F,
Massive post, and I have to admit, and let me say this up front, I found the first half of your argument very compelling. You make a slew of good points, so want to get that up front.
I want to delve though into some of the middle areas, because you make some very good points on the white benefits that have given us the middle class and such we now enjoy. So, kudo's on that. A very fresh perspective for me to soak in.
They created over $100 billion in wealth almost exclusively for whites.
Your paragragh discussing this is quite compelling. Thank you sir.
For the areas of contention.
Yet if you would listen to Republicans, blacks are responsible for the housing crisis and current economic situation. 16% of the blacks with poor credit. 16% of the 14% of the national population that blacks make up. It's fantastical mathematics.
Maybe somewhere you know, but I have not heard one single source/person/news outlet hint that this financial crisis came from loans to blacks. Maybe who I hang with, and don't dispute your sources, but I think we all know the crisis was pushed from large companies trying to 'get rich fast n' large', so to speak. Regardless of race or creed, etc...they hold the blame imho.
scales are grossly tipped in the favor of whites.
I could no longer use the word grossly in there...still tipped and jaded, yes, but again, through my eyes in the military, I don't see the gross imbalance that was there 20 years ago. Work to still do, but we are heading on the right road imho.
"A University of California at Berkeley study found that the value of lost income to Black Americans because of discrimination between 1929 and 1969 alone comes to about $1.6 trillion.So, the idea of reparations is not about convincing people whose ancestors arrived in America after the Civil War that they owe anybody anything for what happened in the ante-bellum South. Clearly, Black economic deprivation goes far beyond the Civil War and the ante-bellum South.
A HUGE point of contention here - but bear with me for the part of your quote following. Not that the numbers you present are skewed, but let me toss out my number.
Approximately 618,000 soldiers died in the Civil War--about 40% of these Confederate, the remainder Union. American deaths in all other wars through the Korean total only 606,000. More Americans died in the Civil War than in the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Spanish American War, the two World Wars, and Korea combined. More than ten times as many Americans died in the Civil War as the War in Vietnam. To understand the impact of these deaths, it is important to evaluate their relationship to the size of the larger population--the rate of death.During World War II, 30 out of every 10,000 Americans perished; in the Civil War, 182 per 10,000 died--six times the World War II ratio. And we need, of course, to distinguish North and South in order to understand that death had a regionally differentiated impact. Nationwide, eight percent of white males aged 13-43 in 1860 died in the war, but this number breaks down into six percent of Norther and an extraordinary eighteen percent of Southern white men.
While I fully claim that there were many causal reasons for the War Between the States, states rights being #1, we all know a prime causal factor was the issue of slavery. 618,000 souls - SIX HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN THOUSAND. Folks, i'll repeat that number all day. They were our ancestors. Again, from Kentucky, I had direct descendents fight for both the North and the South...both. I've had several classes in statistics, and if you'd like me to pull out a calculator, I can do some math.
But, let me state this clearly. I do not say racism is dead. I do not say we should ignore history. But I do say, in the case of $$$ and reparations, there is no doubt, none in my mind - 618,000 lives in the cause of ending slavery. 618,000. I'm going to, at best, say we'll call that dead even. 100% debt paid from a reparations/apology standpoint.
It was AFTER slavery that America allowed the Black Codes, a set of laws designed to restrict the labor mobility of the newly freed slaves, guaranteeing cheap labour for white planters. One code stipulated that any freed slave without 'lawful employment' would be subject to arrest and then be leased to a white employer.So there is a qualitative and quantitative difference between the economic hardships faced by black America and those confronted by every other immigrant group in this nation's history."
On this, you clarify your direction, and I say we have, and are working to fix those economic disparities. But, make no mistake, we have a long ways to go to see economic equivalence. But, I also say, its hard work. To blame the problems that blight many inner cities on the past and the white man is wrong, and oversimplification in my book. America, even white America, started pretty damn poor. Its work, vision, pulling together that gets you forward. Don't let anyone hold you back. That lesson, from the history of the US, not just white, but the Irish, and many others, are some of the areas we should also keep in mind.
We have to stop using the example of Obama, or Powell, or Oprah, or Bill Cosby as proof that blacks have as much an opportunity as anyone else in this country. It's disingenuous at best and a slap in the face at worst.
