for full equality and Black youth in major urban areas and in school desegregation procedures were unjustly treated by business owners, state/local government employees and officials, and law enforcement.
Anyone who ponders the so-called "Black problem" must necessarily do so divorced from the larger national and global contexts in which they are situated in reality since the name of the "problem" itself implies where it ultimately lies (which is by design). Consciously or subconsciously, such an approach is rooted in the oft-unexamined lie of the inherent racial inferiority of the enslaved and their descendants but clothed in more socially acceptable 'cultural' language in service of the advancement of a particular ideological narrative which also rests upon the lie. Little effort is necessary to challenge it when the fundamental humanity of a subpopulation is denied and selective aggregated demographic statistics (as well as popular media depictions) become completely representative of actual people in all of their beautiful diversity and details in the minds of countless individuals. The only silver lining here is that the uncritical embrace of one lie goes a long way towards disproving the other side of the lie regarding the inverse of inferiority.
In short, the trajectory of Black Americans over the past half-century or so highly resembles that of working- and middle-class America overall over the same period of time. Our particular exacerbated outcomes are rooted in our vulnerability to economic shifts and upheavals caused by prior political exclusion and disenfranchisement which ironically holds predictive power for the demographic majority (whose changing fortunes will no doubt be explained by structural macroforces almost exclusively as is the case today). There is zero justification for believing that drastically different explanatory factors sufficiently make the case.
This rings very true with me and I think we arrive at the same conclusion from different view points. Which is encouraging to me. I believe that the power in this nation is the individual citizen. All of the citizens no matter how long enfranchised. I also think that the political powers that be, particularly at the federal level, but not exclusively, do not believe that and see the individual as in need of control and has an army of self-professed, so-called well-educated "elites" to assume the mantle of control. So sometimes in furtherance of this government officials profess to lament the treatment of this group or that group as an excuse for this policy or that policy. But even if those lamentations are sincere, and frankly I am skeptical, the federal government is too massive and bloated to be administered effectively as are any policies it espouses. That is true whether the policy is the standard throw-money-at-the-problem as if enough money can fix anything or turn it into a law enforcement matter and have the FBI or IRS investigate. I see this going one of two ways. Either we continue down the road to hell of identity politics or the individuals in this country say I am done being classified by my government, unite as American citizens and vote accordingly.
Thank You for Your reply. I appreciate some pushback from liberals. Others might not. And You're very intelligent compared to me. However, I don't agree with everything You've "said." I'll hafta read over this a third time to make any more comments, if any. But I'll just bring up a few issues I would have with the first paragraph. My comments preceeded by ">>>".
"The so-called "Black problem" (that's rich in a million and one ways) has NEVER been about the suppressed Black underclass that has little to no use for politics at all."
>>> I dunno who You think the commenters here are referring to. Or, at least, who *I* believe they're referring to, when they talk of "the Black problem." Some have given praise to those who've managed to enter the middle class, despite the odds. Which is the majority of Blacks, right?
>>> No, it's this very underclass You "speak" of that is largely responsible for vast numbers of murders and abortions, right? Oh yeah. You "said" these are two of the typical shibboleths brought up, as if they didn't pertain. They do.
"They are either too busy striving to make the best of their situations or have totally checked out and, unfortunately, given in to a sense of hopelessness."
>>> True.
"Their concerns are only aired in light of some high-profile tragedy or egregious scandal involving actors of the state, and even then they are given short shrift as the media prefers to give more coverage to the professional advocates and critics of these folks who have the appropriate amount of bombast to keep ratings up unlike the actual members of the underclass who don't have the luxury of propagating partisan narratives at the expense of truth."
>>> Largely true. I didn't listen to the podcast, although I would-a been glad to read a transcript. Doesn't appear one is likely. But I suspect it was this very underclass of Blacks that Professors Loury and McWhorter were discussing, right?
>>> You're other two paragraphs were interesting, but would take more to unpack them. May, or may not, depending. TY again.
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. Here are my responses:
"I dunno who You think the commenters here are referring to. Or, at least, who *I* believe they're referring to, when they talk of "the Black problem." Some have given praise to those who've managed to enter the middle class, despite the odds. Which is the majority of Blacks, right?"
I was responding specifically to NCMaureen and pushing back on the notion that the "problem" is the Black underclass. It's largely the Black middle class, those who are motivated and ambitious, because the "problem" is challenging the system as is and it is Black folks who are climbing the ladder and not experiencing gains to the same degree as their White counterparts who are the most ardent about racial justice issues. Recall that the Civil Rights Movement was largely a movement of the Black middle class. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was the brainchild of Montgomery's Women's Political Council, a civic organization for professional African American women in the city, many of whom were educators and ministers' wives. Rosa Parks was a department store seamstress and well-regarded in the city.
In your view, who's the "problem" today: the poor in Appalachia or White liberal coastal-dwellers? Answering this question should shed light on the same question about the so-called "Black problem."
"No, it's this very underclass You "speak" of that is largely responsible for vast numbers of murders and abortions, right? Oh yeah. You "said" these are two of the typical shibboleths brought up, as if they didn't pertain. They do."
Yeah but those things aren't particularly problematic for the people talking about a so-called "Black problem." The rest of society doesn't care about the poor self-destructing; that's only useful as a political talking point. That's especially true as far as the Black poor are concerned; after all, the crack epidemic was never approached as a public health crisis.
"But I suspect it was this very underclass of Blacks that Professors Loury and McWhorter were discussing, right?"
Except the subject of discussion isn't the underclass at all. This is was simply yet another example of someone using a discussion about a racial issue--not a Black issue but a racial issue--as an occasion for a screed on what they perceive to be Black inferiority because that's all Black people are to them: not real human beings with human problems, but rather as a perpetual intractable melanated problem to be dealt with.
TY again for writing. A few points:
"I was responding specifically to NCMaureen and pushing back on the notion that the 'problem' is the Black underclass. It's largely the Black middle class, those who are motivated and ambitious, because the 'problem' is challenging the system as is and it is Black folks who are climbing the ladder and not experiencing gains to the same degree as their White counterparts who are the most ardent about racial justice issues."
> I think You've redefined the problem according to Your own designs. To me, and I believe NCMaureen, the problem *IS* the Black underclass. And the fact that this gets so little pushback from both Blacks and Whites. This is not a culture to be admired, yet Kendi states that all cultures are equal. Mebbe, but some cultures are more *lethal* than others. Plus, I don't see much congruence between the Civil Rights era and what passes for social "justice" these days.
"Yeah but those things aren't particularly problematic for the people talking about a so-called 'Black problem.' The rest of society doesn't care about the poor self-destructing; that's only useful as a political talking point. That's especially true as far as the Black poor are concerned; after all, the crack epidemic was never approached as a public health crisis."
> I'll go along with that to an extent. Like You "say," the poor get ignored, no matter the melanin. I think the problem comes up because all things Black are elevated these days. This despite the (don't care for the word) "problematic" culture of the Black underclass. The problem is people's ability to absorb such cognitive dissonance. If everything Blacks do is so great, howso this destructive culture?
> Also, it'd be a long discussion about the extent addiction is a public health crisis. Not saying it *isn't.* Just saying it isn't *strictly* a public health issue.
"Except the subject of discussion isn't the underclass at all. This is was simply yet another example of someone using a discussion about a racial issue--not a Black issue but a racial issue--as an occasion for a screed on what they perceive to be Black inferiority because that's all Black people are to them: not real human beings with human problems, but rather as a perpetual intractable melanated problem to be dealt with."
> I dunno about this. Like I said, I didn't listen to the podcast, so dunno what issue was. And I can only "speak" for myself. I largely agree with NCMaureen, and it's not a question of inferiority or superiority being defined by skin-color. I don't much cotton to a lotta J.D. Vance's politics, but I read "Hillbilly Elegy" with interest. It seemed there were some unfortunate similarities between that culture and the Black underclass. And that gets us back to:
"In your view, who's the 'problem' today: the poor in Appalachia or White liberal coastal-dwellers? Answering this question should shed light on the same question about the so-called 'Black problem.'"
> To me this is a tough question, because it's like asking which is blacker? The pot or the kettle? The way I would weigh it is like this: (And as I'm thinking about it, it's a tougher question still...) I think the poor in Appalachia are a very serious problem. Especially as it presents a situation that is likely to be exacerbated by AI and automation of the next decade or two.
> But I guess I'd say the White liberal coastal-dwellers are the biggest problem. You may be one-a these. What You call "challenging the systems as is," some others (like myself) would call it trying to bring the system to its knees. This delusional thinking that the system needs to be "dismantled" to eliminate (non-existent) "structural racism" is one *dangerous* piece-a clap-trap. Your views may, and likely will, differ.
> And I'm afraid that this problem of White liberal coastal-dwellers is a lot *more* intractable than the problem of the poor in Appalachia.
----------------------------------
That brings us to the second paragraph in what You wrote above:
“The ‘Black problem’ has always comprised the lawless rabblerousers and lovers of freedom that refused to just sit down, shut up, stay in their assigned place, and accept what's been imposed upon them unquestionably.”
> I’m sorry, but *TRUE* lovers of freedom don’t associate with lawless rabblerousers. Because *TRUE* lovers of freedom understand that there are responsibilities that go along with being allowed the freedoms.
“Leaders of slave rebellions, abolitionists, Black freedmen during Reconstruction, laborers and property owners who suffered violent racist attacks, founders of Black civic organizations, influential spokesmen and intellectuals, religious leaders, athletes, entertainers, veterans, early female civil rights activists, leaders of the Civil Rights Movement, brave young school desegregationists, 2A advocates, elected officeholders, Confederate critics, and so many others--including the children of the Second Great Migration whose parents migrated to Northern and Western cities for economic opportunity during WWII, crammed into substandard housing, and were victimized by deindustrialization and urban disinvestment policies who also became demoralized by the way Black Americans fighting for full equality and Black youth in major urban areas and in school desegregation procedures were unjustly treated by business owners, state/local government employees and officials, and law enforcement.”
> This sentence was too long. Nonetheless, I think it shows a romantic view that doesn’t really correspond with reality. I’m not “saying” it’s entirely incorrect. But that a lotta it just doesn’t have a lot to do with what’s going on *TODAY.*
> I would try to gently point out that Affirmative Action for the last 50 years has meant that it is, in actual *fact,* White males who are today fighting for full equality, right? You say White males hold most-a the positions of power? And how many of these White males in power are members of the Woke Religion? How many are fighting for the rights of women and Blacks at the expense of White males? (While maintaining their hold on power, of course.)
> I know this probably comes as a shock. May even sound ridiculous. But it’s an untold fact. That’s where we are *TODAY.* On the totem pole of life, in *way* too many ways, White males are below ground.
> I’ll just bring up the most ridiculous case: Reparations. There has never been a more stupendously stupid idea ever imagined. Looked at from multiple angles, it’s stupid in all respects. Yet it has gained some traction amongst White liberal coastal elites.
> The major problem, for one point that’s obvious to anyone with eyes to see, is that the issue that *should* be dealt with is to help POOR people withOUT regard to skin-color, right? Otherwise, You’d be looking at one-a the most blatant examples of racism anyone could imagine, right? Yet, for *some* reason, this is *not* as obvious as it should be. Why? As I “said” above.
> So, IMV (In My View), the idea that Blacks are treated unjustly needs to be balanced against how things are *TODAY.* Where, in a lotta cases, White males are treated “unjustly.” I put “unjustly” in quotes on purpose. Because the word “justice” has been extruded beyond all sense of meaning these days, is why.
Let me start with the middle of your post where you state "Like I said, I didn't listen to the podcast, so dunno what issue was. And I can only 'speak' for myself. I largely agree with NCMaureen..."
