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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!")
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?
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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 wonder if you could track a similar number of poor and poorly educated white people for 50 years would they have been materially different. I think the constraints of class get buried in discussions of race.
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.
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.
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!
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'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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
#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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
I thought we were doing very well in judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. I worked at the top of my profession for 35 years with a very diverse group of people from all races and it worked just fine. It was a meritocracy, which is what made the place so special. No one got a pass. You either performed well or were asked to leave.
The current cultural wars around race have done exactly what the experts who criticized critical race theory said it would do, and that is to create more racism. I’ve tapped out of this hot mess long ago. Good luck.
As with almost everything else they touch, progressives just couldn't help creating a toxic racial tension - all to make themselves feel virtuous. If they weren't so destructive, they'd be comical.
I attended a diverse school system in the 80's and worked in diverse workplaces in the 90's. Everyone seemed to get along just fine. The tension that has been stirred up the last few years is new and manufactured.
Oh yes. Things were great until Obama came along. Yes, because workplaces, where people are dependent upon receiving an income to live, are the true barometers of the sociocultural zeitgeist. I'm sure, like many, you had plenty of "Black friends" at work.
I said nothing about Obama or black friends. YOU did. It makes me sad that hearing that a group of different people managed to work together for entire shifts and get along well doesn't make you feel positive in any way. Nothing can ever be good? Nothing can ever be a positive step forward? People can't co-exist at work and play because they have a sense of humor? No one can want to be nice and make the shift / sports event / class pleasant? One can't help but worry that you have no light or happiness in your life.
Have plenty of light and happiness - my family, health, finances, poker buddies, hobbies, etc.
But you did mention your black coworkers, I believe? Are they your "friends?" Take trips together, hang out on the weekends, etc.? Just not impressed with working amicably with people of other races - because if you don't - you get fired. Sorry. Not emotionally moved by that.
But God forbid someone has a diversity training at work (which, btw, I think are pointless & stupid) - then watch people lose their shit over the "black wokeness" and CrITiCAl RaCE THeory!!
What about the 80s and 90s? Did something amazing happen during that period?
Yes...Obama's only professional achievement prior to POTUS was being a community organizer. Wow, so dismissive. You do know that the "White House" is not to be taken literally, right? Well, he certainly can't compete with the experience of a former TV game show host, that's for sure.
Lol. Typical. No mater what you accomplish, certain white folks are gonna white folks. It's like every time you comment, you keep proving me right.
What was Obama's main employment before being elected to state office? If you guessed "community organizer" you win the quiz for today. Sorry if truth hurts.
If you've read my posts about Biden, you'll see I applied the same standard to him. Although in the case of the Senile Imbecile, he had virtually no job before politics. Rendering him even less qualified. And, guess what? Joey's white. Even if he tries to deny it. So I guess that makes me an anti-white kind of racist. Keep digging, Prof.
Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. In the immediate preceding years, he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School (from '92-'04) and practiced civil rights law at a prestigious firm in the city ('93-'04). His work as a community organizer--specifically as the director of a faith-based organization that provided job training, college prep tutoring, and tenant assistance to residents in several Catholic parishes on Chicago's south side--was from 1985-1988.
The vast majority of Americans have no clue what critical race theory even is. It's a cop-out to blame it for "more racism" (and towards who?).
But otherwise, I thought we were experiencing some progress as well until Obama got elected and then things just went to crap. And while most here are likely to blame that on Obama himself, I contend the same would have happened had any popular Black conservative gotten elected president also. Even Sen. Tim Scott has managed to tick off conservatives when speaking candidly about the ways in which racism persists in American society.
I don’t agree that a black conservative President would have landed us in the same place. Obama was actively engaged in antagonizing those he viewed as culturally abhorrent. A conservative President, black or white, at the time - would not have. It was 2009 and a conservative President would have just put his / her head down and governed. The cultures wars began with Obama, in my view. Trump merely piled on. And Biden is just befuddled.
Yeah we simply see this issue very, very differently. You believe that Obama was "actively engaged in antagonizing those he viewed as culturally abhorrent" when he waded into Gates-gate or when he said if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon or take any other racially charged issue of the day. You think a conservative president wouldn't have moved swiftly to can Shirley Sherrod as Obama did? If anything, I'd think he/she would have moved faster. Dylan Roof was in no way motivated by Obama's particular politics or ideology but simply the very specter of an African American in the Oval Office. And the spate of high-profile police-involved deaths of Black American civilians was totally independent of the presidency but simply a product of the times (rising popularity of social media, prevalence of smart phones, etc.), and certainly contributed to the changing racial climate.
The burden of Obama being the nation's first Black president was the expectation that he'd say something about high-profile racial matters and that wouldn't change with a conservative Black president; instead, conservatives would simply want him/her to speak out but using their approved template instead. Sure conservatives would be happy about it, but that wouldn't mean that about half the country wouldn't have complaints, even if conservatives dismissed them as invalid. The end result would still be the same: a big national brouhaha about race involving festering issues that we've never dealt with to such a degree as a country.
CRT, Cancel Culture, Students attacking/protesting professors...all Moral Panics just like the "Satanic Panic" in rhe 80s.
Well, I knew Obama was a fluke/lightening strike, so I was less optimistic. So, I was not surprised AT ALL that Trump won, either.
Yep. A large portion of America lost their collective shit on election night....amazing how many of them love to talk about how Obama "set back race relations 50 years."
They went after Tim Scott when he dared to open his mouth, so yeah - they'll gore any black/brown person. Eventually, it always drills down to, "Shut up and dribble."
I'm reminded: America finally loved Ali, once he lost his ability to speak.
Well the good thing is that the actual CRT "peddlers" are on college/university campuses (mostly as professors of it and related theories or law) and I doubt those who would be racist towards them were willing to take the fight to them.
You're such a racist, one trick pony that reading your screeds is actually funny.
As far as King is concerned, I view him as neither a hero nor a villain. He did some great things and some sketchy things. Like most people.
And reparations? From people who never owned a slave to people who were never enslaved. Yeah that makes sense. And what about the trillions spent since 1965? Oh never mind.
Why do keep skipping over the timeliness and going back to slavery? Who cares? You're missing all the good stuff in the middle. No, no, no. Let's keep it modern/contemporary, shall we? I like the Jim Crow, Segregation period.
Nah. Just provide one full scholarship to the families of every black GI who were denied the G.I. Bill that the white soldiers got.
The sketchy being the affairs? Glad to know your moral compass is so strong
Trillions spent since 1965...oh, I'm sorry are you under the assumption that white people don't/didn't benefit from social programs SNAP, HUD, etc.?
Lol.....and I'm the racist. You're such a disingenuous hypocrite reading your screeds is actually quote sad.
The prof claims "Never said "all white people." Checked his post.
"The one partial, out of context quote all white people love."
Yep, you definitely did.
Jim Crow, segregation period ended in 1965. Essentially nobody under 18 had a role in supporting that. So go back to 1947. Many born before that are already gone. And those born after played the deciding role in eliminating segregation and Jim Crow. But don't let truth rain on your parade.
Sketchy being the rape he reportedly participated in. Although, while I am skeptical of anything J. Edgar said, he was an accomplished blackmailer.
Didn't say the Great Society didn't benefit everyone. But who got the benefits is clear from the degree of support for the Dems. Like 90% maybe? Lol....and you are the racist. Cause you did say "all white people." See how this works? If you think most Americans don't want liberty and a better life for all of us, you're nuts.
Yep...all white people do live that quote, especially white GOP, as they trot it out on their Twitter every year. Do you disagree.
Nag. Plenty of people still alive. Plenty of families owed for the G.I. Bill. So, stop talking about slavery.
Nah. GOP nominating ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS/PRO-SEGREGATION Barry Goldwater for POTUS is the cause.
That's why baseball great Jackie Robinson left the party along with many others. That's why it's 90%....but yes, let's ignored the lived history/direct personal experience and try and gaslight people that the Dems are the "real racists" and people are "living on a plantation."As if everyone has forgotten the rhetoric of Reagan, Bush Sr., Trump, etc.
Well, now Trump is the ideological leader of the GOP. Took awhile to get there, but it was inevitable. He's yours. Own it. See how that works?
You're still calling Goldwater a pro segregationists even when the evidence is clear that he de-segregated his own family's stores, the Phoenix public schools and the Arizona National Guard.
No less than Politico wrote. "Unlike many of the “no” votes, Goldwater’s assertion of states’ rights was not a smokescreen for personal racism—far from it. Personally, Goldwater, half-Jewish on his father’s side, loathed segregation. He ended it at his family’s department stores, and vigorously pursued banning it in both Phoenix’s public schools and the Arizona National Guard. On the Civil Rights Act, his belief, well-intentioned but misguided, was that the bill overstepped the bounds of what the federal government was permitted to do."