I do not think 'most' folks use them as examples that blacks have as much opportunity as a class, as a whole. I think most folks use them as examples that blacks CAN embrace the opportunities, AND overcome the many challenges that face them, and all overcame huge racial obstacles in their path to success. But they have to choose and pursue that. Will all of them succeed? Nope. Just like I'm a hella long way from the rich white person that I'd like to be.
exceptions to the rule are more viable than the rule themselves
Again - I do not concur. Why? Because we see the same. If you are rich on these forums, please raise that hand. Hold it high. I, no doubt, have many opportunities that blacks do not have...across the board. Even though, I, like most whites, sure as heck aren't rich, or I'm barely hanging to middle class. The exceptions to the rule, Gates, Buffett, Obama, Woods, etc...are the exceptions. Its capitalism...exceptions are what we achieve for...all races. It proves the rule that opportunity is available...the pursuit of happiness. Doesn't say you'll get rich, or reach happiness. We all deal with that.
But surely no one would suggest that Madame C.J. Walker's success, even at a time of legally-codified terrorism against black folks, should stand as evidence that anyone in the black community could have made it,
She made it...anyone with the vision, the right opportunity that she seized on, the ethic and the never take no attitude had a 'chance'. Kudos to her. Amazing what she did. But remember, no one is guaranteed anything per the constitution other than 'opportunity' in effect.
Where we need to get to, is where we all have the same opportunity, and I know we are not there on issues ranging from education to criminal reform, etc. But we are on the path.
If Confederate Flags were finally banned (funny that we insist blacks get over slavery yet don't say much of anything to neo-Confederates who choose to display a symbol of slavery from a 'government' that existed for about 3 years)? Perhaps blacks would cease to be disenfranchised and finally be of the mind that their government actually cares about them.
Perceptions...please note, the southern flag to me is 100% a symbol of southern heritage and, more importantly, the premise that state's rights trump federal rights in almost all cases. I don't fly it because I know blacks view it as a symbol of hatred. But I find it sad they cannot understand that many view it as I do...we accept our grand souther heritage, while acknowledging the blight of slavery. Just like, I'm proud as hell to be an American, and fly the flag freely, but I never ignore that many injustices have occurred in 200+ years of history under that flag. And such is the truth for EVERY flag in the world. Good with the bad.
You know, you also appear to be wrong when you assert that 'our wealth was built on the backs of slaves'. To a superficial examination, that doesn't appear true. It's precisely the states that supported slavery that didn't develop well economically. Look at a map of personal wealth sometime, and even if you exclude blacks, you'll find that the states that supported slavery are among the poorest in the country.
I doubt it's a perfect, 1:1 correspondence, but the South has always been much poorer than the North. In looking at a map of the country, I'd tend to believe that keeping slaves is an excellent way to screw up your economy something fierce.
Over in Germany, it's actually illegal to display Nazi propaganda. They take a zero tolerance attitude for anything pro-Nazi.
I think this is a terrible reaction.
Can you imagine how it would be received if the US adopted the same attitude? If Confederate Flags were finally banned (funny that we insist blacks get over slavery yet don't say much of anything to neo-Confederates who choose to display a symbol of slavery from a 'government' that existed for about 3 years)? Perhaps blacks would cease to be disenfranchised and finally be of the mind that their government actually cares about them.
1) Banning the display of the Confederate Flag will end black disenfranchisement about as much as banning the display of Ronald McDonald. Banning a symbol is not the same as eradicating an idea.
2) That pesky Freedom of Speech clause would (rightfully so) prevent such a measure from ever being passed.
3) I won't deny that there are some racists who fly the Confederate Flag as a reminder of slavery. But the flag possesses much deeper symbolism than that. If you think the only reason someone would fly the Confederate Flag is because they hate blacks, you're mistaken. (And you should attend a Lynyrd Skynrd concert.)
To many, the Confederate Flag has only superficial ties to slavery, and has more to do with rebellion, tradition, "beautiful fatalism" and a longing for some idealistic past. I think people often try to simplify the Confederate Flag into just "a symbol of slavery", because then its display becomes (forgive the pun) a black-and-white matter: racism = bad; tolerance = good; and so on. But acknowledging and addressing the deep unhappiness and sense of disenfranchisement that often underlies the symbol and its display... well, that is a tougher matter altogether.
As for Obama and Powell, they've attained success at the virtue of NOT talking about race in a realistic fashion.
Can you explain what you mean by this? I thought Obama's landmark speech on race was pretty darn realistic. And I'm not sure what was so unrealistic about Dreams of My Father, either.
Look at a map of personal wealth sometime, and even if you exclude blacks, you'll find that the states that supported slavery are among the poorest in the country.
Well, I think you see a shift. Because certainly the slavery states were among the wealthiest during slavery. Cause and effect?
It is one of the things that concerns me about Obama's service and volunteer programs. You just know somebody is going to manipulate free/cheap labor for personal gain. Only, of course, to become reliant on it and making the business and the related companies collapse when the weather changes because the gravy train goes away.
Just look at illegal immigration and the agriculture industry or hotel industry...