I think it's the fact that you don't see anything at all wrong with this is why we'll forever be at an impasse. No matter what the actual topic of discussion is, if it involves Black folks in any way, folks like NCMaureen and yourself feel entitled to hijack the discussion to talk about everything that's wrong with Black folks. Not only is the nomenclature, "the BLACK problem," a stark example of the identity politics that conservatives claim to loathe (obviously only when it comes from the other side), but it is offensive to all Black people because 1) you make the issue inherently racial--which is nothing more than racial essentialism--which erases any kind of distinctions that exist among us and 2) it's not at all reflective of the vast majority of Black Americans. This is why I'm firmly convinced that in you all's minds, the "worst" of us will always define all of us despite the fact that it doesn't at all even come close to constituting most of us. The only logical accounting for this is an undying embrace of the wicked, pernicious ideology of Black inferiority (which is the flip side of White supremacy).
At any rate, however you want to define the so-called Black problem, I'll just refer you to the eminent orator and minister, Frederick Douglass, who so masterfully dealt with this subject well over a century ago (the more things change, the more they stay the same I suppose):
"But I want however, to be clearly understood at the outset. I do not pretend that Negroes are saints and angels. I do not deny that they are capable of committing the crime imputed to them, but utterly deny that they are any more addicted to the commission of that crime than is true of any other variety of the human family. In entering upon my argument, I may be allowed to say again what should be taken for granted at the start, that I am not a defender of any man guilty of this atrocious crime, but a defender of the coloured people as a class...
But this charge thus brought against the Negro and as constantly reiterated by his enemies, is plainly enough not merely a charge against the individual culprit, as would be the case with an individual of any other race, but it is in large measure a charge constructively against the coloured people as such. It throws over every man of colour a mantle of odium, and sets upon him a mark of popular hate, more distressing than the mark set upon the first murderer. It points the Negro out as an object of suspicion, avoidance and hate...
I now come to the so-called, but mis-called 'Negro Problem'...
I say at once, I do not admit the justice or propriety of this formula, as applied to the question before us. Words are things. They are certainly such in this case, since they give us a misnomer that is misleading and hence mischievous. It is a formula of Southern origin and has a strong bias against the Negro. It handicaps his cause with all the prejudice known to exist and anything to which he is a party. It has been accepted by the good people of the North, as I think, without proper thought and investigation. It is a crafty invention and is in every way worthy of its inventors.
It springs out of a desire to throw off just responsibility and to evade the performance of disagreeable but manifest duty. Its natural effect and purpose is to divert attention from the true issue now before the American people. It does this by holding up and pre-occupying the public mind with an issue entirely different from the real one in question. That which is really a great national problem and which ought to be so considered by the whole American people, dwarfs into a 'Negro Problem.' The device is not new. It is an old trick. It has been oft repeated and with a similar purpose and effect. For truth, it gives us falsehood. For innocence, it gives us guilt. It removes the burden of proof from the old master class and imposes it upon the Negro. It puts upon the race a work which belongs to the nation. It belongs to that craftiness often displayed by disputants who aim to make the worse appear the better reason. It gives bad names to good things and good names to bad things."
Now, getting back to responses to your statements:
"the issue that *should* be dealt with is to help POOR people withOUT regard to skin-color, right? Otherwise, You’d be looking at one-a the most blatant examples of racism anyone could imagine, right? Yet, for *some* reason, this is *not* as obvious as it should be. Why? As I 'said' above."
So you're arguing that "the BLACK problem," which obviously isn't blatantly racist from your point of view, calls for colorblind solutions? Yeah that sounds about right.
"I’m sorry, but *TRUE* lovers of freedom don’t associate with lawless rabblerousers. Because *TRUE* lovers of freedom understand that there are responsibilities that go along with being allowed the freedoms."
This is very telling on your part. What do you think of the notoriously lawless rabblerousers like Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglass, Rosa Parks, John Lewis, MLK, etc.?
Also, I contend that your admission that the White liberal coastal elites are the more serious problem compared to the Appalachian poor (which is a proxy for all poor White Americans) lends credence to my argument that "the Black problem," as it were, is really all about Black Americans who are vocal about injustice--and they are disproportionately middle class and above, which is intuitive considering the fact that the greatest Black/White racial disparities occur at the upper ends of the socioeconomic spectrum, not at the bottom--and not simply the Black underclass. The only difference between the groups I asked you about and the groups actually under discussion is racial. It is the Obamas, the Ibram Kendis, Ta-Nehisi Coateses, Nikole Hannah-Joneses, Michael Eric Dysons, Ketanji Brown Jacksons, etc that are the problem. Opposition to the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory will drive more voters to the polls than any sort of policy designed to uplift Black poor folks every day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Part 2 of 2
Now I’ll point out where what You’ve written, KB, is simply illogical.
As far as Woke hypocrisy goes, what You’ve done is feel pretty daggone entitled Yourself and hijacked the conversation to talk about how great Black people are. Nothing so much wrong with that, other than the hypocrisy.
Where You say that all “folks like NCMaureen and yourself” wanna talk about is what’s wrong with Black folks? Take note how I group poor Blacks with poor Whites. Again, explain how You managed to ignore that?
I see You wrote, “2) it's not at all reflective of the vast majority of Black Americans.” Like NCMaureen wrote, there are LOT’S of law-abiding, &c., &c. I’ve written before, but not in *these* comments, that I believe the Black underclass make up 25% or 33% of Blacks. (Sorry, forget which at the moment. I’m thinkin’ 25%.) POINT IS You’re not saying anything we don’t know.
“This is why I'm firmly convinced that in you all's minds, the ‘worst’ of us will always define all of us despite the fact that it doesn't at all even come close to constituting most of us. The only logical accounting for this is an undying embrace of the wicked, pernicious ideology of Black inferiority (which is the flip side of White supremacy).”
I’ll repeat what I just wrote above. And add that AFAIK (As Far As I Know), only a Black racist would think this way about White people. And You’re not the first Woke hypocrite who’s slammed Whites for not dealing with Blacks as individuals, but feel free to do the *exact* *same* *thing* to Whites all the time. Very *convenient* for You Woke folk.
I read Frederick Douglass’s Fourth of July Speech a long time ago, so I’ll skip the long lecture.
I wrote: “…help POOR people withOUT regard to skin-color.”
You wrote right after that?
“So you're arguing that ‘the BLACK problem,’ which obviously isn't blatantly racist from your point of view, calls for colorblind solutions? Yeah that sounds about right.”
No. What I wrote means exactly, literally, what it “says.” I wrote nothing about “the BLACK problem.” It would appear that only a Black racist would turn around what a White person said in this convoluted manner, to make it appear like *HE’S* the racist. Or You have another explanation why You wrote this nonsense?
You don’t know much about me. Something funny? Due to a quirk of fate, I saw “To Kill a Mockingbird” when I was six. It had a lifelong impact on me. I haven’t known a lotta Black people. But with most-a them, it was a very *CLOSE* relationship. ALL-a them would be *real surprised* that You decided to call me a racist.
I dunno You’ve ever been to Professor Loury’s Substack. He was one-a the first I found. I’ve posted a *lotta* nice compliments to him. (Don’t agree with absolutely *everything* he says, but who does? *Almost* everything.) I don’t have a problem with Black people. I have a problem with Woke Black people.
Obama doesn’t deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as Black racists like Kendi, Coates, and Hannah-Jones, IMV (In My View). You want me to elaborate on that, KB? Ketanji Brown Jackson? Pfffft. You want me to elaborate on that, KB?
As far as Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglas? Different era. I dunno enough about John Lewis, but as far as Rosa Parks and MLK? You and I have an *entirely* different ideas about what notorious rabblerousers are, because they’re not. Nice try tho. “Very telling.”
“Also, I contend that your admission that the White liberal coastal elites are the more serious problem compared to the Appalachian poor (which is a proxy for all poor White Americans) lends credence to my argument that "the Black problem," as it were, is really all about Black Americans who are vocal about injustice--and they are disproportionately middle class and above,”
Again, I believe only a Black racist would take what I “said” about *White* people, and go through intentional contortions to come up with negative conclusions about what I think of Black people. IOW, sorry. It doesn’t lend *any* credence to Your argument.
First of all, I’d like You to point out, in *any* comments I’ve *ever* written here on CS over the past year, where I’ve ever called any-a this “the Black problem.” Second of all, You’re simply delusional if You think White people see a lotta problems with the Black middle class and above.
I believe You’re conflating two different things. Again: People (especially ME) don’t have problems with Black people. They have problems with WOKE Black people. Woke White people too, of course.
You may wanna be cautious about what You wish for, KB:
“Opposition to the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory will drive more voters to the polls than any sort of policy designed to uplift Black poor folks every day of the week and twice on Sundays.”
If the TRUTH about these things gets out, that’ll surely happen. But not in the way You think. You’re lucky that lies and hypocrisy carry the day, at least at the present time.
Finally, I invite You to respond to what I *actually* *wrote.* You skipped most-a it, and conveniently interpreted it (incorrectly), so that You could put out some talking points that have nothing to do with what I wrote. Try again? I’ll put forth another question to You, KB: Isn’t it racist that only Blacks like Professors Loury and McWhorter can state the obvious, but White people are called racists if they say the same?
Seriously, I’d probably be interested. I just suggest You use *logic* instead-a Wokespeak.
"As far as Harriet Tubman and Frederick Douglas? Different era. I dunno enough about John Lewis, but as far as Rosa Parks and MLK? You and I have an *entirely* different ideas about what notorious rabblerousers are, because they’re not. Nice try tho. 'Very telling.'"
They were all lawbreakers who disrupted the social order for a higher, more just purpose which is why they were considered lawless rabblerousers in their day by those who opposed their activism. That was the entire point of the civil rights movement: civil disobedience, which is simply a more acceptable way to say "nonviolent lawbreakers."
"I’ll repeat what I just wrote above. And add that AFAIK (As Far As I Know), only a Black racist would think this way about White people. And You’re not the first Woke hypocrite who’s slammed Whites for not dealing with Blacks as individuals, but feel free to do the *exact* *same* *thing* to Whites all the time. Very *convenient* for You Woke folk."
Actually, I believe that, to some extent or another, we have all come to believe in the notion of White supremacy and Black inferiority, and Black folks are no exception at all. Frederick Douglass himself alludes to this so masterfully in the speech I posted excerpts of, which actually is *not* "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" but rather "Why is the Negro Lynched?" which can be accessed here: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59116/59116-h/59116-h.htm
Douglas says,
"Now what the real problem is, we all ought to know. It is not a Negro problem, but in every sense a great national problem. It involves the question, whether after all our boasted civilization, our Declaration of Independence, our matchless Constitution, our sublime Christianity, our wise statesmanship, we as a people, possess virtue enough to solve this problem in accordance with wisdom and justice, and to the advantage of both races.
The marvel is that this old trick of misnaming things, so often displayed by Southern politicians, should have worked so well for the bad cause in which it is now employed; for the American people have fallen in with the bad idea that this is a Negro problem, a question of the character of the Negro and not a question of the nation. It is still more surprising that the coloured press of the country, and some of our coloured orators, have made the same mistake, and still insist upon calling it a 'Negro problem,' or a race problem, for by race they mean the Negro race."
Such an astute and enduring observation.
"No. What I wrote means exactly, literally, what it 'says.' I wrote nothing about 'the BLACK problem.' It would appear that only a Black racist would turn around what a White person said in this convoluted manner, to make it appear like *HE’S* the racist. Or You have another explanation why You wrote this nonsense?"
First of all, I never accused anyone of being a racist for having used the phrase "the Black problem." I explained why the phrase, if understood in strict socioeconomic terms, was problematic and misleading. But if understood in the way I contend it always has, most likely as half of a double entrende in certain contexts, then I'd actually say it's appropriately descriptive.
Also, I'm aware that you didn't introduce "the Black problem" to the discussion or put your explicit stamp of approval on the phrase, but you also didn't appear to register any objection to its racialized terminology. Even if you wish to officially call it "the Black underclass problem," the point yet remains: if the problem is associated with a particular demographic to an exceptional degree, then why shouldn't the solution also be targeted towards that particular demographic to an exceptional degree--assuming the goal is actually related to the disparity that the problem highlights.