As to Trump, whatever his failings, when people claim his rhetoric is racist, they come up with what he said about Mexicans or Middle East terrorists. "Mexican" is not a race. If you can cite a single thing he said that was derogatory about black Americans I'll take note. But I don't recall any. Or they'll vaguely screech about dog whistles. Like what? Crime? No decent person is pro-criminal.
As far as Jackie Robinson, he was a brave and great American who had a right to his opinion. He believed that states' rights were a screen for racism. Partially true at the time, as the federal government was breaking up Jim Crow. But a principled case can be made for states rights against an all powerful federal government that has nothing to do with race.
The world I lived in operated that way. Though you can quibble with the words I used to describe it. There was no need to play the victim identity game that we play today. Everyone one had their head down and worked. Meritocracy worked. People of all colors were represented.
There's nothing grosser, or more supportive of the term "white supremacy" than dumb white people declaring their moral virtue by insisting that white people are holding black people back. As if they see whites as having to give permission to blacks to succeed and that "racist" plumber over there in Kenosha -- until he denounces racism and gives permission to blacks to succeed, they will still be held back...
Meanwhile, I live in a black neighborhood where I am oppressed by the 100,000 souped-up vehicles with stereo systems that blast the buildings off their foundations, where there are gang assassinations and a whole host of other problems IN PLAIN SIGHT. Ironically, I do not give permission for gang assassinations and souped-up vehicles that are obviously a debt trap -- but they do it anyway! My white permission has been flagrantly disrespected!
It’s such a clever ploy, this white supremacy thing. But the hard truth is this—
It’s tough to look in the mirror for the reasons your life is a mess. It’s always more palatable to look for a scape goat. Whites have been accused and have readily stepped up to take the blame. Their white skin is their original sin. And the more they kneel in guilt, the more blame is heaped on them. Any attempt to push back is met with cries of racism, an accusation worse than rape. Until one person says she isn’t going to take it anymore. I think we’re about there.
This whole woke anti-racist creed is nothing more than a scam for racist white liberals to feel superior and good. If you don't treat everyone the same and demand the same standards of conduct and decency regardless of race and ethnicity, then you don't really think people are equal. Just weary of it all.
You have hit the nail on the head. The "compassionate" left competes with each other to show they are not racist. "Look who I voted for. I'm not a racist." or "Look, I have black friends and participate in BLM marches. Aren't I wonderful?"
If I call BLM what it is, a bunch of Marxist thugs, I am called a racist. BLM founders are now millionaires funded by many left wing morons who contributed to this BLM farce just to show they are not racist.
George Floyd was a thug who spent much of his life in prison but BLM and nut case white leftists worship him like he had just discovered penicillin. There is no other way to describe these leftists but as glassy eyed, drool on their chins, lemming nut cases.
George Floyd did not deserve to die the way he did but is in no shape or form a hero.
Look at you!...remembered to save it at the end. Good for you. You were totally cool with how Floyd went out. You're just upset it was caught on video.
Look, the phrase "Black Lives Matter" sent half the country into mouth frothing rage from Day 1. It's ok.
No one claims Floyd was a "hero" - just that he was a human being, and that those situations happen far more than people realize....but hey, we all gotta #BacktheBlue, right?
Nah. I'm pretty sure I do. Personally, I don't get really wound up about. Just enjoying seeing all the white folks upset that some black folks had the audacity to get upset. Oh, and before you start the "peaceful" protest nonsense. There were approx. 10,000 protests....570 involved violence.
I find you disgusting, too. So, you can F-ck off. That direct enough for you?
Comprof It seems like you want us to give your ideas thought and respect. Why not tell us a little about yourself and what about your life shaped your vision? Perhaps lay off the insults and share WHY you feel the way you do. Many of us here are willing to listen to other points of view but so far you appear to be looking for combat. I really would like to know a bit about your background and why you feel so passionately different about this topic. Please give us a glimpse into what influenced you so strongly to disagree with us. You might change hearts and minds if you presented your POV as though we were sitting across a table enjoying a beverage and making eye contact. I think most people would be more civil if they communicated with this in mind and might actually reach other's hearts and souls and make a REAL difference if they understood where others are coming from. Give us a chance to understand you.
It amazes me that people can believe in a theory that everybody else’s actions affect your life outcome, but your own actions have no bearing on what happens to you. It’s always somebody else’s fault, even if they lived 200 years ago. So apparently you are the only person who does NOT have an impact on your own life. A very peculiar theory indeed.
Heyjude we all know people of every race, age and gender that is the perpetual victim. They guy who gets dumped all the time and blames woman and not his own actions. The colleague that gets fired for being a terrible employee but it's the 10 bosses that are the problem not them. Or the parent that complains that their kids walk all over them but never puts their foot down. I've always had a low level of sympathy for those that complain but never take actions to improve their situation. Be honest and make positive changes.
That's how it was in my daughter's school. But please help me NCMaureen, explain something else I've observed- I wouldn't call the black community "queer affirming", and that is a prerequisite for being an antiracist ally. When is that penny going to drop?
Me too. It doesn't surprise me here on sub stack but I've been increasingly impressed with the comments section of WSJ. It seems like we have A LOT of company and commenters there are 98% real name users.
I think your term IN PLAIN SIGHT is important. The progressives stir up resentment with ideas and whispers and say things like "intentions don't matter". Meanwhile in places like Chicago POC are dying in large numbers at their own hands IN PLAIN SIGHT. Why not try the triage approach and work fervently to fix what is actually happening before our eyes every day? Where are the black pastors and community leaders? Call out who is ACTUALLY harming POC in real time.
Look at what we did after Sandy Hook (nothing). If that didn't move us to do something about gun violence, then what could? Certainly not a bunch of dead Black kids in Chicago.
Good morning Bari, and please allow me to repeat my request for transcripts. There are many reasons for this request - economy of time, the ability to simply peruse and skip - or, as now, I'm sitting in a quiet house and playing an interview would both wake others and disrupt my morning calm.
At this point aren't we all feeling a bit of "race fatigue?" I know liberals simply can't view their fellow humans as other than stereotypical cartoonish figures, but the rest of us are doing pretty well in taking our fellow citizens as individuals, each with human rights and dignity, unique to themselves. Even as we are bombarded incessantly with race soaked messages and invective.
I listened to this podcast and I gotta say, it took me a moment to get the ebb and flow of the conversation. Plus, three people talking and I only recognize Glen’s voice. A transcript of this one might be tough.
I’m always intrigued by the Loury/McWhorter dialogues. This morning I saw a quote which seems germane, from a Greek philosopher named Epictetus (himself a slave for a time during the reign of Nero--and I DID have to look that up)--“No man is free who is not master of himself.” Others may categorize us based on skin pigmentation, but our dreams, ambitions, fears and anxieties are our own, and we are free to shape ourselves according to our own will, not the hierarchical constructs of others. To obsess, legislate, educate, award, deny, or enumerate based on race is counter-productive to individual freedom. Conversely, the Marxist orthodoxy of collectivism, conformity and denial of individualism is the antithesis of freedom. I prefer to be my own master.
"Epictetus (himself a slave for a time during the reign of Nero--and I DID have to look that up)--“No man is free who is not master of himself.” That kind of stuff is just...too....damned....hard.
Some comparatively few Americans who are still alive in some states dealt with those up to their demise over a half century ago - but definitely let’s base our entire present discussion on race on them. Meanwhile immigrants from all over the world show up, start at the bottom, succeed and become productive and successful Americans.
Yeah, kinda will base it on that, as my father, aunt, etc are still very much alive.
Yeah...coming to America on a student visa 1998 is a tiny bit different than 1898...1930....etc.
Plus, every immigrant and immigrant groups experience is different, due to the era/cultural environment that exist when they arrive. So, that tired point is colossally stupid.
Also probably helps if you come willingly and further down the historical road you don't have to deal with federal and state laws and other legally codified/systemic efforts prohibiting your complete, free existence as a citizen.
Or, who knows? Maybe coming from Africa on a student visa in 1998 is exactly the same experience as Jim Crow/Segregation.
Nobody alive in the US came here unwillingly legally. Certainly due to Democrats' border failures, there are those who come here unwillingly but unlawfully. Let's stop that and control the border, right?
Nobody in the US has to deal with, or has had to deal with in the past half-century, "federal and state laws and other legally codified/systemic efforts prohibiting your complete, free existence as a citizen." Coming from Africa on a student visa in 1998 has nothing to do with some states' policies that ended decades before.
Any person's future starts today, and that was true 50 years ago too. SC's Senator Tim Scott didn't get mired in all the defeatism you espouse, nor did generations of successful immigrants. More forward.