You know, you also appear to be wrong when you assert that 'our wealth was built on the backs of slaves'. To a superficial examination, that doesn't appear true. It's precisely the states that supported slavery that didn't develop well economically. Look at a map of personal wealth sometime, and even if you exclude blacks, you'll find that the states that supported slavery are among the poorest in the country.
I doubt it's a perfect, 1:1 correspondence, but the South has always been much poorer than the North. In looking at a map of the country, I'd tend to believe that keeping slaves is an excellent way to screw up your economy something fierce.
That goes back to the fact that because places that didn't support slavery lacked a massive cheap labor pool, they were forced to invest into technology and education for their own economies, but were able to import the food and clothing they needed because of the southern economy. One wouldn't exist without the other.
I just have to chime in and express how much I've enjoyed this thread. What started as a wisecrack about "The Man" has developed into one of the most interesting discussions about race that I've followed in a very long time.
I sincerely appreciate the open dialogue that people on both sides of the debate are expressing here. It's certainly given me some things to consider.
I wish I had more time to contribute to this discussion with a thoughtful response, but until I do I will continue to enjoy what I read here.
FSeven: I've really enjoyed reading your views. However I find myself agreeing with Malor wholeheartedly here. What type of solution (if any) would atone for the history of injustices that you site?
You know, you also appear to be wrong when you assert that 'our wealth was built on the backs of slaves'. To a superficial examination, that doesn't appear true. It's precisely the states that supported slavery that didn't develop well economically. Look at a map of personal wealth sometime, and even if you exclude blacks, you'll find that the states that supported slavery are among the poorest in the country.
I doubt it's a perfect, 1:1 correspondence, but the South has always been much poorer than the North. In looking at a map of the country, I'd tend to believe that keeping slaves is an excellent way to screw up your economy something fierce.
That goes back to the fact that because places that didn't support slavery lacked a massive cheap labor pool, they were forced to invest into technology and education for their own economies, but were able to import the food and clothing they needed because of the southern economy. One wouldn't exist without the other.
And they were allowed to treat labor as a liquid commodity rather than a capital good. This in turn allowed a modern labor system in factories to evolve where as in the south the cheap labor by nature of being owned was always tied to the land. The serfs must be free to get them to move to the city and work in factories.
And yet, there are blacks who disagree with your assertion that the confederate flag is a symbol of slavery.
Three men in different parts of the world might insist that the sky is red but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Also, what blacks? I'm quite interested in learning who these folks are and hearing their argument.
I didn't get it the first time around, should the same courtesy and aid be extended to me?
Facetious argument. You're comparing your individual circumstance to one that affected an entire race.
1) Banning the display of the Confederate Flag will end black disenfranchisement about as much as banning the display of Ronald McDonald. Banning a symbol is not the same as eradicating an idea.
While this is true, banning a symbol of hate can take a lot of the zeal out of hateful groups who display this symbol.
2) That pesky Freedom of Speech clause would (rightfully so) prevent such a measure from ever being passed.
Understandable. It's a double-edged sword. Perhaps a law can be passed banning the display of symbols of hate.
3) I won't deny that there are some racists who fly the Confederate Flag as a reminder of slavery. But the flag possesses much deeper symbolism than that. If you think the only reason someone would fly the Confederate Flag is because they hate blacks, you're mistaken. (And you should attend a Lynyrd Skynrd concert.)
To many, the Confederate Flag has only superficial ties to slavery, and has more to do with rebellion, tradition, "beautiful fatalism" and a longing for some idealistic past. I think people often try to simplify the Confederate Flag into just "a symbol of slavery", because then its display becomes (forgive the pun) a black-and-white matter: racism = bad; tolerance = good; and so on. But acknowledging and addressing the deep unhappiness and sense of disenfranchisement that often underlies the symbol and its display... well, that is a tougher matter altogether.
What idealistic past?
After all, if we take the words of the actual leaders of the Confederacy, it becomes very clear what the Confederacy was about.
To wit, Alexander Stephens, the Vice-President of the Confederacy explained: "Our government's foundation and cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man," and went on to admit that slavery was "the immediate cause of the rupture and our present revolution."
And Robert Smith, one of the framers of the Confederate Constitution said in 1861: "We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the Negro quarrel."
The Confederacy was not created because of Northern tariffs. After all, almost all northern tariffs had been eliminated by the time of secession. So that's out.
Not because of a zest for "independence". After all, through the Confederacy's "independence", they sought to deny the very same thing to over 40 percent of their populatiom.
Not because of "state's rights". Claiming that the Civil War was about "state's rights" ignores precisely the very right which the Confederacy felt was being violated. The right to keep and extend slavery. In addition, the "state's rights" argument flounders when you consider that the Confederacy was more than willing to trample other states' rights in order to extend slavery into territories like Kansas, California and Texas. And the "the Negro quarrel," to which Robert Smith referred, was nothing more than a property dispute among thieves seeking to continue using stolen goods.