"Isn’t it racist that only Blacks like Professors Loury and McWhorter can state the obvious, but White people are called racists if they say the same?"
I can assure you that whatever you consider to be "the obvious" that Loury and McWhorter are stating, it's not only Black college professors who are saying the same but that doesn't mean you're aware of when and where such conversations typically take place (and regular everyday people aren't having them via podcast), which are first and foremost for our benefit as the real life issues that they are and not for partisan political fodder to entertain those who have the luxury of time to be studiously dedicated to intently following politics regularly as we are. If you think Loury and McWhorter are the only Black people who, for example, think these DEI trainings and whatnot are much ado about a whole lotta nothing, then you don't know Black folks. So in terms of broad themes, such conversations are ongoing in quite dynamic ways. Now some of the stuff Loury and McWhorter discuss are somewhat niche or limited in scope also, so it's not like they are high-profile enough to be discussed as widely across the population (I'd actually throw the 1619 Project flareup in that category).
I'd appreciate it if You'd read what I wrote a little closer.
I understand those You mention were lawbreakers. I never denied that. What I actually WROTE was that I don't view them as "notorious RABBLEROUSERS." (Your words.) I still don't.
And You write "we have ALL come to believe in the notion of White supremacy and Black inferiority"?? (emphasis added) If You really believe that, I feel sorry for You. Because, in actual FACT, that is not the default opinion of any White people I know. So if You're speaking for other Black people besides Yourself, I feel sorry for them, too. And also because if so, IN THIS CASE, You are exhibiting intellectual inferiority. IOW, why on *earth* would ANY people think this way? Yeah, I know some do. All the Woke White people that load a lotta inferiority on Blacks by believing we should all have low expectations of Blacks. That's just plain ignorant, right?
Again, read carefully. I didn't say what You QUOTED was FDs "Fourth" speech. I wrote I had already READ THAT ONE, and didn't feel the need to read the one You quoted. I still don't feel the need to read what You quoted. It sounds like a lecture. My bad.
Now I'm losing patience. I may not make it to the end. You're blaming me because I didn't register any objection to the terminology. I REPHRASED NCMaureens WORDS AND LEFT THAT PART OUT, DIDN'T I? Correct me if I'm wrong. Pretty sure I did that, somewhere in the two tomes.
I apologize. I'm not sure I'm understanding what You're writing about, referring the "the Black Underclass problem. I'm guessing I agree. But I would point out that where You said White people view the Upper Middle/Middle class Blacks as being any problem, I disagree with that strongly. YOu stated that at one point.
Finally, I'm glossing over some things. If You CAREFULLY read what I write, You would-a noticed I've STATED I haven't known many Black people. I'm getting tired of repeating and clarifying what I've already written. I also stated I've had CLOSE relations with the few I have known.
Yeah, You would know what conversations are going on amongst Black people better than I do. I Blacks feel DEI is a crock, I glad to "hear" it. Amongst the what-i-call "Woke Black folks," You wouldn't likely hear that. You're sure right about one thing. The two Professors are *definitely* niche, because a large number of both Whites and Blacks don't *want* their voices heard. I'm NOT "saying" You're one-a these. Please don't read more into what I right.
Finally, I'm afraid we'll disagree on the 1619 Project. That was propaganda. What one would expect outta the NYT. NH-J HERSELF stated it was NOT HISTORY. She called it a "JOURNEY STORY."
So, pray tell, why was it sent out to so many schools to be *taught as history.*
Yeah, Blacks need to feature in history lessons more. If it were me, I'd tell BOTH sides-a Tulsa Race Massacre. Yeah, the massacre was horrible. But what gets lost is that, in the face of some-a the *worst racism* this country has ever seen, these Black people were able to create the "Black Wall Street." How was that possible? But the MAIN point is that they *rebuilt it again* after it was destroyed. The story isn't JUST about the harms done to Blacks, but the strengths they exhibited, right?
You'll probably take this wrong, but here goes: I read another book that wouldn't pass Black Woke's muster. Trying to recall... Found it, It was called "Hidden Numbers," and was set during the racism of the 50s. But the *point* of it was these Black Women Mathematicians that were "human calculators" before there were computers. Problem is, it was inspiring. Nobody'd wanna read that these days, right?
The whole *point* of the 1619 Project was to make America look bad, right? You'll admit that was the brunt of it. Probably not. Because You'd probably see it as just telling history like it was. Well, yeah. ONE SIDE of it. That's why I called it propaganda. It was a hit job.
All that to say...
If You're gonna reply, I'd appreciate it if You replied to what I actually wrote. I'm trying to do same.
But, per what You mentioned before: Since I never listened to the podcast, and almost certainly never will, "we're good." It's all good.
Part 1 of 2
Well, well, well... “Ain’t this sumpin.” You wrote way up above, “As Loury stated in the podcast, we can go ‘raceless’ without eliminating ethnic distinctions that are rooted in a common history and culture.”
I read by sensei smell. And I haven’t completely decided if You, KB, smell like a Black racist or like a totally ignoramus. I suspect both. You most *definitely* aren’t coming across in any way, shape, or form as “raceless.” And THAT’s why we’ll forever be at an impasse. It’s 100% on YOU, KB0679.
You wrote the following? “... folks like NCMaureen and yourself feel entitled to hijack the discussion...“
And then You have the *gall* to write the following?
“1) you make the issue inherently racial--which is nothing more than racial essentialism--which erases any kind of distinctions that exist among us”
To ease the tension a little, I’ll use a phrase from the olden times: “It’s snowing down south.”
I dunno what sex You are, KB. Not important. This phrase was said when a woman’s slip was showing below their dress. When I use the phrase, I mean Your WOKE slip is showing. And the hallmark of Woke people is HYPOCRICY.
And ignorance. I would quote what I said, and what You quoted, and then explain it. Because You either intentionally interpreted what I “said” wrong, or You just lack understanding.
“I largely agree with NCMaureen..." Note that “largely” means “not entirely.” “Mostly.” Let us now try to analyze what NCMaureen wrote. I snipped some parts that I wouldn’t say. Let’s see where You disagree with the FACTS, KB.
<snip> “the issues are still here. Poverty, gangs, fatherlessness, an indifference to education, dependence on welfare.”
Are You gonna deny that these are issues in the Black UNDERCLASS, KB?
“Why haven’t things improved for so many <or as I would phrase it, “a minority of”> black people in America? At least Loury has the guts to say, You can’t put this all on Whitey.”
As I’ve “said,” I didn’t listen to the podcast. You deny this is what Professor Loury said, KB?
“I appreciate that. Trillions have been spent, and still there are too many black people in the poor, uneducated category.”
Amongst the Black UNDERCLASS. You see any problems like this, KB?
“I get the sense these three guys are carefully saying, ‘C’mon now, black people, time to fix yourselves. I hope so.”
Is this something You would be against, KB? Gang culture? Fatherless culture? (As I wrote above, not strictly a problem among Blacks, but Whites as well.)
“I readily acknowledge that there are lots of highly successful, law abiding black people of intact families, and I applaud and admire their success.”
I said same before. I believe somewhere here in these same comments. Now, You’ve very conveniently made the fraudulent case that White people only wanna talk about the so-call Black problem. The only way I can see why You ignore these kinds-a statements is because You’re a Black racist, or You’re ignorant, or You think You’re clever to just ignore the FACTS of the matter when You’re debating. ICBW, of course.
“But as to the others, I have grown weary of their victimhood.” <Me? I’d probably phrase that last a little differently. No biggie.>
Where do You contradict the above, KB? Don’t give me any more-a that Woke crap. Just stick to the above statements, as I’ve slightly modified, and tell me where You disagree with me, Professor Loury and NCMaureen.
I'm not ignorant nor am I a "Black racist" (which is somehow different than a racist that just so happens to be Black?).
Oh and trying to use "Woke" as a pejorative against a Black person doesn't really work. It's a politicized caricature of White progressives by White conservatives based on an old much simpler concept that arose in our community sometime during the first Great Migration if I'm not mistaken. But we also did the same internally, as it became a pejorative against certain Black groups that went to extremes like various Black nationalist groups. We've been doing that in Black TV and film as comedy relief for decades now. So to us, conservatives using "woke" as a way of politically tarnishing folks to their left sounds like an octogenarian grandma trying to be cool on Tik Tok.
And where did I ever claim to embrace or embody the concept of "racelessness"?
If you wish to listen to the podcast and then actually discuss the topic at hand, we can do that. If not, then we're good.
I'll step back, and "say" ICBW that You're a Black racist. I dunno. All I know is that Blacks can racists just as easily as Whites can be. Small percentages of each.
And I'm sorry. I already know where "woke" came from. You can say my usage is archaic. But when You use the same exact wording as the Woke, about the same fragile so-called theories the Woke hold, then I maintain that You act Woke. This is first I heard that Blacks were absolved of responsiblity of being logical, and UN-Woke.
I never said or implied You embraced the concept of racelessness, did I? Probably didn't write it too good. I meant that I embody it, and maybe You could grow into the concept. I know... But miracles never cease, right?
We're good.
Of course Black folks, as well as folks of every race and ethnicity, can be racist. I just don't understand the point of qualifying "racist" with "Black," as though it's a different category or quality of racism when true of Black folks.
I never said Black folks "were absolved of responsibility of being logical." I simply said the "woke" slur doesn't land the way you think it does when applied to Black folks because practically all Black folks are at least a little bit "woke" on matters of race, regardless of political ideology (some of the most "woke" folks I know are Black Republicans). It works when applied to White liberals because the implication is that, in part, it's performative. For us, it's simply a part of life and comes with the territory of being Black in America. And for us, it's also primarily restricted to racial/cultural issues and isn't inclusive of all of the newfangled gender issues and what not. But at the end of the day, lambasting "wokeness" doesn't constitute a counterargument as none of my claims have been considered on their own merits and disproven logically. Characterizing my rhetoric as "woke" as a means of discrediting them is merely your run-of-the-mill ad hominem attack.
The implication on your part was that either I embraced racelessness or that I ought to embrace it when you stated, "You most *definitely* aren’t coming across in any way, shape, or form as 'raceless.'" You say you embody it, but I'm not seeing how since in your view I'm a "Black racist." There's absolutely no reason to qualify someone's racism by his/her race yet this is what you've done. So nah, you don't embody it and I don't claim to embody it either because it's so embedded in the nation's collective psyche that it's impossible to avoid thinking or talking about race in its conventional form at least sometimes. I happen to think that we're stuck with the concept of race and have to work through it. Once you've seen it, can you truly unsee it? And as a form of demographic categorization, it's not unreasonable as a higher level grouping of persons. The insidious aspect is the arbitrarily false value assigned to the concept as a way of advantaging or disadvantaging persons based on nothing more than phenotypic characteristics.
You're a breath of fresh air if You admit all races can be racist. Most Woke people won't. Black and White Woke folks, both, have said otherwise. Because, as Critical Theory would have it, racism is all about power differentials. (Like everything.)
I don't think You bothered to read what I wrote, Or not very carefully. Because I didn't base all my arguments on whether You were Woke or not. Nice try tho.
You *definitely* didn't read this carefully: "You most *definitely* aren’t coming across in any way, shape, or form as 'raceless.'" If You can up with the possibility that You embraced racelessness outta that, I dunno what to say. And this was already discussed. I won't quote, but I already wrote, in essence, that *I* embrace racelessness (as best I can) and I thought You *might* be able to "grow into it."
Like You say, it's impossible to avoid thinking or talking about race ... at least some times. Again, going by the number of times I've read that ONLY White people can be racist, then specifying a contrary opinion to that necessitated saying "Black" racist. And You must-a missed a memo. I admitted I was wrong to call You one. I dunno You well enough. You came across that way to me at first, is all.