Stop comparing all immigrant experiences to each other. Which you did.
It's dumb. That's the take-away.
50 years....ancient history. But the good news is that history starts over every 24 hours, apparently.
Have moved forward quite well. Have properties in Costa Rica and Panama. On schedule to retire at 58. Don't need your white input/advice on how to be successful. Doing great.
Glad you get it and things are working out for you. Leftist victim culture is absolutely a dead end. Good on you for figuring it out. But, since we're enumerating dumb things, your advocacy for victim culture here is intellectually dishonest.
I was in a 2 hour leadership seminar recently that was moving along fairly well, with good participation, when the moderator put up DEI slides for the last half hour. She was very excited to discuss it, but was met by silence and couldn’t understand why. The only two questions asked were for the definitions of diversity and inclusion. No one - black, white, Indian, men, women, wanted to engage with any of it. We are a well run, mid size company in a profitable space that as far as I can tell, hires for ability, not quotas. Everyone could see that it was disruption for the sake of disruption, plus everyone’s scared to death to say anything to challenge it.
I bet your experience plays out all over the place. Everyone I know that works in a corporate setting that liked their career a few years ago is longing to leave for this VERY reason. All the mandatory online courses are pretty hated as well. What a #+*ing waste of time.
This is my experience as well. I also know two people who retired early recently and they both mentioned that the DEI culture was a major factor in their decision to retire early.
I feel the issue of education is prominent. Having crappy schools where only a small percentage graduate even at grade level, forget excellence, is a huge hurdle and a national disgrace. Obviously any solvent business would have fired the people who run some of these schools years ago. I recently saw some ghastly report on Baltimore schools which are a complete disaster. No child could hope to come out of this type of academic environment and become a thriving citizen. First of all, stop feeling Democrats are the answer. Most of these areas have been run by them for decades and are still a mess. We need a way to fire people and get these schools up to speed. Years ago an African American woman on 60 Minutes had quit her professional level job and started a school in her own home. She had very little funding, used classic books, and when they checked in on those kids years later, almost all were doing extremely well in various professions. It can be done. We have not done it.
No. It is probably hard to come by those figures. My point was that rather than granting these funds at Higher Ed, the fund would be better spent at an earlier age, mitigating aid needed by the time you get to college.
Sure but what does that do for those who are college-bound TODAY and in need of aid?
I have a hard time criticizing those who are actually helping in any way or dictating exactly how those who are motivated enough to actually help should do so.
It has been done, to a limited extent, by certain charter schools. In most larger communities there is a charter academy dedicated to excellence in eductation, particulary for Black students. Emphasis on a classical education; mastery of disciplines in math, science, and the humanities; No excuses; no BS. And guess what? The kids in these schools tend to thrive. Who woulda thunk it?
Education is critical in supporting students ability to be prepared to thrive in higher education and the job market rather than merely eligible for a job or university place. The California statistics are for Marin County Office of Education (70% white) spends $139,829 per student each year and for the Oakland Unified School District (34% white) spends $16,109 per student each year. Also consider that per capita income in Marin is almost double the per capita income in Oakland which suggest that the Marin families have more money to offer additional support and tutoring for children. In woke California, the problem is addressed through diversity training in Marin not by creating a more equitable school system for a school system only 40 miles away. In 2010, the movie, Waiting for Superman, addressed the inequity between schools and it appears nothing has changed.
One of the most insightful studies on education, racism, and ability to succeed was done in England where they broke out groups i.e. Caribbean Blacks (those that arrived after WW II) were distinguished from recent immigrants from Africa and British White was distinct from Irish White, Irish Traveler, etc. The study addressed income along with race and the results suggest and support the expectation of achievement by the families determine the success of the child. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1078731/Ethnicity_Schools_Note.pdf
Skimming over some of the charts, one of the first things that jumped out was the large difference between Indians and Pakistanis. Indians are the top of the success chart while Pakistanis are nearer the middle with over 3x the rate of Indians receiving free school meals. That right there pretty much deflates the myth of "systemic racism" as the cause of some groups succeeding while others do not.
I thought here in CA there was equalization of school spending. I do know that wealthy small districts can have Ed foundations and PTOs that increase funds available
BTW how much of that Marin County spending is concentrated in Marin City, which is lower income?
The amount a district spends does not include funds raised by parents. It is the Marin school district which would probably include Marin just as Oakland’s school district includes Oakland. Like you I believed that there was equity, but statistics available from various districts show that it is not equitable. Equity in education should translate to students who are economically disadvantaged should be offered more in terms of smaller class sizes, more resources, and more after school and summer programs. California should be seriously copying the successful techniques of charter schools who have been successful in areas with low incomes.
Couldn't agree more Lisa. I have followed several stories about Baltimore schools. And everyone in charge is a person of color. I think school choice, vouchers and ending teacher's unions is the way forward if anyone really wants this fixed. More of the same is not the answer.
I use “M.” like the French do, for Monsieur but ALSO for Madam and Mademoiselle EQUALLY. That’s just me.
Yeah, You've got the right of it, M. Lisa. I know this is painting with a broad brush, and there might be some teachers reading. (Doubtful, but *possible.*) Fact is, it's basically *impossible* and *costly* to fire incompetent teachers. And, AFAIK, an abnormal percentage are, and not just the ones that everyone recognizes as deadweight. It's our two great friends, the NEA and AFT (teacher's unions). Them of pandemic fame.
Long story how teachers of reading have failed youth for *decades.* About failure in math:
That seems to be true. However I support the old adage that where there is a will, there is a way. I was not previously a supporter of vouchers for school choice but maybe that is a path. Perhaps some competent educators could get the financing to run their own schools paid by vouchers. Maybe this should be a very central election issue. Certainly most parents want a decent school. Maybe the statistics of pupil achievement and graduation belong in every campaign. After all we are paying for these deadbeats who are killing kids by robbing their chance for a future. Sounds extreme but if your choice of career is McDonalds or drug dealer, someone has killed something in you.
It is interesting that Success Academy, a charter, that has a student population of 97% minority population and 83% economic disadvantage had (pre-covid) scores that were 93 in math and 68 in English when NYC public schools were 35 math and 30 English. It would be interesting to trace these students and record how these skills learned in elementary and middle school as these students grow into adults. Predicting that this generation of students that succeed that they will continue to support their children's achievements.
Not every student has the will to succeed and some squander their advantages, but to have a system that frustrates the will and blocks the way is unacceptable for the child and for society. Education departments should be taking a page from the successful charter schools and try to fix what is broken.
TY, M. Lisa. You're right again. The great advantages of vouchers for school choice is both to provide another option and to provide some competition for public schools.
Public schools, for most part, have no *incentive* to change. Change is hard, so why try?
Yeah, it *should* be central issue in every election. Never seen it, other than mebbe some lip service. And, decades ago, there was an ad for the charity United Negro College Fund. Their slogan more appropriate these days, at all levels of education:
Yes, transcript please. I'm a reader, and so is my wife - and I'm still trying to turn her on to "Common Sense". She's a big fan of McWhorter, so this could be the one that wins her over.
TY. We were also looking for transcript of this Honestly Podcast. I'm familiar with Professors Loury and McWhorter, but not so much Kmele Foster. Sounded like it would be interesting, but the time to listen to it all...
Funny how MLK's dream got shuffled off to the side. Replaced by Woke Religion and the Victim Culture.
And how so-called "anti-racism" these days is actually segregationist. *Only* see people according to their skin-color? If that isn't racist, i dunno what is.
jt, when I first read your post, I thought you said vulture culture and that is what it is woke vultures circling trying to find a "racist" to pounce on and tear apart.
"Vulture Culture". I like that. When vultures are resting in a tree or on the ground, they are called a "committee". In this case a committee of cry-bullies. And when they are feeding, a group of vultures is called a "wake". Too perfect.
That certainly was the dream for most of my life (I was born in 1960). Of course there were always folks who didn't want to see that. They were called segregationists.
May I make a protest against the ubiquity of podcasts? My husband and I are retired, so we don't spend a lot of time in a car or on public transport, where we might want something to listen to. We want to read our news. We can read the content in half the time (or less) it takes to listen to it. No matter how interesting the topic or the speaker, I don't want to hear/watch all the pauses, false starts, and Uhs and Ums. I wish podcasts were accompanied by transcripts. (Edit: I see others have made the same point. Please count me in with them.)
It just blows my mind that with all the supposed "racial reckoning" that been tossed about recently that NONE of the people discussing race in American seem to ever bring up the fact there there are THOUSANDS of examples of Blacks achieving success in our country. Business men/women, elected officials, Military leaders, police Chiefs, media moguls, sports stars, musicians etc. etc...