No, where not "stuck with it [race]." No, it's "not unreasonable as a higher level grouping of persons." But if You *really* don't believe in "advantaging or disadvantaging persons based on nothing more than phenotypic characteristics" then *isn't* that, essentially, looking at things in a raceless Way??
And if You *really* look at things in that way, then, yeah, One doesn't need to provide advantages or disadvantages based on immutable characteristics, right? So I wonder how the Supreme Court will see the Affirmative Action case?
Loury explains the black problem a whole lot more clearly than what you just wrote.
Could you point me to a source that clearly and comprehensively explains the white problem?
Not your research assistant
That doesn't constitute "pointing me to a source" to obtain in-depth information about the white problem. In other words, who's the Glenn Loury of white folks that I should be taking my cues from?
By the way, you'd do well to read this speech by the eminent orator and spokesman Frederick Douglass about the so-called Black (or, in his day, Negro) problem: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59116/59116-h/59116-h.htm
A pertinent excerpt:
"I now come to the so-called, but mis-called “Negro[31] Problem,” as a characterization of the relations existing in the Southern States.
I say at once, I do not admit the justice or propriety of this formula, as applied to the question before us. Words are things. They are certainly such in this case, since they give us a misnomer that is misleading and hence mischievous. It is a formula of Southern origin and has a strong bias against the Negro. It handicaps his cause with all the prejudice known to exist and anything to which he is a party. It has been accepted by the good people of the North, as I think, without proper thought and investigation. It is a crafty invention and is in every way worthy of its inventors.
It springs out of a desire to throw off just responsibility and to evade the performance of disagreeable but manifest duty. Its natural effect and purpose is to divert attention from the true issue now before the American people. It does this by holding up and pre-occupying the public mind with an issue entirely different from the real one in question. That which is really a great national problem and which ought to be so considered by the whole American people, dwarfs into a “Negro Problem.” The device is not new. It is an old trick. It has been oft repeated and with a similar purpose and effect. For truth, it gives us falsehood. For innocence, it gives us guilt. It removes the burden of proof from the old master class and imposes it upon the Negro. It puts upon the race a work which belongs to the nation. It belongs to that craftiness often displayed by disputants who aim to make the worse appear the better reason. It gives bad names to good things and good names to bad things...
I repeat, and my contention is that this Negro problem formula lays the fault at the door of the Negro and removes it from the door of the white man, shields the guilty and blames the innocent, makes the Negro responsible, when it should so make the nation.
Now what the real problem is, we all ought to know. It is not a Negro problem, but in every sense a great national problem. It involves the question, whether after all our boasted civilization, our Declaration of Independence, our matchless Constitution, our sublime Christianity, our wise statesmanship, we as a people, possess virtue enough to solve this problem in accordance with wisdom and justice, and to the advantage of both races."
George Wallace Jr. was the 45th governor of Alabama for four terms. A member of the Democratic Party.
I'm not sure what your point is as it's not relevant to anything I stated.
Stand in the Schoolhouse Door took place at Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama on June 11, 1963. George Wallace, the Governor of Alabama, in a symbolic attempt to keep his inaugural promise of "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and stop the desegregation of schools, stood at the door of the auditorium as if to block the entry of two African American students: Vivian Malone and James Hood.[1]
There isn't a black problem it is a white problem.
This is just a historical event that took place probably before u were born but while I was a Jr in high school
That I picked for example only. History is forgotten
10 million Africans were killed by Muslim slave traders yet it is forgotten history
Old tune zombie jamboree by the Kingston trio
Interesting. But as far as I'm concerned, it's only half-right. I dunno how anyone can say it's *only* a white problem.
Ok I can agree with that
You can blame whitey alright; the great society big white liberal government that replaced the black father. By design. Blacks were doing well in most places other than the south prior to this.
Watch "Uncle Tom II".
So who's to blame for the erosion of "the white father"?
Their father and government.
I'm still waiting for the panel discussions and think tanks to tackle the issue and link it all back to LBJ. Apparently he was only Black America's antichrist.
By design?....be careful, that's awfully close to "systemic."
It is systemic, blacks are a tool of the Left and they are now forsaking you for hispanics coming across the border. Which is hirting blacks more than anything.
Yeah...yeah....
Something....something "plantation,"....something..."being tricked"....something, something..."stupid," etc.
That's good messaging/outreach, right there.
Odd, no one ever says that about American Jews, who overwhelmingly vote Democratic.
Gee, I can't seem to see why GOP isn't killing it with the black vote! Yeah...all that lived experience, post 1965 history, everyday observation and actually listening to what comes out of people's mouths might be getting in the way. Maybe Tommy Tuberville can weigh in?
Americans of African descent were GOP and on equal economic footing prior to "The Great Society" BS.
Watch Larry Elders Uncle Tom II. Read Thomas Sowell.
Listened to Larry regularly when I lived in LA. Even watched his documentary "Uncle Tom" Have read Sowell many times....do you know any others besides them? No, you don't. And Candace Owens doesn't count.
Yeah - "equal footing," but segregated w/no voting rights - lol- which I'm sure you prefer as a better set-up. However, not unusual for black people of a certain generation/age to valorize/pine for the days segregation. My father has played along that line several times, but then he remembers OTHER things about is life - and kind of snaps back to reality. So, Danimal28, not only am I already very familiar with Elder and Sowell. I actually, unlike YOU, have LIVED EXPERIENCE with the issue.
ANYHOOOO.....ONCE AGAIN....I have to explain to someone else on this board (you) That when the GOP nominated anti-Civil Rights/pro-segregation Barry Goldwater for POTUS in 1964, the entire political ideology of the GOP shifted and black people, like baseball great Jackie Robinson, left the party in droves - because the writing on the wall was clear.
So, the "Great Society BS" - which helped FAR many more whites than blacks (why so resentful?) was a negligible part of the the shift. From Goldwater.....to R. Reagan's fake "Welfare Queens" and "Big Black Bucks" buying T-bone steaks, and States Rights Speeches in Missisppi.....to Donald Trump's Birthersism and Mexicans are "rapists and murderers"....and now Tommy Tuberville (R) is in on the act, receiving raucous cheers in NV with his reparations for the criminals speech. So, none of this should be a surprise or confusing.
Of course not a single one of his colleagues have, or will, condemn such language/ideology - because the GOP voters like it, as white grievance has always been great political fodder in America, even more so now, that demographics are changing in many areas.
I was just SOOOO shocked that Tuberville, a former college football coach, who made all that money off the backs of young, black athletes harbored such views/said something like that....aren't you?
The GOP just hasn't gotten the same numbers pre-1964/65....I wonder why?.....could it be their lived experience and paying attention to what the GOP actually says and does? Could it be paying attention to what the GOP supports like and respond to?.....nah.....let's just call them dumb and lazy people who are still living "on a plantation."
Booker T vs Web Dubois...
Lol! I typed that, before I saw it. Of course, I mentioned them long ago to you. You don't know anyone more recent/current?
So....please elaborate re: Washington and Dubois....this is gonna be great!
Get it off your chest? Again?
Now can you come over to my house and let me prepare a steak to toast you?
Yep. Sure did.
I always enjoy getting things off my chest (i.e. blowing you up). So, as long as you keep bringing up dumb shit re: GOP in the 1800s, pre- 1964/65, I'll keep doing it
What do you want to attempt to inform me about next, Danimal28? The long historical debate re: Washington vs. Dubois?
Why in the hell would I ever come over to your house?
You are incapable of blowing me up, but keep trying as you make yourself look like a fool which is too bad as you are a smart dude.
Do it all the time. Especially with your "GoP In ThE 1800s" nonsense. Stop living in the past and move on.
That combined with your embarrassing lack of knowledge regarding African-American political, economic, social etc. discourses, yet your misguided insistence on discussion/opining is laughable.
Which is why you, and your colleagues, have been incapable of refuting any of the factual information. I have presented and are left with only pathetic, ad hominem attacks.
But, go ahead, surprise me Danimal28....put together a cogent response, that doesn't involve black social/political theorists that I already told you about.
Beautifully stated, NC Maureen. When I hear the word, "programs," I cringe. I am so tired of this discussion and I yearn for the day when black people will just get on with their lives. Do you think the average black man, woman or child knows who Glenn Loury is? What about Condoleezza Rice? Regarding the latter, in 2014, during the Obama years, she was scheduled to deliver a commencement speech at Rutgers University. There were so many protests that she wisely cancelled. Obama chose not to say anything; he shrugged off what could have been a teachable moment of supporting a black woman of great accomplishment if not someone of his political ilk.
I'm trying to reconcile your weariness of this discussion and your yearning "for the day when black people will just get on with their lives" (and by that statement, I can tell that you have extremely limited to no familiarity at all with the Black American community) with your desire for Obama to amplify another Black person's grievance for a so-called national teachable moment. It sounds rather contradictory to me but apparently you seem to believe that one's ideological disposition may serve as justification for an exception.
I'm not a suburban soccer mom. I grew up in East New York/Brownsville, Brooklyn and attended Catholic School with Italian, Black, Puerto Rican, Panamanian kids. We played together, jumped double-dutch but most of all, received an education together. The smartest girl in my class was a young Black girl, Carolyn. She lived in the projects with her mother who was a nurse and her father. She took piano lessons and had an average of 99. Please note, all of us had two parents unless one passed. Family and education were priorities; not making excuses for our hardships. My father worked construction and my mother sewed piecework. Do not school me as if I was raised in a cornfield.
I'm tired of seeing black and Hispanic kids throw their lives away; a young and promising young black student lost her life the other day as a result of getting caught in gang crossfire. Am I wrong to ask where are the parents of the the shooter? Am I wrong to ask where is his father?
Obama had many opportunities to stress education and I challenge you to site one speech when he or Michelle put aside victimhood and emphasized pursuing the dream of working and raising a family; an in tact family.
Yes, there are many teachable moments; consider this mine.
I never even remotely implied that you were "raised in a cornfield" but your comment about "yearning for the day when black people will just get on with their lives" absolutely reflects a lack of ongoing familiarity and engagement with the Black American community. I mean if you had to go all the way back to your high school years to make your point, then you really haven't made one at all. As a matter of fact, you even go on to prove my point later in your post which I will mention further down.
As far as your observation about Black and Hispanic kids throwing their lives away, I'm glad you're tired of it but what does that have to do with you "yearning for a day when black people will get on with their lives"? I know one thing I got tired of a long time ago: Black Americans being seen as nothing more but our challenges to the point that it doesn't matter what the actual topic of discussion is, if Black Americans are the subjects under discussion, then certain people take it as a license to provide a litany of everything that's "wrong" with us. To state what ought to be obvious: Black Americans are not caricatures to be perpetually criticized and lamented by those who perceive us as "other," but rather actual human beings that experience life as any other group of people in all the shades of its complexities. At the very least, temper your fatigue with some joy because we have much to be joyous about also. That's something you won't get from allowing media sources of any leaning, who need the most sensational and bombastic stories to dominate coverage so they can reap maximum profits, to shape your perceptions. You've got to actually KNOW us to know that.
As far as teachable moments go, I think you're about to learn quite a bit here. As I said, the lack of a present-day connection to the Black American community is all too obvious:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?205980-1/obama-fathers-day-speech;
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-obama/obama-tells-blacks-they-must-take-responsibility-idUSN1447659320080715
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/20/obama-my-brothers-keeper-oakland-masculinity-empowerment
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/05/19/obama-morehouse-college-commencement/2324241/
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2016/0507/President-Obama-at-Howard-University-What-did-he-say-about-racism
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/09/24/remarks-president-dedication-national-museum-african-american-history
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/michelle-obama-gives-graduation-speech-at-bowie-state/2013/05/17/81e6f9aa-bf13-11e2-9b09-1638acc3942e_story.html?tid=a_inl_manual
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/to-critics-obamas-scolding-tone-with-black-audiences-is-getting-old/2013/05/20/4b267352-c191-11e2-bfdb-3886a561c1ff_story.html
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/how-the-obama-administration-talks-to-black-america/276015/
https://time.com/3856155/barack-obama-ta-nehisi-coates/
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eWynt87PaJ0
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11094.html%3f_amp=true
Here you go....actually I don't think you ever heard Obama give a speech while he was POTUS
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/politics/15cnd-obama.html
Now....you provide YOUR Obama "victimhood" speech/evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2BBAfWucaE
Yes, there were riots; we now have a term called, "The Ferguson Effect." Interesting that you made no reference to the rest of my comment. That's ok.
Sorry. That's not a speech about "victimhood" you know, the only thing black people talk about, right?
Who gives a fuck what Brown did or didn't do?( Rag doll. Really? Have you seen the video - stop being dramatic) It's not the POTUS job, when giving statement to international audiences, to make judgments, assertions on the particulars of a case.
You dared people to cite one example of a "criticize the black folks" speech by Obama. Gave you two. Feel better now?
Your whole thesis is bullshit. Just like the Ferguson effect.
Try again. Need to see a good old "blame whitey" speech from Obama....cause that's all he did, so you should have plenty.
I'll wait.
More stupid bullshit.
https://theintercept.com/2016/05/12/myth-of-the-ferguson-effect-is-hard-to-kill/
Any comment, Maya?
https://www.politico.com/story/2008/06/text-of-obamas-fatherhood-speech-011094
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/22/presidential-proclamation-father%E2%80%99s-day-2015
Anything?....yeah, didn't think so. Lol.
Interesting how highlighting an actual problem that exists when it comes to law enforcement routinely abusing their authority, not just in dealing with Black Americans but all Americans, counts as "victimhood" in your book. We're all victims to this institution of the state that routinely violates the constitutional rights of citizens in so many ways, while also protecting the worst within their ranks via their unions. Familiarize yourself with the DOJ report that came out some time after the trial to understand why citizens felt the need to riot in the first place.
Maya is a bootlicker. If she had any sense she'd read: https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577
They're ok with all the white people who get abused/murdered by cops, as long as the black and brown get it also.
All that would have done is given the right yet another reason to be mad at Obama and accuse him of being a racist for speaking out in favor of a Black person who backed out of giving a commencement speech to the exclusion of all of the non-Black persons who did the same.: https://www.syracuse.com/news/2014/05/college_commencement_speakers_canceling_over_controversies.html And surely it is not at all the president's responsibility to be publicly commenting on such localized issues (as conservatives were quick to say during his time in office).
Yep. They fully expected "Racial Retribution/Payback"....and it didn't happen, so they have to imagine it did. The racial disrespect shown to Obama was off the charts, but he always bent over backwards to stay above it.
I know....Black people are always whining and accomplishing nothing.
Yes he could have stepped in with grace. But he made the calculated decision not to.
"A black problem."....lol.
"As to the others."...lol.
50 years ago...ancient history.
Lol...."A black problem."
Nice that you acknowledge the existence of the successful, law abiding, intact ones.
The same could be said of Whites particularly in the rural south. Such as this is not a race problem it is socioeconomic Class problem (where Class is not solely a question of money)...
Also, I would be careful about making assumption concerning what any of these three brilliant and thoughtful men are saying unless they in fact say it themselves...
So let’s have an issue of Common Sense on the poor whites problem.
This issue happened to be about the poor black problem discussed by three black guys. You can bring in the poor white problem, but it’s a deflection.
I have listened to many episodes of Loury and McWhorter. They do talk about it being time for blacks to stop being victims and start embracing what America has been offering them, like affirmative action and hiring preferences, so they can improve their own lives.
This issue isn't about the "poor black problem." It's literally titled "From Racial Reckoning to Race Abolition" which is about racial identification and the last time I looked, it wasn't just Black Americans who have a racial identification in America.
It seems some don’t want the issue resolved;
“the persistent issue of race in America”
It’s a version of “if it bleeds, it leads” and garners clicks and views, so they continue to pick at the scab.
The New York Times was caught saying they were moving away from their Trump/Russia collusion hoax to focus on race, and, by God, they did. CNN, CBS, and others joined in the "creation of news, creation of a crisis," narrative journalism.
Leaked Audio: NY Times shifts targeting of Trump from Russia collusion to racism https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/08/leaked-audio-ny-times-shifts-targeting-of-trump-from-russia-collusion-to-racism/
CNN to add 'institutional racism' team to the network
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/cnn-to-add-institutional-racism-team-at-network
A Nation Primed To See Racism In Everything Will Think Only About Race https://thefederalist.com/2021/04/09/a-nation-primed-to-see-racism-in-everything-will-think-only-about-race/
Odd that at the end of the Obama administration;
Race Relations Are at Lowest Point in Obama Presidency. Poll Finds
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/14/us/most-americans-hold-grim-view-of-race-relations-poll-finds.html?_r=0
May 4, 2015, CBS News/New York Times Poll: Race Relations Worst In Over 2 Decades
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2015/05/04/cbs-news-poll-race-relations/
Hey, you know what will fix racism, more racism. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
WaPo declares anti-white racism as the new normal https://www.independentsentinel.com/wapo-basically-declares-anti-white-racism-as-the-new-normal/
How about another Pulitzer for these race baiters?
And following in his mentor's footsteps;
Poll: 39 Percent of Likely Voters Believe Race Relations Worse Since Joe Biden’s Election N. Y. Times https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/06/01/poll-39-percent-of-likely-voters-believe-race-relations-worse-since-joe-bidens-election/
Anecdotally;
Colleges Celebrate Diversity With Separate ‘Commencements’ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/us/black-commencement-harvard.html?_r=0
UConn Building “Segregated Dorm” For Men That Identify as Black: http://campusreform.org/?ID=7228
Brown University will offer segregated student dinners for black, Muslim students https://www.thecollegefix.com/post/36867/
Black and Latino students refuse to share space at the University of Florida http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/36161/
Cal State LA offers segregated housing for black students - http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28906/
UMich students demand no-whites-allowed space to plot ‘social justice activism http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/31322/
Ivy League Black Students Decide To Hold Their Own ‘Black-Only’ Graduation Ceremony
http://dailycaller.com/2017/05/08/ivy-league-black-students-decide-to-hold-their-own-black-only-graduation-ceremony/
We’re spinning our wheels in the mud created by the narrative pushers when the simple solution is love and understanding.
Oh, and despite all of this, we are making significant progress. Just try to ignore the carnival barkers trying to fan the flames!
Great post. Carnival barkers is genius. Kudos.
For the race hustlers behind all of this, there is far more profit (both monetarily and in notoriety) in perpetuating and hyperbolizing the problem than there ever will be in reaching any sort of solution.
MLK tried to lead his people to the Promised Land. What passes for leadership in Black America today only seeks ever more wealth transfers.
If you think wealth transfers are bad, then I'm afraid I have some especially bad news for you concerning MLK.
MLK had a 69-70% disapproval rating at the time of his death.
One of the most hated Americans, during his time, in American history.
Also had a lot of ideas re: reparations, economic systems, etc. that you would be against.
Why does the native American population have some of the same issues? No peoples can be uplifted or made successful unless they themselves have the desire to succeed and the only way is with hard work, not entitlement. IMO, racism is used as a guise for entitlement. Do racists exists? Sure they do, it's human nature to judge but it's nature's law that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Treat others the way you'd like to be treated. I immigrated when i was young, legally, the process was long and difficult. I've lived most of my life in this great country looking different, I've lived in small cities and big, but have not once faced prejudice, racism or discrimination. I didn't receive favors either and i didn't need or want it. Progress only came with hard work and sacrifice. I could only access a portion of the opportunity available to those born here, but that is more than is available anywhere else in this world, and I was thankful for it. I've always followed the law, tried to treat everyone with kindness, be fair and work hard. It's simple, it's common sense.
Your personal saga cannot be universalized in this situation. What the various tribes that we call collectively American Indians (or Native Americans, though most reject this fairly new, but no less imposed, descriptor) experienced is vastly different.
First, the longstanding US policy was to make Indians like Whites, which in practice meant obliterating their customs, practices and even language - something I doubt you encountered.
Second, until 1924, Indians were (with vanishingly few exceptions) not US citizens.
Third, the US controlled them under the invented legal status of “domestic sovereign nations”, a relationship with which our country still struggles.
Fourth, reservations were for the most part placed in backwater lands of little value. When, by coincidence, that land became valuable (Oklahoma oil, for instance), most of those Indians lost their economic rights through abusive “legal” process. On a side note, the US itself fought for decades before settling a major lawsuit that shed light on its utter failure, as trustee, to safeguard the economic interests of its tribal beneficiaries.
So, it might be easy for us to wonder why the Indians just can’t get past all this and act with the enthusiasm of the new immigrant to better themselves. Well, it’s not as if they aren’t trying, and many have. But we should recognize the difficulties and roadblocks they still face individually and as a community.
I agree. I think most of the trouble comes from trying to Anglicize very tribal groups of people. Of course the same could be said of Great Britain's treatment of the Irish. Personally, I don't think the Europeans in general, and Brits in particular, are nearly as civilized as some do. Neither do I think they are evil Colonizers. They had a system they thought worked and sought to export it. ( The US is still doing the same thing trying to spread its version of democracy). But as for Natives, the fat lady has yet to sing and as Celia astutely points out, some tribes are doing well. I think some of the problem was prevalence of alcohol and it is my understanding that some Natives are not physiologically adapted to process alcohol whereas Europeans had been imbibing for a thousand years prior to their entry in the New World.
You know what I really like? How they invented the term "Indian giver." So sneaky.
BTW, nailed it. You'll not be popular here. You see, Bari acolytes a probably quite cognizant of how their PERSONAL past experiences, good or bad, have influenced/shaped who they are today.
But the U.S.? Larger cultural/ethnic groups....nah. History starts over every 24 hours.
have believe history starts over
Your lack of empathy
Makes you just another racist
I'll take logic and pragmatism over empathy any day. Empathy doesn't solve problems. Sorry if you were being sarcastic.
Native Americans are actually a good case study on this subject, because some tribes are well-led and have become quite wealthy, while others have frighteningly high rates of alcoholism and poverty. And yet ALL tribes were oppressed by the U.S. government (and their white neighbors) to a pretty similar extent.
"Equal opportunity, not equal results."
What country are you originally from?
Thank you for sharing your experience. I think many people have similar stories but those don't add to DIE budgets and jobs for DIE degree holders so they are ignored or worse those departments would probably call you a racist for sharing your real world experience.
"Why does the Native American community have some of the same issues?"
Lol....oh, I don't know - let's take a wild guess.
Remember, history starts over every 24 hours.
The vast majority of people crossing our southern border are similar to you. Within 1-2 generations they will surpass many of the African Americans and Indigenous people from a quality of life standpoint. We've created so many 'safety nets' for blacks and indigenous folks, that allow them to survive, but not thrive, that there is no incentive to do advance, Also, those two populations have the highest rate of signal parent households, which also proves a significant hurdle to graduation rates, and promotes urban crime.
You are a fine American.
Native Americans were given the crappiest land for their reservations and are mostly in the middle of nowhere. Give them a reservation near some resources and things will be different.
Have you been to the Cherokee casino complex in NC?
This place pulls in billions. I think those Native Americans are doing just fine.
Perhaps living on a reservation is akin to living under socialism. So Scott D wants reservations to be moved to other places? I thought NAs reservations were in the same areas the NAs originally lived--further, many were wandering tribes, taking their NA slaves with them. And many NAs have been extraordinarily successful in the USA due to their hard work, dedication to family and love of country...I honor them first and foremost.
You need to read up on American Indian history. It seems to derive from watching and/or reading too many Westerns.
The vast majority of Indian reservations were not anywhere near the tribe’s ancestral lands. That was the point of relocation efforts. The few that were, saw the lands increasingly encroached upon and taken. Also most Indian tribes were sedentary agriculturalist not nomads.