I watched story on CBS Sunday Morning a few months back where a VERY successful businessman/producer Byron Allen (net worth over 500 million) actually said OUT LOUD AND ON CAMERA that despite any successes Black people in the US might have had - blacks STILL can't get ahead I this country! I still couldn't believe this uber-rich guy actually said it (yet just another story of a very successful Black person claiming unfairness while being rich and ignoring all the success many blacks have achieved.
I stopped listening to anyone uttering "racism". It's become a joke and that's really a shame because there are still instances of real racism that occur that get drowned out because of the false racism claims.
There have been several women of color elected this year and no applause for them I guess. Winsome Sears comes to mind. She offered to go on Joy Reid's racist show and debate. Did that ever happen?
For some reason or another, Substack has managed to keep out the trolls who infest nearly every corner of the internet. I hope this can continue.
edit 9 hours later: it seems I spoke too soon. We do have a troll in our midst, and quite a prolific one at that. Remember folks, the worst thing you can do to a troll is respond to it. Don't feed the trolls and they will go elsewhere in search of validation. :)
I agree that silence is the best way to respond to a troll. It does require some self-control, but it's quite effective. There is no need to "refute" a troll, because almost everyone can clearly see that they ARE a troll. Responding to them gives them exactly the attention they crave. Everyone on the forum simply ignoring them eventually makes the effort too much work for too little gain.
Agree but maybe its that more people actually feel this way but to hear the MSM tell it everyone wants to be a progressive and also IRL there is too much drama that comes from pushing back. I'm finding the comment section of WSJ to be pretty conservative and calm as well.
For me, the only discordant note was when somebody said the conservatives (or was it the “Right”?) have the law - implying control of our legal system. I thought, Has he not noticed what the ABA is doing? Has he not noticed the wokeness infecting law schools? Has he not noticed the propensity of left-wing judges to rule so as to achieve political outcomes? Has he not noticed the election of Soros-backed prosecutors and the havoc they are wreaking? Has he not noticed the trend towards pervasive, oppressive regulation - a form of unaccountable legislation? As a lawyer, which those guys are not, I’m particularly sensitive to the extent to which the left has overtaken our legal/judicial system.
Otherwise, I loved this podcast. Sorry for the rant.
Pointing out a dangerous yet often overlooked vector in the Cultural Revolution is not a rant. Thank you for writing on this subject and please continue to do so.
Get out every day. Travel nationally and internationally several times a year.
Which is why I don't fall for moral panics like CRT. No different than the "Satanic Panic" of the 80s. When you ban Ruby Bridge's autobiography and MLK, Jr. books for children, etc. you've kind of given away the game.
Personally, I don't know why they're having this forum. Hopefully it's not for white people. Trying to discuss race with 95% of white people is pointless.
Comprof, please, respectully and calmly, tell us what your background is and what has shaped your views. We can't understand you without adequate context.
Have been quite calm from the beginning. So, don't need your white advice on how to not be an "angry" black person, ok?
I have had different experiences in America. The end. I've learned long ago it is pointless to discuss it with white people, so I won't with you., as there is zero interest in understanding.
I normally don't listen to podcasts - they take a lot of time where I can get more information more quickly by reading. But I listened to this because I had high hopes about this, that some on the Left have open minds.
But these guys think the Right are the enemy:
The right is "closer to the levers of power"
The right wrongly thinks the NY Times is woke and out to get them
The right 'punished Disney for having gay characters'
One speaker was distressed that his book on racism originally only embraced by conservatives
Critical race theory isn't being taught in schools
The right doesn't care about black crime victims with 27 minutes left
Sorry, the Right isn't the enemy. Much of the above is nonsense.
There is still much that is good to hear. But until the Left is ready to deal with the Right on even terms and not as demons, I remain very pessimistic about the ability of our society to come back together.
I'm very familiar with Professors Loury and McWhorter. I'm pretty sure what's on this podcast is views You've never heard before, because they're Black and can say things a White person would be tarred and feathered for. Me? I read, rather than listen. My bad.
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.
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.
You are a fine American.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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."
"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.
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.
What country are you originally from?
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.
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?
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.
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.
That concurs with my understanding also. Still, JJoshua's comment resonates about a lowest common denominator culture.
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.
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.
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.
Permanent welfare is the new plantation. Such a waste of human talent.
White slavery?
Robert Byrd...fascinating.
Too bad the GOP nominated anti-Civil Rights/pro-segregation Barry Goldwater for Potus in 1964.
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.
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!")
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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?
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2017/02/08/514105689/black-latino-two-parent-families-have-half-the-wealth-of-white-single-parents
Uh-oh...you said we've "systemized racism." Sorry. That concept does not exist.
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?"
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.
Yes he could have stepped in with grace. But he made the calculated decision not to.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
If you think wealth transfers are bad, then I'm afraid I have some especially bad news for you concerning MLK.
Great post. Carnival barkers is genius. Kudos.
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 wonder if you could track a similar number of poor and poorly educated white people for 50 years would they have been materially different. I think the constraints of class get buried in discussions of race.
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.
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.
No. I am a stupid black person on welfare, dvb.
What is it?
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!
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.
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
OTOH, he's very predictable. Also, he's never been to Appalachia, or any poor Midwest rural communities.
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.
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.
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.
Lol. Substantial black history in Appalachia and a black community, largely overlooked there as well. So, I have been, actually.
Nah. Been to 23 countries and almost every U.S. state. My worldview is realistic and not tainted by false mythologies.
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.
Oh, and don't forget that the "working class".....is all white, too!
As well as rural/the "real" America.
It is this way because that is what Dems who run cities want. It is 100% intentional. (my opinion)
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.
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.
#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.
my guess is three generations...
You could be right. (I'll split the difference with Ya.)
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?
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.
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.
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".
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."
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.
"A black problem."....lol.
"As to the others."...lol.
50 years ago...ancient history.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
Lol...."A black problem."
Nice that you acknowledge the existence of the successful, law abiding, intact ones.
Oh, I guess you weren't being sarcastic, you actually believe everybody who doesn't agree with you is racist.
I thought we were doing very well in judging people by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. I worked at the top of my profession for 35 years with a very diverse group of people from all races and it worked just fine. It was a meritocracy, which is what made the place so special. No one got a pass. You either performed well or were asked to leave.
The current cultural wars around race have done exactly what the experts who criticized critical race theory said it would do, and that is to create more racism. I’ve tapped out of this hot mess long ago. Good luck.
As with almost everything else they touch, progressives just couldn't help creating a toxic racial tension - all to make themselves feel virtuous. If they weren't so destructive, they'd be comical.
Virtue is overextended and being depleted.
I agree. There was no "toxic racial tension" until progressives showed up....damn....why can't we all go back to the 1940/50s when everyone got along.
I attended a diverse school system in the 80's and worked in diverse workplaces in the 90's. Everyone seemed to get along just fine. The tension that has been stirred up the last few years is new and manufactured.
Oh yes. Things were great until Obama came along. Yes, because workplaces, where people are dependent upon receiving an income to live, are the true barometers of the sociocultural zeitgeist. I'm sure, like many, you had plenty of "Black friends" at work.
I said nothing about Obama or black friends. YOU did. It makes me sad that hearing that a group of different people managed to work together for entire shifts and get along well doesn't make you feel positive in any way. Nothing can ever be good? Nothing can ever be a positive step forward? People can't co-exist at work and play because they have a sense of humor? No one can want to be nice and make the shift / sports event / class pleasant? One can't help but worry that you have no light or happiness in your life.
Have plenty of light and happiness - my family, health, finances, poker buddies, hobbies, etc.
But you did mention your black coworkers, I believe? Are they your "friends?" Take trips together, hang out on the weekends, etc.? Just not impressed with working amicably with people of other races - because if you don't - you get fired. Sorry. Not emotionally moved by that.
But God forbid someone has a diversity training at work (which, btw, I think are pointless & stupid) - then watch people lose their shit over the "black wokeness" and CrITiCAl RaCE THeory!!
What about the 80s and 90s? Or the election in 2008 of a certain community organizer?
What about the 80s and 90s? Did something amazing happen during that period?
Yes...Obama's only professional achievement prior to POTUS was being a community organizer. Wow, so dismissive. You do know that the "White House" is not to be taken literally, right? Well, he certainly can't compete with the experience of a former TV game show host, that's for sure.
Lol. Typical. No mater what you accomplish, certain white folks are gonna white folks. It's like every time you comment, you keep proving me right.
What was Obama's main employment before being elected to state office? If you guessed "community organizer" you win the quiz for today. Sorry if truth hurts.