Living on a reservation has nothing to do with “socialism” and does not resemble that political system in practice. It’s a tribal structure.
There's truth to that, but if you've spent time on reservations you realize there are deep cultural issues that keep this community from thriving in many cases. Also, many NA's don't live on reservations and seem to do much better. In addition, reservations are figuring out how to make money - gaming, oil & gas, but they are still essentially conservatorships where Washington D.C. controls what they can and can't do.
And sadly, being human comes with the sins, character flaws, of many in power, no matter ethnicity;
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2017/01/11/as-an-indian-tribe-fought-over-casino-money-leaders-bled-its-bank-accounts-feds-say/
The Indians in Oklahoma get oil royalty checks.
In Palm Springs, CA the land is divided up in a checkerboard of 1 sq. mile squares. Every other square is designated "lease land" where property owners must pay rent for that land to the Agua Caliente tribe. We stole their land but as least we're reimbursing them for it.
Of course you don't write a check to the tribe directly, you write it to the Federal Bureau of Land Management department of Indian Affairs (!). There have been numerous lawsuits and other legal entanglements over the years between the tribe and the government as some of those monies seem to get lost along the way.
Every Agua Caliente child is essentially born a millionaire due their ownership of Palm Springs area real estate.
Really? I'm sure that's news to them. Whole bunch of millionaire Native American kids running around.
No, it’s been common knowledge in the Coachella Valley for many decades. I doubt it makes it to East Coast media though.
It started earlier than that. In the Fifteen Hundreds, 80-90% of indigenous Americans, both in N and S America were wiped out from plagues and disease, collapsing many of the worlds largest civilizations, and the tribes never recovered.
They can leave the reservation any time they want. It's not a prison system. If you are born in Appalachia, Mississippi, or any other economically depressed area you can relocate. Millions upon millions of Americans have done this.
It is this way because that is what Dems who run cities want. It is 100% intentional. (my opinion)
That makes zero sense given the fact Dems have a lock on cities period, whether it's largely White, highly educated, and affluent cities like Pittsburgh, Madison, Boise, Salt Lake City, etc., cities with sizable Black/Hispanic populations but attracting tons of White, educated, well-to-do residents like Nashville, Austin, Charleston, Washington DC, etc, highly diverse cities that are well-balanced demographically like NYC, Houston, Oakland, Sacramento, Jersey City, etc, legacy cities like Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis, etc, healthy Midwestern cities like Columbus, Indianapolis, Grand Rapids, Omaha, etc, Sunbelt sprawlers like Orlando, Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Dallas, Phoenix, etc, in addition to the perennially troubled New Orleans, Memphis, Baltimore, Milwaukee, etc. Even huge military hubs, which used to be shades of light red, have decidedly tipped blue in recent years like San Diego and VA Beach. I think Fort Worth and Jacksonville FL are about it as far as GOP-led large cities go today.
If nothing else, Dems will likely retain their urban advantage in the foreseeable future just for being the melting pots they are and that encourages more liberal social attitudes.
Your response seems to be completely disconnected from my statement.
It's very connected to your statement. My point is that cities of all stripes are reliably blue. Washington, DC, and Atlanta, two bastions of the Black middle class which have been experiencing much gentrification, are no longer Black majority cities but are also no less blue today than they were 30 years ago.
You know more about it than I do.
But I wonder if they'll maintain the edge in urban areas because they're the party of the urban college-educated elites. And also because they pass the social welfare policies that, essentially, buys votes right?
Democrats in general believe in having a strong social safety net, but I have yet to see evidence that this substantially increases the voter share of that population. Furthermore, policy is set at the state and federal level anyway.
Well I don't have data to prove the "social safety net" increases the voter share. I don't recall if Thomas Sowell provided any, either.
But I dunno why else the majority of Blacks would continue to vote D, when a lotta their interests are served, just as well, by the R party. Blacks among the most religious, right? And Ds about the least? Things like that.
For starters, it's because we saw how you all treated the first African American president and his family for eight straight years.
You all? I voted for Obama twice.
Looks like You're fighting against a stereotype I don't represent. *Convenient* for You, but doesn't work out in reality.
I'm not fighting anything; I merely answered your question. But I wouldn't expect an Obama supporter to ask "Well why else would Black people vote for Democrats if not for welfare?"
I've read Professor Sowell since then. Would still vote for Obama. (Tho am less impressed, the more I learn about him. Wasn't all that impressed when I voted for him the second time.)
I hope You widen Your views beyond stereotypes, is my point.
Says the guy who can't possibly conceive why Black people vote Democrat outside of welfare.
It's about votes. It has nothing to do with what's good for our citizens, it's what generates votes or campaign donations.
And you know what generates votes: outrage. These intentional policies result in outrage that Dems say they can fix, but of course they never do because issues are for campaigning, not solving.
Notice how no one wants to reminded of their words and tweets about defunding the police in 2020 this close to a midterm election?
For the most part, the politicians who were bold enough to even publicly mention such as a policy stance hail from safe districts that afforded them the "luxury" to do so or they reversed course quickly afterwards.
Those trillions added significantly to the bureaucracy that is federal government. At this point it is massive, bloated and incapable of effective administration. Also I find it, well let's just say odd, that the party who laments loudly and often about trickle down economics think that trickle down benefits works.
The goal of course is to keep welfare recipients dependent upon the government to sustain them in perpetuity. There is no incentive to improve oneself or to strive for independence. Poorly performing government run education systems ensure a populace too ignorant to see the bars on the cage.
And as only one political party advocates for this scam, they are guaranteed a lifelong dedicated base of voters...if they can be bothered to get off the government-provided couch to vote.
Except the less educated working-class voters (who are likely to have utilized public assistance programs at some point) have been migrating to the GOP in droves in recent years thanks to Trump's populist ideology. Partisan affiliation is shifting in that respect.
I'm almost 63, and I can't tell you how many Black people "of a certain age" - friends, coworkers, and acquaintances - have echoed similar sentiments to me. These were the ideas that animated the "middle-classing" of many millions of Black Americans. Good ideas that, sadly, seem to be dying out along with the generation that made them reality. Let's honor their hard work and sacrifice, and end the racialist BS ASAP.
Yes...I'm sure you have many black friends.
Oh, behave!
No, no, no...you were very clear in your comment. So....what exactly is a "balm?"
I'm of a similar age, and instead of moving to a 'raceless' society, we've systematized racism and victimisim. There is far too much money invested in victimization to turn around. Those 'Studies' grads need jobs, and they've built a DEI industry to keep racism/genderism prominent in the workplace, marketing and education.
Also, until African Americans acknowledge and identify single parent households as the most prominent hurdle for them to overcome, no progress will ever be made at closing the 'equity' gap. With urban youths exposed to 75+% single parent households, these kids will never get the type of supervision to close the gap on graduation rates in HS and college (without dumbing down grades or testing) and crime will continue on it's current trajectory.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/02/08/514105689/black-latino-two-parent-families-have-half-the-wealth-of-white-single-parents
Why should we move to a "raceless" society?
Would you prefer that others unlike you, remove core concepts of their identity to suit your needs?
As Loury stated in the podcast, we can go "raceless" without eliminating ethnic distinctions that are rooted in a common history and culture.
Yes, that's what he thinks. However, that's not what the majority on this board want....because that "common history and culture" often makes America look bad.....so needs to be banned from school.
Yeah I don't see the folks that live to decry "identity politics" whenever the other side makes mention of race or gender but love to play the same three perennial race cards (i.e., birth rates among unmarried mothers, homicide rates, abortion rates) at the mere mention of Black Americans regardless of context being first in line to embrace "racelessness."
Yep. Deep and true observation. They certainly love to talk about slavery a lot, too. Especially the fact that war captives, criminals were sold into slavery. Oh, and Lincoln/GOP of the 1800s. Man, they sure love "living in the past." Love skipping over the entire inconvenient, modern timeline.
Along with any non-white person expressing a different lived experience /opinion as being a "victim," "angry," "bitter," etc. Which is why it is often pointless to have discussions.
America was founded on the "identity politics" of white, land-owning men" OK. That's just a fact. No big deal.
However, whenever non-white people vote in large numbers it's just because of race or because people use "identity politics." Y'know, kind of like a chicken in a Skinner box.
Yeah....like white people haven't voted on race or identity politics ever...or legalized specific practices and laws based on THEIR racial "identity politics".....cause they're the "Real Americans," right?
It would seem that the gleefulness in the discussion of slavery is mostly limited to modern-day partisan politics with talk of plantations and what not.
Agreed. It's become quite the talking point. Nothing more than gas lighting.
Is there anything wrong with being a black conservative? No. But to act like those who are not are being "tricked" and are "on a plantation" is incredibly bigoted....like they have no judgment of lived experience, history, etc. in America.
"The transitions/changes of the GOP cultural & ideological platforms from Lincoln to today, did not happen. You did not see/experience what you saw/experienced. Also, what about Robert Byrd!!!"
You nailed it for sure. And the same folks who love talking about Black Americans and "Democratic plantations" would never in a million years think to utilize, say, Holocaust terminology/imagery to describe Jews' affinity for the Democratic Party. And when called out about it, the ones I've dealt with simply dig their heels in. At this point it's more sad than maddening to me.
Yes...but they will use the Holocaust for COVID stuff.
Good point re: the Jewish involvement. I had a talk w/a friend of mine, who is Jewish, and he brought up a point that has stuck with me.
He's independent, but his opinion of why GOP/white Evangelicals are so supportive of Israel was in essence, " Need Armageddon to happen, so Jesus comes back for the end times where 75% of us get sent to hell and the other 25% gets converted."
Which was a take I'd never heard before. He has a different view on what all the GOP "love" for Israel is really about. I'm not sure if he's an outlier, but it was interesting.
I think NC means that you should treat EVERYONE the way you would like to be treated regardless of race or gender.
No. That's not what he means.
"Treat EVERYONE the way you would like to be treated regardless of race or gender."
Great....let me know when America decides to do that.
Have you ever given a direct answer to a direct question?
Yep. Constantly. You just don't like the answer. Who cares about one man (Byrd)? Means nothing, zero, zilch, nada....when compared to the political ideology of an entire political party.
Why are you having difficulty understanding this?
Where do you live? It seems awful. I don't know anyone that sounds like that and I live in 2 states. Perhaps I could understand where you're coming from personally if you shared some background. So far you only criticize but never offer nuance, perspective or personal experience.
Live in Adams Morgan - Washington, DC.
Why do I care whether you understand or not? You're not that important. Is that enough "nuance" for you?
But it's good to know your rubric of existence, is whether or not you know about it/have experienced it.
Lol. And you have the arrogant audacity to lecture me about feeling my view is the only one that matters.
Why should you care whether other commenters understand you? Isn’t that the whole point of communication? To understand and to be understood?
Lol. I've learned long ago, that it is pointless to talk about race with 99% of white people.
Let me explain my philosophy:
I have a poker group that meets two times a month (black white, asian, latino) etc. Let's say one of my Latino friends is complaining about something that happened to him, or even discussion American culture. You know what I DON'T do:
1. Tell him his lived experience is false and try to gaslight him.
2. Tell him is view on a cultural/social, etc. issue is mistaken.
3. Tell him what America is/is not.
4. Don't tell him that he's "mistaken" or "overly sensitive" re: an individual that he feels wronged/offended him. And I certainly don't claim they must've been "mentally ill."
5. I don't assume I have the same American experience he has, or that he should view it through my cultural background, etc. - cause I'm not Latino
6. Don't tell him what he should consider racist or not.
7. Don't try and tell him that American history starts over every 24 hours.
7. Tell him that he's "angry," "bitter" or "unhappy."
8. Don't view an critique of America as an attack on me personally/my ethnic group and tell him to leave the country.
9. Call him "ungrateful" and act like America "gave" him something, when HE'S the one who actually did the work - which is what we're all told, "Equal opportunity, not equal results."
Now, Mark (our resident white friend/buddy) doesn't have too many stories about racial invective and/or issues - primarily because, well, he's white and let's be honest there's really no good racial slurs for white people anyway. But when he does talk/share we treat him with mutual respect/kindness, as he does us, because we all realize that we all experience America differently on occasions. He doesn't lecture us. We don't lecture him. Mark is an awesome dude. Not woke, not a Trumper - just simple, middle of the road, good dude. Our kids play together, etc. If Mark has a diversity training at work (which, btw, I think are pointless and stupid) he doesn't flip out into a mouth-frothing rage. He just does it, and moves on with his day. I like Mark a lot. However, Mark is rare.
On this board, and IRL, as I've found. 1-8 is done constantly. So, there is really no point in "communicating." Gave that up a long time ago. There is no understanding to be had. I'm just here to comment when I feel like it, debate a bit, point out some hypocrisies, etc.
I appreciate the respectful approach with which you posed that question. That does not happen very often here and I hope you feel I have responded in kind.
Oh, yes. American finally embraced that idea very recently. How convenient it's being suddenly being trumpeted.
Nothing more than covert anti-affirmative position, which is fine.
Might believe you if schools weren't trying to ban Ruby Bridges autobiography because it doesn't have "redemption" for white people, or banning books about MLK, Jr., or taking down a teachers classroom photos of Tubman, Booker T. Washington, King, etc. in FL. because it's CRitICaL RaCE TheOry!
Canada, Costa Rica, Panama, Argentina, Belize, Egypt, Sweden, Thailand, Spain, Portugal, Columbia, France, Vietnam, Denmark, champ.
Not my fault you're unwashed, don't have a passport and have never left your home state.
Fascinating.
Like I said, all of those countries are politically stable, economically viable, with excellent infrastructure, strong healthcare systems, etc. You asked for one, gave you more than that. Never said other countries don't have racial issues. Because as we know, America has a great track record in regard to indigenous people.
They have racial issues just like America does, so apparently America is not really that exceptional/different at the end of the day, right?
What aren't you understanding?
And you can spare me your faux concern over indigenous people.
Oh, don't worry. Moving full-time in 2028. Already in the works.
From what I've heard, especially from Black American military personnel, Spain and Germany get high marks in this regard.
But America is unique when compared to the rest of its Western peers as a hybrid settler colony and large-scale slaveholding republic, combining elements of each type of New World society. Brazil comes closest to approximating America in this regard, but rigid binary racial categorizations--supported by the notion of hypodescent (e.g., the "one drop rule")--did not arise there as they did here which is a huge point of differentiation.
Spicy when you finally got him to answer about which countries finally caused me to give up on him. I really tried to be nice and kind and have a debate but it is futile. The countries listed is so laughable. The central and South American countries is jaw dropping in its absurdity. Kinda can't blame him for throwing Scandinavian countries on the pile because many are misguided enough to think that. I spend a whole lot of time there, have lots of relatives there and have dual citizen children. I can assure you it is not all that. ESPECIALLY on health care. I guess he didn't read the recent column here on Common Sense about Sweden. It makes me sad for him that he is so combative and cares nothing about what anyone else thinks no matter how hard they try to understand him and come to common ground. If this is his style with neighbors, colleagues, friends and relatives then I fear he has a lonely life. He should donate his subscription fee to a charity that is meaningful to him. I will continue to wish him well in life despite his unfounded hatred of people he doesn't know.
Haven't moved the goalposts one bit. "Racial issues" was never in your original proposition. So, YOU have moved the goalposts, by adding a measure that was not included originally.
Wow. You've really escalated with all the "snivling" and who seeking validation, etc. You seem really angry. Think I touched a nerve that flipped a switch. Certainly don't need validation from white people. Why would I? Most I've met are not really that impressive, so could care less - and definitely not resentful. Retiring at 58, so I'm a happy camper.
White accredidation is worthless, so it's odd you think it has any value to someone. Actually, I try to avoid them as much as possible.
Enjoyed my extended time in all the countries mentioned, but appreciate your input re: places you've never been.
Don't really care what you call and/or believe. Already split 6 mos between Costa Rica and Panama. You people are always saying if you don't 100% love everything about America, then leave, right?
Well, I'm leaving. What's it to you? You certainly seem REAL emotionally invested in/opinionated on where I'm moving to. Why is that? Man, you wrote a WHOLE bunch. Seems like you're the snivling one trying to validate yourself to me. But see...I don't care what you think, in any way shape or form.
You live where you want to, I'll live where I want to. So, move on. Your white input is irrelevant.
Oh, there are lots of countries that are doing quite well. What "standard" are you referring to?
Economic? Social?
Luckily, at this point, only live in the U.S. approx 6 months out of the year. - so what metrics do you think America is kicking ass in exactly?
Named several. All those countries are quite stable, well-run, economically viable and excellent places to live. They do not need your aaccreditation to be valid.
Where we went wrong? Lol. What are you talking about? America is perfect and is the greatest country on the planet and all improvements have happened due to reason, logic, ethical appeals and discussion, because America is just that morally awesome, as compared to every other country on the planet.
You don't even have a passport.
Lol!! So now I'm a "token?"
Good for you! I KNEW you'd get there eventually. You held out longer than most of your colleagues. Kudos.
Anyway, why are SO emotionally invested in where I'm moving to? You know that's weird, righ? Go share your white input with someone who cares what you think and stop seeking validation from me.
Uh-oh...you said we've "systemized racism." Sorry. That concept does not exist.
Here are specifics, not some right wing conspiracy web site:
Remember when the Democrats said asking for a photo id was keeping people from voting? Well if that is the case, why do all of the Democrat state conventions and their national convention ask for a photo id to gain entrance? Isn't that restricting people from participating in the conventions.
To get on an airplane you have to show a photo id. Isn't that restricting access to travel?
I could go on and on. For example, if the Dems aren't at all racists and are such wonderful protectors of minorities why did they elect Robert Byrd senate majority leader and minority leader multiple times? Robert Byrd was a Grand Cyclopes in the KKK. He filibustered the 1964 civil right bill, the longest filibuster in senate history. It to 20 Rep votes to help the Dems break the filibuster. You will never hear that little fact out of the mouths of these defenders of the minorities.
"I shall never fight in the armed forces with a negro by my side ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944
Paula Dean lost her TV show over something she said 20 or 30 years ago and your wonderful Woke jerks got her fired. How come the Woke morons don't hammer the wonderful Democrats for lionizing the racist Robert Byrd?
For years the Democrat party was the racist party and, in some ways, still is. The Democrats keep minorities in poverty by portraying everybody as a victim. If you believe you are a victim, you will never climb out of the hole.
Robert Byrd...fascinating.
Too bad the GOP nominated anti-Civil Rights/pro-segregation Barry Goldwater for Potus in 1964.
Ignorance. 74% of democrats in the House voted against CRA; 78% of democrats in the Senate voted against CRA. Everett Dirksen got 77 republicans to pull CRA over the finish line. You know, like the republican party was formed to abolish slavery. And give women the right to vote. I wish people would blame black slave owners in Africa for once.
Lol....gotta go back to the 1800s? "Stop living in the past!" Yeah....too bad the Republicans nominated Goldwater in 1964 running on an anti-Civil Rights/Pro-segregation platform.
Yes, African slave owners had captives from war and also as punishment for crime. You like being tough on crime, don't you?
Go try and gaslight someone else.
Slav was the root for slave you ignorant fool. Guess who they were.
Now you're going bacK FURTHER than the 1800s AND to another country? Lol.
Pathetic.
No, you are pathetic. Too bad you cannot get past immutable characteristics.
Don't care about the slavs.
"Fuck Your Your Feeelings"
Are you quoting yourself or copying others?
Nah. That's what Lynn/Lynne does.
Goldwater lost to the racist JBJ. who said, if the 1964 civil rights bill passed, “I'll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years. [Said to two governors regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964, according to then-Air Force One steward Robert MacMillan]”
I suppose this is the lone exception to the rule of not judging historical actors by today's moral standards.
Otherwise, I find the caricature of LBJ as archvillain to Black Americans based on the above quote, to be mildly amusing. ("Let me sign this civil rights bill into law....that'll show those n*****s who's boss!")
The GOP doesn't claim to be the self-righteous defenders of minorities the Dems do. Instead of changing the subject, how about the Dems electing Byrd as senate majority leader.
Give it a shot at actually address the subject matter instead of diverting.
Oh, yes. The GOP are definitely not defenders of minorities, that has been clear for a long time.
Not a diversion, Goldwater, was a major moment of ideological shift for the GOP - which is why the constant crowing about the 1800s is stupid, as is the tired, one-man Byrd canard.
So, if anyone needs to take a shot at discussing the issue, it's you.
Permanent welfare is the new plantation. Such a waste of human talent.
White slavery?
Whites too, I'm afraid. Was it in these comments I saw the statistics on 15- to 24-year-old girls?
60% of Whites and 90% of Black girls had baby outta wedlock. I couldn't believe it. I mean.. really?? That's just a 'Net falsehood, right?
Yes..."whites, too, I'm afraid"
THAT'S when we should really focus on the issues.
We should focus on the issue regardless.
We should-a focused on the issue decades ago, when the total reached 40%. That's when I knew something was wrong, anyway.
An excellent book called “Coming Apart” from about 20 years ago described exactly that. Turns out that certain behaviors produce bad outcomes, regardless of skin color. Who’d a thunk?
That’s not right.
Look at table 9: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr70/nvsr70-17.pdf
Those numbers seem to be coming from the percent of births in the age 20-24 group that are out of wedlock versus total births.
It’s still a shockingly high number, but most births do happen at the later ages and less of them are in wedlock.
Thank You. From quick study of Table 9, they don't combine the births of 15 to 24 year-olds. I'm no math genius, but the weighted percentages look pretty close. Actually low for Blacks. But footnote says data doesn't meet standards of reliability, so there is that.
That concurs with my understanding also. Still, JJoshua's comment resonates about a lowest common denominator culture.
Good point. No race or ethnicity is immune to the debilitating effects of low expectations.
We've become a society of the lowest common denominator - thanks to our wonderful education system. No more ever to excel.
#metoo. It may take a generation to make a big turnaround. But the time to start is now, from where we're *at,* right? Can't start from where we'd like to be, like the lame Woke wanna do.
IMO, 'course.
Lol....
You not muchuva comedian. Care to try again?
Not really. When I go to the zoo, do I try and convince the monkey to stop throwing it's own shit?
You say something stupid. I blow it up. Rinse & repeat.
You really are stupid. You think "lol" blows up something?
That shows who's stupid, right there, champ.
Nah. It's other things I say (historical facts, data, etc.) blow you up. Want to try another topic?
You're delusional, per usual. You wrote, correct me if I'm wrong, "lol" to *my* comment. That's it. You blew up nothing. You talking about Your replies to *other* people, mebbe? If so, they don't pertain to *my* comment.
I leave off the *fact* that You're pretty light on historical facts, data, etc. You're pretty strong at trolling on occasion, so I'll give You that one. For example, Your reply to me, directly above.
But can You call that civil discourse?
I've blown you up time and time again. It gets funny after awhile, what can I say?
You're the LAST person to be lecturing anyone about civil discourse, jt.
Sorry pal. I'm the FIRST person to lecture You about civil discourse.
You, delusional as You are, can pretend in Your own mind that You've blown me up. Just like in the present case, You've blown up nothing but Your own self-image. Which, unless I miss my guess, is not shared by many people on these comments.
I bow down to Your greatness, and slather Your feet with spit, Your Highness.
Actually, it's not. Try and stay on topic.
my guess is three generations...
You could be right. (I'll split the difference with Ya.)
Oh, I guess you weren't being sarcastic, you actually believe everybody who doesn't agree with you is racist.
Apparently a lot of people don't seem to believe that Black Americans have been harmed by deindustrialization, globalization, and lopsided trade deals in large numbers. No, it could only be welfare....which apparently individuals of other races/ethnicities don't qualify for.