If you've read my posts about Biden, you'll see I applied the same standard to him. Although in the case of the Senile Imbecile, he had virtually no job before politics. Rendering him even less qualified. And, guess what? Joey's white. Even if he tries to deny it. So I guess that makes me an anti-white kind of racist. Keep digging, Prof.
Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996. In the immediate preceding years, he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School (from '92-'04) and practiced civil rights law at a prestigious firm in the city ('93-'04). His work as a community organizer--specifically as the director of a faith-based organization that provided job training, college prep tutoring, and tenant assistance to residents in several Catholic parishes on Chicago's south side--was from 1985-1988.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_career_of_Barack_Obama
Right...so actually his job right before POTUS was NOT being a community organizer? Do I have thag right?
Hey...it's no being a former TV game show host, I'll give you that.
I think the truth that really hurts you, Bruce. Is that a non-white person was POTUS.
Really, do have a direct quote, information of Biden denying his ethnicity?
No, YOU keep digging Bruce. That cross isn't going to stand up and light itself.
The vast majority of Americans have no clue what critical race theory even is. It's a cop-out to blame it for "more racism" (and towards who?).
But otherwise, I thought we were experiencing some progress as well until Obama got elected and then things just went to crap. And while most here are likely to blame that on Obama himself, I contend the same would have happened had any popular Black conservative gotten elected president also. Even Sen. Tim Scott has managed to tick off conservatives when speaking candidly about the ways in which racism persists in American society.
Pendulums swing.
I don’t agree that a black conservative President would have landed us in the same place. Obama was actively engaged in antagonizing those he viewed as culturally abhorrent. A conservative President, black or white, at the time - would not have. It was 2009 and a conservative President would have just put his / her head down and governed. The cultures wars began with Obama, in my view. Trump merely piled on. And Biden is just befuddled.
Oh, yes....pendulums definitely swing.
Tim Scott found out the hard way, as the GOP jumped on his neck quite quickly.
I'm curious about this "actively engaged in antagonizing" - are you referring to "clinging to guns, God, etc."
Well...that thesis has been proven accurate. Fair, a bit indelicate...but fair.
Cairo speech.
Oh...the one about increased economic, technological engagement in the Middle East?
Yep, secret Kenyan Muslim.
Failing to veto UN Resolution 2334.
As far as Senators go, Tim Scott is held in way higher regard than his fellow SC senator.
Yeah, until he mentions race. Then it's "shut up and dribble."
Go try and gaslight someone else.
Yeah we simply see this issue very, very differently. You believe that Obama was "actively engaged in antagonizing those he viewed as culturally abhorrent" when he waded into Gates-gate or when he said if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon or take any other racially charged issue of the day. You think a conservative president wouldn't have moved swiftly to can Shirley Sherrod as Obama did? If anything, I'd think he/she would have moved faster. Dylan Roof was in no way motivated by Obama's particular politics or ideology but simply the very specter of an African American in the Oval Office. And the spate of high-profile police-involved deaths of Black American civilians was totally independent of the presidency but simply a product of the times (rising popularity of social media, prevalence of smart phones, etc.), and certainly contributed to the changing racial climate.
The burden of Obama being the nation's first Black president was the expectation that he'd say something about high-profile racial matters and that wouldn't change with a conservative Black president; instead, conservatives would simply want him/her to speak out but using their approved template instead. Sure conservatives would be happy about it, but that wouldn't mean that about half the country wouldn't have complaints, even if conservatives dismissed them as invalid. The end result would still be the same: a big national brouhaha about race involving festering issues that we've never dealt with to such a degree as a country.
Thank you for the perspective. Very helpful.
You're quite welcome.
Yeah...that Trayvon comment REALLY pissed them off.
To say that was a watershed moment would be an understatement.
CRT, Cancel Culture, Students attacking/protesting professors...all Moral Panics just like the "Satanic Panic" in rhe 80s.
Well, I knew Obama was a fluke/lightening strike, so I was less optimistic. So, I was not surprised AT ALL that Trump won, either.
Yep. A large portion of America lost their collective shit on election night....amazing how many of them love to talk about how Obama "set back race relations 50 years."
They went after Tim Scott when he dared to open his mouth, so yeah - they'll gore any black/brown person. Eventually, it always drills down to, "Shut up and dribble."
I'm reminded: America finally loved Ali, once he lost his ability to speak.
There ya go. And much love was lost for Michael Steele, Colin Powell, J.C. Watts, etc. as well once they veered too far from the approved script.
Towards the people peddling CRT.
Well the good thing is that the actual CRT "peddlers" are on college/university campuses (mostly as professors of it and related theories or law) and I doubt those who would be racist towards them were willing to take the fight to them.
Lol....everyone's favorite partial, out-of-context quote.
Never gets old.
"Content of their character"
The one partial, out of context quote all white people love.
Don't learn too much/read King's works, you'll really hate his ideas regarding reparations and economic systems.
"All white people....."
You're such a racist, one trick pony that reading your screeds is actually funny.
As far as King is concerned, I view him as neither a hero nor a villain. He did some great things and some sketchy things. Like most people.
And reparations? From people who never owned a slave to people who were never enslaved. Yeah that makes sense. And what about the trillions spent since 1965? Oh never mind.
Never said "all white people."
Why do keep skipping over the timeliness and going back to slavery? Who cares? You're missing all the good stuff in the middle. No, no, no. Let's keep it modern/contemporary, shall we? I like the Jim Crow, Segregation period.
Nah. Just provide one full scholarship to the families of every black GI who were denied the G.I. Bill that the white soldiers got.
The sketchy being the affairs? Glad to know your moral compass is so strong
Trillions spent since 1965...oh, I'm sorry are you under the assumption that white people don't/didn't benefit from social programs SNAP, HUD, etc.?
Lol.....and I'm the racist. You're such a disingenuous hypocrite reading your screeds is actually quote sad.
The prof claims "Never said "all white people." Checked his post.
"The one partial, out of context quote all white people love."
Yep, you definitely did.
Jim Crow, segregation period ended in 1965. Essentially nobody under 18 had a role in supporting that. So go back to 1947. Many born before that are already gone. And those born after played the deciding role in eliminating segregation and Jim Crow. But don't let truth rain on your parade.
Sketchy being the rape he reportedly participated in. Although, while I am skeptical of anything J. Edgar said, he was an accomplished blackmailer.
Didn't say the Great Society didn't benefit everyone. But who got the benefits is clear from the degree of support for the Dems. Like 90% maybe? Lol....and you are the racist. Cause you did say "all white people." See how this works? If you think most Americans don't want liberty and a better life for all of us, you're nuts.
Yep...all white people do live that quote, especially white GOP, as they trot it out on their Twitter every year. Do you disagree.
Nag. Plenty of people still alive. Plenty of families owed for the G.I. Bill. So, stop talking about slavery.
Nah. GOP nominating ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS/PRO-SEGREGATION Barry Goldwater for POTUS is the cause.
That's why baseball great Jackie Robinson left the party along with many others. That's why it's 90%....but yes, let's ignored the lived history/direct personal experience and try and gaslight people that the Dems are the "real racists" and people are "living on a plantation."As if everyone has forgotten the rhetoric of Reagan, Bush Sr., Trump, etc.
Well, now Trump is the ideological leader of the GOP. Took awhile to get there, but it was inevitable. He's yours. Own it. See how that works?
You're still calling Goldwater a pro segregationists even when the evidence is clear that he de-segregated his own family's stores, the Phoenix public schools and the Arizona National Guard.
No less than Politico wrote. "Unlike many of the “no” votes, Goldwater’s assertion of states’ rights was not a smokescreen for personal racism—far from it. Personally, Goldwater, half-Jewish on his father’s side, loathed segregation. He ended it at his family’s department stores, and vigorously pursued banning it in both Phoenix’s public schools and the Arizona National Guard. On the Civil Rights Act, his belief, well-intentioned but misguided, was that the bill overstepped the bounds of what the federal government was permitted to do."
As to Trump, whatever his failings, when people claim his rhetoric is racist, they come up with what he said about Mexicans or Middle East terrorists. "Mexican" is not a race. If you can cite a single thing he said that was derogatory about black Americans I'll take note. But I don't recall any. Or they'll vaguely screech about dog whistles. Like what? Crime? No decent person is pro-criminal.
As far as Jackie Robinson, he was a brave and great American who had a right to his opinion. He believed that states' rights were a screen for racism. Partially true at the time, as the federal government was breaking up Jim Crow. But a principled case can be made for states rights against an all powerful federal government that has nothing to do with race.
Right, because you have to fully endorse every idea someone has in order to find one or more of them useful.
The world I lived in operated that way. Though you can quibble with the words I used to describe it. There was no need to play the victim identity game that we play today. Everyone one had their head down and worked. Meritocracy worked. People of all colors were represented.
There's nothing grosser, or more supportive of the term "white supremacy" than dumb white people declaring their moral virtue by insisting that white people are holding black people back. As if they see whites as having to give permission to blacks to succeed and that "racist" plumber over there in Kenosha -- until he denounces racism and gives permission to blacks to succeed, they will still be held back...
Meanwhile, I live in a black neighborhood where I am oppressed by the 100,000 souped-up vehicles with stereo systems that blast the buildings off their foundations, where there are gang assassinations and a whole host of other problems IN PLAIN SIGHT. Ironically, I do not give permission for gang assassinations and souped-up vehicles that are obviously a debt trap -- but they do it anyway! My white permission has been flagrantly disrespected!
It’s such a clever ploy, this white supremacy thing. But the hard truth is this—
It’s tough to look in the mirror for the reasons your life is a mess. It’s always more palatable to look for a scape goat. Whites have been accused and have readily stepped up to take the blame. Their white skin is their original sin. And the more they kneel in guilt, the more blame is heaped on them. Any attempt to push back is met with cries of racism, an accusation worse than rape. Until one person says she isn’t going to take it anymore. I think we’re about there.
This whole woke anti-racist creed is nothing more than a scam for racist white liberals to feel superior and good. If you don't treat everyone the same and demand the same standards of conduct and decency regardless of race and ethnicity, then you don't really think people are equal. Just weary of it all.
You have hit the nail on the head. The "compassionate" left competes with each other to show they are not racist. "Look who I voted for. I'm not a racist." or "Look, I have black friends and participate in BLM marches. Aren't I wonderful?"
If I call BLM what it is, a bunch of Marxist thugs, I am called a racist. BLM founders are now millionaires funded by many left wing morons who contributed to this BLM farce just to show they are not racist.
George Floyd was a thug who spent much of his life in prison but BLM and nut case white leftists worship him like he had just discovered penicillin. There is no other way to describe these leftists but as glassy eyed, drool on their chins, lemming nut cases.
George Floyd did not deserve to die the way he did but is in no shape or form a hero.
Watch the "compassion" turn to "rage" in a second when you refuse their "help".
Look at you!...remembered to save it at the end. Good for you. You were totally cool with how Floyd went out. You're just upset it was caught on video.
Look, the phrase "Black Lives Matter" sent half the country into mouth frothing rage from Day 1. It's ok.
No one claims Floyd was a "hero" - just that he was a human being, and that those situations happen far more than people realize....but hey, we all gotta #BacktheBlue, right?
I find you disgusting. You have no idea how I felt about the Floyd death.
Nah. I'm pretty sure I do. Personally, I don't get really wound up about. Just enjoying seeing all the white folks upset that some black folks had the audacity to get upset. Oh, and before you start the "peaceful" protest nonsense. There were approx. 10,000 protests....570 involved violence.
I find you disgusting, too. So, you can F-ck off. That direct enough for you?
Comprof It seems like you want us to give your ideas thought and respect. Why not tell us a little about yourself and what about your life shaped your vision? Perhaps lay off the insults and share WHY you feel the way you do. Many of us here are willing to listen to other points of view but so far you appear to be looking for combat. I really would like to know a bit about your background and why you feel so passionately different about this topic. Please give us a glimpse into what influenced you so strongly to disagree with us. You might change hearts and minds if you presented your POV as though we were sitting across a table enjoying a beverage and making eye contact. I think most people would be more civil if they communicated with this in mind and might actually reach other's hearts and souls and make a REAL difference if they understood where others are coming from. Give us a chance to understand you.
Respectfully and calmly,
SbO
( Crickets )
What?
Just nice that you added "Floyd didn't deserve to die" that way. Nice recovery.
It amazes me that people can believe in a theory that everybody else’s actions affect your life outcome, but your own actions have no bearing on what happens to you. It’s always somebody else’s fault, even if they lived 200 years ago. So apparently you are the only person who does NOT have an impact on your own life. A very peculiar theory indeed.
Heyjude we all know people of every race, age and gender that is the perpetual victim. They guy who gets dumped all the time and blames woman and not his own actions. The colleague that gets fired for being a terrible employee but it's the 10 bosses that are the problem not them. Or the parent that complains that their kids walk all over them but never puts their foot down. I've always had a low level of sympathy for those that complain but never take actions to improve their situation. Be honest and make positive changes.
My mother used to say "[W]hen you are having trouble with the whole world, it is probably not the world". Best. Advice. Ever.
It sure is Lynne
Yes, completely unrelated to skin color. Bad consequences follow bad choices for white, blacks, browns or whatever in between.
Nah. Forget 200 years ago. We need to stop skipping over the timeline.
Let's keep it modern/contemporary and focus on Jim Crow, Segregation, etc. Stuff that that people who are still very much alive dealt with.
Wow, you've commented on almost every post! You are one motivated troll!
1. That is factually incorrect re: number of responses.
2. Yes....a non-white person expressing their opinion on Bari's substance is "trolling"
What is a a "balm?"
Clever ploy or clever trick? Not being able to self scrutinize is a character flaw.
100% agree Lynne
That's how it was in my daughter's school. But please help me NCMaureen, explain something else I've observed- I wouldn't call the black community "queer affirming", and that is a prerequisite for being an antiracist ally. When is that penny going to drop?
Me too. It doesn't surprise me here on sub stack but I've been increasingly impressed with the comments section of WSJ. It seems like we have A LOT of company and commenters there are 98% real name users.
What aren't you "taking anymore," Lynn?
How are dealing with this oppression/trauma?
Not sure what you're ranting about, but if it's a private school, they can keep out whoever they want.
Project Veritas? Lol!
Lynn, think you've just generally had a problem with black and brown people LONG before all this ginned-up CRT moral panic started.
I think your term IN PLAIN SIGHT is important. The progressives stir up resentment with ideas and whispers and say things like "intentions don't matter". Meanwhile in places like Chicago POC are dying in large numbers at their own hands IN PLAIN SIGHT. Why not try the triage approach and work fervently to fix what is actually happening before our eyes every day? Where are the black pastors and community leaders? Call out who is ACTUALLY harming POC in real time.
Look at what we did after Sandy Hook (nothing). If that didn't move us to do something about gun violence, then what could? Certainly not a bunch of dead Black kids in Chicago.
Why are you living in a neighborhood that most of the actual residents probably wish they could escape?
You seem really upset about living in a black neighborhood.
Yeah, don't like seeing infants get murdered in crossfire. It really sucks.
Good morning Bari, and please allow me to repeat my request for transcripts. There are many reasons for this request - economy of time, the ability to simply peruse and skip - or, as now, I'm sitting in a quiet house and playing an interview would both wake others and disrupt my morning calm.
At this point aren't we all feeling a bit of "race fatigue?" I know liberals simply can't view their fellow humans as other than stereotypical cartoonish figures, but the rest of us are doing pretty well in taking our fellow citizens as individuals, each with human rights and dignity, unique to themselves. Even as we are bombarded incessantly with race soaked messages and invective.
I listened to this podcast and I gotta say, it took me a moment to get the ebb and flow of the conversation. Plus, three people talking and I only recognize Glen’s voice. A transcript of this one might be tough.
And I’m a reader too. Just saying as an FYI.
I’m always intrigued by the Loury/McWhorter dialogues. This morning I saw a quote which seems germane, from a Greek philosopher named Epictetus (himself a slave for a time during the reign of Nero--and I DID have to look that up)--“No man is free who is not master of himself.” Others may categorize us based on skin pigmentation, but our dreams, ambitions, fears and anxieties are our own, and we are free to shape ourselves according to our own will, not the hierarchical constructs of others. To obsess, legislate, educate, award, deny, or enumerate based on race is counter-productive to individual freedom. Conversely, the Marxist orthodoxy of collectivism, conformity and denial of individualism is the antithesis of freedom. I prefer to be my own master.
You've got the right of it. That's a great quote by my Main Man. I only know of a couple, one-a which is this:
“It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.”
That is a good one jt!
"Epictetus (himself a slave for a time during the reign of Nero--and I DID have to look that up)--“No man is free who is not master of himself.” That kind of stuff is just...too....damned....hard.
😂
Yes....ancient Greece and America are quite analogous.
CAN WE STOP TALKING ABOUT SLAVES, SLAVERY, ETC.?!
Let's keep it contemporary/modern and focus on Segregation, Jim Crow, etc. - stuff that people who are still alive went through.
Some comparatively few Americans who are still alive in some states dealt with those up to their demise over a half century ago - but definitely let’s base our entire present discussion on race on them. Meanwhile immigrants from all over the world show up, start at the bottom, succeed and become productive and successful Americans.