I'm not sure that I exactly get your point, but my belief is that it's been far more the elites against the serfs in the US and globally, than racism. Racism is what keeps us divided so that the poor whites in Appalachia don't start pulling in the same direction as the poor urban black to create real change.
Massive tax reform, that includes huge increases on corporate and top level income
Federal tax that extends far lower than current bottom rates so we all have a stake.
State vouchers for education for all
Eliminate federal student loans
Preschool for bottom tier income
Drug decriminalization
Sane and controlled immigration
Anticensorship/Freedom of Speech
Big tech anti trust
Ban Jack Buck from future broadcasting
Stuff like that.
1800s: OK, poor white people who don't own land or slaves, pick up gun to go fight the Yankees to "preserve our way of life."
1960s: OK, "poor white trash" let's get to lynching, church bombing and murdering Civil Rights workers to "preserve our way of life."
2000s: OK, remember. In America, there are "makers and takers." Y'know what I mean?
Unfortunately, a lot of struggling/poor white people have been gaslight into think "the coloreds" in same economic position, are they reason they're poor.
Maybe one day, they'll start voting their economic circumstances/interest and not their race....or at least separate the two.
Their economic interests are to oppose racist elites like You. To bad You can't see beyond Your own nose.
Lol. Truth hurts, jt. Been doing it since the 1800s. No one to blame but themselves.
Never used a racial epithet against anyone on this board. So, I can't be racist. Sorry. That's the way it works.
Comprof - I grew up in lily white Minnesocold - a product of a single mother raising two boys in the 70's(times werent great for single mothers here then) and in the 80's and joined the Army where I was a minority in every unit I was in. My leaders were of any color than white... and it mattered not. Men are men, women are women regardless of immutable characteristics; you work hard and people respect that.
Please know that there are forces out here that depend on you/us being divided, always have been. Like Morgan Freeman says "You want to eradicate race... quit talking about it."
Some of my favorite times are when stationed in the South and my friends black mama's cooked wonderful food with the utmost of respect and manners and we cleaned up to their standards. That is it brother...
Say it from the mountains, Dude! (Still think of Your daughter. :-)
Thank you very much for thinking of my daughter! Prayers your way!
"Prayers your way" Lol. Nice try. You should be praying she can clean all that nut off her face.
Prefer to think about yours.
Real man. Not.
Typical. That was a private note to Danimal28.
You gotta insert Yourself into EVERYTHING??!? Gross!
Yeah...that's how things are eradicated...just like never mention it....why haven't we tried that with cancer? Brilliant!
Let me know when America decides to go that route, ok?
Yeah, whatever, wrote a long post yesterday day to someone about my father's move from living under Segregation/Jim Crow, through his time the military, getting a PhD, to his retirement. And my personal philosophy/diversity of friends
Don't need your lecture/input.
That sums You up right there.
Ignorance, personified. That's great Your self-satisfied. But if *all* You are is self-satisfied, You're only half a man. Sorry. Wasn't it You who said "truth hurts?"
LOL!!!! From the person who brought in someone else's child first. (btw, don't have a daughter)
In the words of the many political pundits/fans during the Trump years:
"Fuck Your Feelings."
Keep living in your bubble, buddy.
Will do.
You did Your best, and it was well-done. 'Bout all could be done.
No, pal. People can see pretty easy where Your words are coming from. You're as racist as they come. No, You don't say honky or cracker or white supremist.
But what You *do* say says it all. Nice try tho.
Nah. Never said any epithets. Thems the rules. You don't get a pass cause you're white." Nice try tho. Words aren't violence!!"
Lol. BTW, there's no good racial slurs for white people anyway.
Yeah. I know that words aren't violence. Everybody who knows *anything* knows that much.
But what You don't seem to understand is that words convey an *attitude* of the writer. Yours brings a particular odor. But, as I'm sure You know, a person can't smell their *own* odors, right?
Sorry. Not racist. According to YOUR rules:
1. Have a biracial son, beats your "I get along with black coworkers."
2. The ONLY thing that is "racist" is a direct, racial slur. Everything else is "wokeness," oversensitivity and taking things out of context.
Don't give fuck what odor you think exists or not. You've been consistently one of the most foul and belligerent people from the second I arrived. Go share your white input/opinions with someone who cares and stop whining like a bitch when YOUR rules/attitude are applied to YOU.
Oh, and don't forget that the "working class".....is all white, too!
As well as rural/the "real" America.
Go to Appalachia and you'll see the same desperate plight of white people trapped in perpetual poverty. Its a socio-economic issue, but politicians play the race angle to keep us divided and protect the powerful.
I agree except I would say enrich the powerful.
I say this often Pops. I'm white and started my life in severely economically and family challenges. Single parent, no support etc. In my neighborhood the black families were all much better off than ours. I think this is in large part due to 2 parent family units. I didn't attend college and worked 3 jobs at a time to make ends meet. I waited to marry a hard working person and waited a little longer to have children. Stayed married. Sure, luck is often at play in life but hard work and good choices is the main reason I live a comfortable life now. What ever happened to personal responsibility? Delayed gratification? Not viewing yourself as a victim. I wholeheartedly agree (from tough personal experience) that economics and class have much more to do with this then race.
Sorry. There is no such thing as class in America. Equal opportunity, not equal results. No one is born with any privileges/advantages.
....right?
Comprof I have asked you several polite questions about your background and what shaped your views but you are choosing not to engage in a calm debate and allow us to understand you. It's all sarcasm and insults. Did something terrible happen to you? Where do your feelings spring from? I have shared (directly above) what my background is and what has shaped my world view. And to politely answer your snarky question of No one is born with any privileges I say I SURE WAS NOT BORN WITH ANY ADVANTAGES. Severe poverty, single absentee parent, roach infested rental properties, constant moves, multiple crappy schools, unreliable transportation, unsupervised time, no club or school activities, couldn't afford sports or have a ride to get there, latch key little kid, bad influences all around, no one to ask for advice. And you know what? I don't feel sorry for myself at all. I worked my ass off, didn't make too many jack ass mistakes, treated others the way I wanted to be treated, respected and tried to emulate those that succeeded and was always NICE to people. I would love to know what shaped you. Were you financially well off as a child? Are you a person of color? Have you always lived in big urban settings? Did you attend college? Was your life full of supportive people? Did someone treat you badly? Were you witness to a great injustice? It appears you believe only YOUR perspective matters. It would be helpful to know where your perspective comes from. If you're not willing to give and take then there is little reason to engage here at all. I don't see the upside for you to spend the capitol of your time reading these or paying for a subscription if you don't want to learn or influence.
BTW, I do enjoy how me expressing an opinion is evidence of me believing "only my perspective" matters.
Treated badly? Yep, but that's America.
Witness to a great injustice? Not me, but my father lived through one.
And you know what? Don't feel sorry for myself either, because according to your background, I have made far more money and been far more "successful" than you. You know why? Because I know what America is and how it operates.
You have not" asked me several polite questions." I have never engaged with you before. So starting off by lying is not a good start.
But as far as my background? Black.
Did something terrible happen to me? No. Just know what America is/how it works.
As far as your youth/child experiences and non-advantages as least you can rest assured none of those things were due to your ethnicity.
Well the point is being white DIDN'T help me. I'm confident in my share. I've asked you at least five polite questions in multiple threads with how ever many witnesses are listening here. But ok.... we are getting somewhere. Your experience is shaped by being black. Is that correct? That is what you said. It would be helpful to know so much more. Why are you so radically opposed to what is being shared here? Please share YOUR personal experience. Why are you so angry and argumentative? Maybe because of hurt? Perhaps you have seen and experienced things we haven't? You never offer a real world perspective. Experiences. What you and your siblings and formative years were like. What school consisted of for y'all. What your struggles and support system felt like. We would really like to know what has shaped your views. You are clearly VERY convinced that YOUR world experience and perspective are paramount. What happened in you life to form your opinions? Please. Kindly. I pose this question with complete respect. Everyone else has shared. Please talk through why your perspective is so different from ours. Perhaps you can convince us of your side of things. We are listening with an open mind and heart. Debate style, kindness style, I choose to optimistically believe we are are more alike than different. There's 3 options. Lets debate, and calmly talk. What shaped you? You continue to come to this community to insult us but if you wanted to make a difference in the world and bring us around to your perspective and cause we would listen intently and give you respect and space. Please take it. Please tell us about yourself and explain why you views are different. Not wrong. Different. What if all the time you spend here could make a difference and you could get others to understand WHY you feel the way you do. PLEASE...use your words. Use your intelligence. Use your debate skills. People here are open minded. You can do it. I believe in you!
Comprof prefers to live up to the stereotype he detests.
An angry black man nursing a greivance.
So tiresome.
Wow! I was trying to engage as little as possible with Comprof, but you've managed to say something worthwhile. Your patience and tact are as a balm unto my internet-weary soul. ("Do you even know what a balm is?" --Comprof)
No. I am a stupid black person on welfare, dvb.
What is it?
Awww thanks dvb. It's not all bad news for me. I did manage to create a pretty successful and economically comfortable life but more importantly I did not continue the cycle of poverty and neglect with my own children. They are blessed in every way I was not and they are polite, hard working, well rounded individuals. That is my proudest accomplishment. And somehow my immigrant spouse and I were able to do it without college degrees. Not an endorsement for that route but it is the truth about our circumstances.
Nah...that's impossible. On this board, it's always race.
Black, Native American communities seem to have issues.
1. White community doesn't have those issues.
2. Can't possibly figure out why non-white communities have issues....because history starts over every 24 hours.
I'm sorry you have such a narrow world view Comprof
Nah. Been to 23 countries and almost every U.S. state. My worldview is realistic and not tainted by false mythologies.
OTOH, he's very predictable. Also, he's never been to Appalachia, or any poor Midwest rural communities.
Lol. Substantial black history in Appalachia and a black community, largely overlooked there as well. So, I have been, actually.
I'm from a small economically depressed town in the south. Thousands of examples of systemic poverty there and it didn't matter what race you were. Some climbed out on their own accord but many don't. Prioritizing what you choose to spend money on matters as well. Look on the ground outside convenience stores in poor neighborhoods. You will find beer bottles, cigarette butts and scratch off lottery tickets. Choices DO matter but that is an extremely unpopular viewpoint these days.
Yeah....such a shame that the GOP makes political hay out of convincing poor white people the reason they're poor is because the poor black/brown people are "taking" from them.
Maybe if they voted their economic self-interest rather than their race, they'd be better off.
I'm white. And you still haven't shared the back ground of the life that shaped these views. Did you attend college? Did you have a 2 parent household? Are you socio economically challenged? Are you a parent? We are kind of a family here. We care about each other and want to be kind and sensitive to everyone's needs. Please share so we can be good people to you.
College and beyond - yes
2 parents - yes.
Parent myself - yes.
Black in America, that's all you need to know. Don't need to justify/provide evidence or anything else to you.
"We're kind of a family here. We care about each other and want to be kind and sensitive to everyone' needs. Please share so we can be good people to you."
LOL!!!!!!!!! What Bari Weiss fantasy board are YOU on?
So what? All that proves is how good priors can lead to a shallow intellectual and personal hollowness, as far as I can see.
'Tis a mystery. It might be unfair, maybe even a bit paranoid, but when I see someone reply with pure invective to every comment in a thread, I can't help but wonder if they're being paid by the post.
Nah. Just have adifferent life experience in America.
I ask in another way. Why are You so racist? You've never "said."
Man, you are correct about small town poverty. I grew up in a little farm town in Wisconsin, and we were middle class - both parents civil servants. But when I was in junior high I started hanging out with the "hoods", cuz the jocks didn't want a kid who was afraid of the ball (guilty as charged.) Most of them came from the wrong side of the tracks, and if they were any better off than the poor black folks in the city 15 miles away, I sure couldn't see it. True, nobody looked down on them because of their race, but their socio-economic status did make them pariahs among most of the middle class.