Yeah, kinda will base it on that, as my father, aunt, etc are still very much alive.
Yeah...coming to America on a student visa 1998 is a tiny bit different than 1898...1930....etc.
Plus, every immigrant and immigrant groups experience is different, due to the era/cultural environment that exist when they arrive. So, that tired point is colossally stupid.
Also probably helps if you come willingly and further down the historical road you don't have to deal with federal and state laws and other legally codified/systemic efforts prohibiting your complete, free existence as a citizen.
Or, who knows? Maybe coming from Africa on a student visa in 1998 is exactly the same experience as Jim Crow/Segregation.
Nobody alive in the US came here unwillingly legally. Certainly due to Democrats' border failures, there are those who come here unwillingly but unlawfully. Let's stop that and control the border, right?
Nobody in the US has to deal with, or has had to deal with in the past half-century, "federal and state laws and other legally codified/systemic efforts prohibiting your complete, free existence as a citizen." Coming from Africa on a student visa in 1998 has nothing to do with some states' policies that ended decades before.
Any person's future starts today, and that was true 50 years ago too. SC's Senator Tim Scott didn't get mired in all the defeatism you espouse, nor did generations of successful immigrants. More forward.
Stop comparing all immigrant experiences to each other. Which you did.
It's dumb. That's the take-away.
50 years....ancient history. But the good news is that history starts over every 24 hours, apparently.
Have moved forward quite well. Have properties in Costa Rica and Panama. On schedule to retire at 58. Don't need your white input/advice on how to be successful. Doing great.
Glad you get it and things are working out for you. Leftist victim culture is absolutely a dead end. Good on you for figuring it out. But, since we're enumerating dumb things, your advocacy for victim culture here is intellectually dishonest.
I was in a 2 hour leadership seminar recently that was moving along fairly well, with good participation, when the moderator put up DEI slides for the last half hour. She was very excited to discuss it, but was met by silence and couldn’t understand why. The only two questions asked were for the definitions of diversity and inclusion. No one - black, white, Indian, men, women, wanted to engage with any of it. We are a well run, mid size company in a profitable space that as far as I can tell, hires for ability, not quotas. Everyone could see that it was disruption for the sake of disruption, plus everyone’s scared to death to say anything to challenge it.
I bet your experience plays out all over the place. Everyone I know that works in a corporate setting that liked their career a few years ago is longing to leave for this VERY reason. All the mandatory online courses are pretty hated as well. What a #+*ing waste of time.
This is my experience as well. I also know two people who retired early recently and they both mentioned that the DEI culture was a major factor in their decision to retire early.
Have you seen this?
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fired-from-my-nursing-job-for-refusing-to-say-im-racist-kentucky-michigan-implicit-bias-training-healthcare-fairness-11664551932
I feel the issue of education is prominent. Having crappy schools where only a small percentage graduate even at grade level, forget excellence, is a huge hurdle and a national disgrace. Obviously any solvent business would have fired the people who run some of these schools years ago. I recently saw some ghastly report on Baltimore schools which are a complete disaster. No child could hope to come out of this type of academic environment and become a thriving citizen. First of all, stop feeling Democrats are the answer. Most of these areas have been run by them for decades and are still a mess. We need a way to fire people and get these schools up to speed. Years ago an African American woman on 60 Minutes had quit her professional level job and started a school in her own home. She had very little funding, used classic books, and when they checked in on those kids years later, almost all were doing extremely well in various professions. It can be done. We have not done it.
Recently CA granted $1M to A2END which just recently got its non profit status to support Black men entering higher Ed
Those funds would be better used hiring tutors, aides, and reading specialists for grades 1-3. But that’s no sexy, so…
Do you know how much is currently being spent in CA on both Black men in higher ed and in early elementary education?
No. It is probably hard to come by those figures. My point was that rather than granting these funds at Higher Ed, the fund would be better spent at an earlier age, mitigating aid needed by the time you get to college.
Sure but what does that do for those who are college-bound TODAY and in need of aid?
I have a hard time criticizing those who are actually helping in any way or dictating exactly how those who are motivated enough to actually help should do so.
It has been done, to a limited extent, by certain charter schools. In most larger communities there is a charter academy dedicated to excellence in eductation, particulary for Black students. Emphasis on a classical education; mastery of disciplines in math, science, and the humanities; No excuses; no BS. And guess what? The kids in these schools tend to thrive. Who woulda thunk it?
Anyone who understands that there is no limit to what some students an accomplish if they are supported and have the inner drive.
Education is critical in supporting students ability to be prepared to thrive in higher education and the job market rather than merely eligible for a job or university place. The California statistics are for Marin County Office of Education (70% white) spends $139,829 per student each year and for the Oakland Unified School District (34% white) spends $16,109 per student each year. Also consider that per capita income in Marin is almost double the per capita income in Oakland which suggest that the Marin families have more money to offer additional support and tutoring for children. In woke California, the problem is addressed through diversity training in Marin not by creating a more equitable school system for a school system only 40 miles away. In 2010, the movie, Waiting for Superman, addressed the inequity between schools and it appears nothing has changed.
One of the most insightful studies on education, racism, and ability to succeed was done in England where they broke out groups i.e. Caribbean Blacks (those that arrived after WW II) were distinguished from recent immigrants from Africa and British White was distinct from Irish White, Irish Traveler, etc. The study addressed income along with race and the results suggest and support the expectation of achievement by the families determine the success of the child. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1078731/Ethnicity_Schools_Note.pdf
Skimming over some of the charts, one of the first things that jumped out was the large difference between Indians and Pakistanis. Indians are the top of the success chart while Pakistanis are nearer the middle with over 3x the rate of Indians receiving free school meals. That right there pretty much deflates the myth of "systemic racism" as the cause of some groups succeeding while others do not.
And in the US you could make the same comparison with Asians and Black citizens.
How so?
I thought here in CA there was equalization of school spending. I do know that wealthy small districts can have Ed foundations and PTOs that increase funds available
BTW how much of that Marin County spending is concentrated in Marin City, which is lower income?
The amount a district spends does not include funds raised by parents. It is the Marin school district which would probably include Marin just as Oakland’s school district includes Oakland. Like you I believed that there was equity, but statistics available from various districts show that it is not equitable. Equity in education should translate to students who are economically disadvantaged should be offered more in terms of smaller class sizes, more resources, and more after school and summer programs. California should be seriously copying the successful techniques of charter schools who have been successful in areas with low incomes.
Couldn't agree more Lisa. I have followed several stories about Baltimore schools. And everyone in charge is a person of color. I think school choice, vouchers and ending teacher's unions is the way forward if anyone really wants this fixed. More of the same is not the answer.
I use “M.” like the French do, for Monsieur but ALSO for Madam and Mademoiselle EQUALLY. That’s just me.
Yeah, You've got the right of it, M. Lisa. I know this is painting with a broad brush, and there might be some teachers reading. (Doubtful, but *possible.*) Fact is, it's basically *impossible* and *costly* to fire incompetent teachers. And, AFAIK, an abnormal percentage are, and not just the ones that everyone recognizes as deadweight. It's our two great friends, the NEA and AFT (teacher's unions). Them of pandemic fame.
Long story how teachers of reading have failed youth for *decades.* About failure in math:
https://freeblackthought.substack.com/p/prepare-for-more-black-mathletes
https://www.foxnews.com/media/professor-school-district-anti-racist-math-victim-narrative
*Could* be done. But the unions and the education colleges that teach the teachers won't do it, right?
That seems to be true. However I support the old adage that where there is a will, there is a way. I was not previously a supporter of vouchers for school choice but maybe that is a path. Perhaps some competent educators could get the financing to run their own schools paid by vouchers. Maybe this should be a very central election issue. Certainly most parents want a decent school. Maybe the statistics of pupil achievement and graduation belong in every campaign. After all we are paying for these deadbeats who are killing kids by robbing their chance for a future. Sounds extreme but if your choice of career is McDonalds or drug dealer, someone has killed something in you.
It is interesting that Success Academy, a charter, that has a student population of 97% minority population and 83% economic disadvantage had (pre-covid) scores that were 93 in math and 68 in English when NYC public schools were 35 math and 30 English. It would be interesting to trace these students and record how these skills learned in elementary and middle school as these students grow into adults. Predicting that this generation of students that succeed that they will continue to support their children's achievements.
Not every student has the will to succeed and some squander their advantages, but to have a system that frustrates the will and blocks the way is unacceptable for the child and for society. Education departments should be taking a page from the successful charter schools and try to fix what is broken.
I read memoir of Eva Moskowitz, who founded Success Academy. Need more like her. As You "say," M. JoAnne, they got great *results.*
Randi Weingarten (spelling?) and the AFT teacher's union did everything they could to squash the competition. Even to attempting to pass state laws.
Dunno what's happened with Success Academy since then. Hope they're still engaged in the challenges.
In any other business model the Administrations would be fired for cause.
TY, M. Lisa. You're right again. The great advantages of vouchers for school choice is both to provide another option and to provide some competition for public schools.
Public schools, for most part, have no *incentive* to change. Change is hard, so why try?
Yeah, it *should* be central issue in every election. Never seen it, other than mebbe some lip service. And, decades ago, there was an ad for the charity United Negro College Fund. Their slogan more appropriate these days, at all levels of education:
"A mind is a terrible thing to waste."
D’accord! My like button doesn’t seem to work on this rainy day.
TYTY!
(If You refresh Your screen, the heart shows up red. It's a bug in the Substack software, is all.)
Merci
Do Republicans even live in Baltimore or run for local office?
At any rate, one can find both the best and the worst public schools in America in heavily Democratic cities. https://thebestschools.org/rankings/k-12/best-public-high-schools/
Hope there will be a transcript. Either Way, Dr. Sheena Mason has made a lotta contributions to the idea of race abolition. https://freeblackthought.substack.com/p/theory-of-racelessness-a-case-for
Yes, transcript please. I'm a reader, and so is my wife - and I'm still trying to turn her on to "Common Sense". She's a big fan of McWhorter, so this could be the one that wins her over.
Sheena Mason and her ideas are great.
My fingers are also crossed for a transcript.
Believe there is/was...to the original released a few months back. Might have to look on Glenn or John’s Substack
TY. We were also looking for transcript of this Honestly Podcast. I'm familiar with Professors Loury and McWhorter, but not so much Kmele Foster. Sounded like it would be interesting, but the time to listen to it all...
Thank you for that very interesting essay. How much better off would we be as one people to be “raceless”.
Funny how MLK's dream got shuffled off to the side. Replaced by Woke Religion and the Victim Culture.
And how so-called "anti-racism" these days is actually segregationist. *Only* see people according to their skin-color? If that isn't racist, i dunno what is.
jt, when I first read your post, I thought you said vulture culture and that is what it is woke vultures circling trying to find a "racist" to pounce on and tear apart.
"Vulture Culture". I like that. When vultures are resting in a tree or on the ground, they are called a "committee". In this case a committee of cry-bullies. And when they are feeding, a group of vultures is called a "wake". Too perfect.
Oh my goodness dvd this is PERFECT!
Haha! Learn something every day. And "cry-bullies!"
I'd like to see that kind-a "wake" on the Woke.
TY M. dvb. Good Way to end day.
Sorry, that was a typo. I meant vulture culture, like You "say" LP.
It is the actual definition.
That certainly was the dream for most of my life (I was born in 1960). Of course there were always folks who didn't want to see that. They were called segregationists.
Thanks jt. And, even better, it was a transcript! Very thought provoking.
I'm going to look this up.
May I make a protest against the ubiquity of podcasts? My husband and I are retired, so we don't spend a lot of time in a car or on public transport, where we might want something to listen to. We want to read our news. We can read the content in half the time (or less) it takes to listen to it. No matter how interesting the topic or the speaker, I don't want to hear/watch all the pauses, false starts, and Uhs and Ums. I wish podcasts were accompanied by transcripts. (Edit: I see others have made the same point. Please count me in with them.)
I retain what I read much better too.
It just blows my mind that with all the supposed "racial reckoning" that been tossed about recently that NONE of the people discussing race in American seem to ever bring up the fact there there are THOUSANDS of examples of Blacks achieving success in our country. Business men/women, elected officials, Military leaders, police Chiefs, media moguls, sports stars, musicians etc. etc...
I watched story on CBS Sunday Morning a few months back where a VERY successful businessman/producer Byron Allen (net worth over 500 million) actually said OUT LOUD AND ON CAMERA that despite any successes Black people in the US might have had - blacks STILL can't get ahead I this country! I still couldn't believe this uber-rich guy actually said it (yet just another story of a very successful Black person claiming unfairness while being rich and ignoring all the success many blacks have achieved.
I stopped listening to anyone uttering "racism". It's become a joke and that's really a shame because there are still instances of real racism that occur that get drowned out because of the false racism claims.
There have been several women of color elected this year and no applause for them I guess. Winsome Sears comes to mind. She offered to go on Joy Reid's racist show and debate. Did that ever happen?
Nope. Sears was openly called a "white supremacist" in the media.
Sears was elected last year. Which women of color elected this year are you referring to?
I'm amazed at the intelligence of the readers here and their comments. Please continue to comment and keep this discussion going. Thank you all.
For some reason or another, Substack has managed to keep out the trolls who infest nearly every corner of the internet. I hope this can continue.
edit 9 hours later: it seems I spoke too soon. We do have a troll in our midst, and quite a prolific one at that. Remember folks, the worst thing you can do to a troll is respond to it. Don't feed the trolls and they will go elsewhere in search of validation. :)
I agree that silence is the best way to respond to a troll. It does require some self-control, but it's quite effective. There is no need to "refute" a troll, because almost everyone can clearly see that they ARE a troll. Responding to them gives them exactly the attention they crave. Everyone on the forum simply ignoring them eventually makes the effort too much work for too little gain.
I'll try :)
Well, apart from an occasional few. There are a couple who seem to have disappeared, but a couple more have taken their place.
There's always someone who has to come along and piss into the punchbowl.
I hope so too
Agree but maybe its that more people actually feel this way but to hear the MSM tell it everyone wants to be a progressive and also IRL there is too much drama that comes from pushing back. I'm finding the comment section of WSJ to be pretty conservative and calm as well.
The WSJ has many trolls and progressives
Yes but it feels like Conservatives have the floor.
Enlightening. Thought-provoking. Heartening!
For me, the only discordant note was when somebody said the conservatives (or was it the “Right”?) have the law - implying control of our legal system. I thought, Has he not noticed what the ABA is doing? Has he not noticed the wokeness infecting law schools? Has he not noticed the propensity of left-wing judges to rule so as to achieve political outcomes? Has he not noticed the election of Soros-backed prosecutors and the havoc they are wreaking? Has he not noticed the trend towards pervasive, oppressive regulation - a form of unaccountable legislation? As a lawyer, which those guys are not, I’m particularly sensitive to the extent to which the left has overtaken our legal/judicial system.
Otherwise, I loved this podcast. Sorry for the rant.
Pointing out a dangerous yet often overlooked vector in the Cultural Revolution is not a rant. Thank you for writing on this subject and please continue to do so.
Maybe they haven't noticed....because it's a fake, moral panic?
You obviously don't get out much do you? https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/events_cle/webinar-series/critical-race-theory/
Get out every day. Travel nationally and internationally several times a year.
Which is why I don't fall for moral panics like CRT. No different than the "Satanic Panic" of the 80s. When you ban Ruby Bridge's autobiography and MLK, Jr. books for children, etc. you've kind of given away the game.
Personally, I don't know why they're having this forum. Hopefully it's not for white people. Trying to discuss race with 95% of white people is pointless.
Comprof, please, respectully and calmly, tell us what your background is and what has shaped your views. We can't understand you without adequate context.
Have been quite calm from the beginning. So, don't need your white advice on how to not be an "angry" black person, ok?
I have had different experiences in America. The end. I've learned long ago it is pointless to discuss it with white people, so I won't with you., as there is zero interest in understanding.
So, I just omment and move on.
I normally don't listen to podcasts - they take a lot of time where I can get more information more quickly by reading. But I listened to this because I had high hopes about this, that some on the Left have open minds.
But these guys think the Right are the enemy:
The right is "closer to the levers of power"
The right wrongly thinks the NY Times is woke and out to get them
The right 'punished Disney for having gay characters'
One speaker was distressed that his book on racism originally only embraced by conservatives
Critical race theory isn't being taught in schools
The right doesn't care about black crime victims with 27 minutes left
Sorry, the Right isn't the enemy. Much of the above is nonsense.
There is still much that is good to hear. But until the Left is ready to deal with the Right on even terms and not as demons, I remain very pessimistic about the ability of our society to come back together.
I’ll pass on this one, Bari. I’m sick of articles, talk and movies, etc. re: race.
Suit Yourself, of course.
I'm very familiar with Professors Loury and McWhorter. I'm pretty sure what's on this podcast is views You've never heard before, because they're Black and can say things a White person would be tarred and feathered for. Me? I read, rather than listen. My bad.
Thank you Bari, this was a very good discussion.
This talk seems like a lot of overly intellectualized gobbledy-gook. So here. Let me simplify it for you.
“How do I have two medical degrees if I’m sitting here oppressed?”
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1405624322643873798
'nuff said.