Can you explain what you mean by this? I thought Obama's landmark speech on race was pretty darn realistic. And I'm not sure what was so unrealistic about Dreams of My Father, either.
Baby steps. While that speech was impressive, to call it landmark I think is a bit of a stretch. I Have A Dream or I Have Been To The Mountaintop were landmark. Obama's speech on race was apple pie for the masses more than it was humble pie.
FSeven, I do not believe there is ever any action that can be taken that will make you happy. There are no solutions you will accept.
It's not about making me happy. It's about keeping the possibilities for dialogue opened for the people who are affected by this. It's about refusing to submit to the business as usual of sweeping it under the rug or engaging in a dialogue that is so untruthful, insincere, and disingenuous that no possible solutions could result. In order to get to a point where solutions are brainstormed, all parties have to be in agreement on the circumstances, history, and facts that brought everyone to the table in the first place. Which of course hasn't happened yet.
The stark realities of the black experience in America isn't exactly taught in public schools. A perfect example of the dishonesty inherent in our history classes is Christopher Columbus. As Dickipedia states, "...the only thing American children are really taught Christopher Columbus is that “in fourteen hundred and ninety two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue.” With similar historical airbrushing, schools could also accurately teach that “in nineteen hundred and forty two, Hitler gave free showers to lots of Jews.” He did. Look it up." Nothing is really said of Columbus' accidentally bumping into America as opposed to purposefully discovering it. He thought he was in India, hence the dubbing of the indigenous people 'Indians'. Nothing is mentioned of his wholesale rape, murder, and genocide of the Taino Indians. Nothing is mentioned of Bartolome De Las Casas, Columbus' priest and record keeper who wrote of Columbus' atrocities. And likewise with black history. How else can it be explained that whites in general know so little about that part of American history. It's a tangent, a side story. As it exists, American history is synonymous with white history.
And thus is created the myth of the common narrative.
What's done is done. Things are how they are. There will be no reparations, ever, because nobody would ever be able to agree on how much or to whom to give them.
What's done is done indeed.
Jews got their own nation.
Blacks haven't even got their promised forty acres and a mule.
Focus on now; improve things now. Staying on that crusade only makes the problem worse, because it can never be solved to your satisfaction.
Makes the problem worse according to who? Blacks who continue to be discriminated against? Or whites like us who stand to lose our privileged stature and who stand to lose our unearned benefits that come with being white?
You stay focused on wrongs that can't be made right by even the vaguest stretch of the imagination, instead of focusing on what we can actually control.
If we can pinpoint bomb a man in a cave in a foreign country. If we can send a man to the moon repeatedly. If we can map our solar system. If we can clone life. If we can map the deepest reaches of the oceans. If we can do all of those things, surely we can do this. I refuse to, in light of all the things we have done, to accept the suggestion that this is something we cannot do. This is nothing more than some historical detective work and general accounting.
The only time that exists is now. Tell us how blacks are being wronged now, and we can work on that. Telling us how blacks were wronged a century ago is not useful.
The history of this country has set the precedent for who blacks are being wronged now. Understanding it is fundamental to comprehending it's effects in the present.
[quote=Tim Wise]No matter how uncomfortable the topic, especially for those who are white like me, talking about racism and then actually doing something about it are the only ways to make the subject go away. It won't disappear just because we choose not to mention it. Indeed, the problem is not talking about racism but racism itself: a stain on our national psyche that has yet to be wiped clean, no matter that its most blatant manifestations -- slavery, Indian removal, Asian exclusion and segregation -- are many years past.
Contrary to popular belief, race is not merely a card played by those who wish to stir up resentment. Instead it is a real and persistent determiner of who has what and why in this country. To extend the metaphor of the card game, race too often determines who the dealer is, and who's getting dealt.
Past racism continues to have an effect in the present. Since whites were able to own property, procure loans, hold jobs and attend schools all of which were off-limits to people of color, the wealth accumulated by those previously privileged whites, elevated by law above all non-whites, has been passed down. Today, the typical white family has twelve times the net worth of the typical black family. In large measure this is due to the head start whites have been afforded in the race to accumulate assets.
The problem is not just the residue of the past, however. For people of color, there are many reminders that even in 2003 they are often viewed as second-class citizens. Consider the recent study by researchers at the University of Chicago and MIT, which found that job-seekers with "white-sounding names" were 50 percent more likely to be called back for an interview than those with "black-sounding names" even when their qualifications were identical.
Consider that blacks, Latinos and Asian Pacific Americans with the same education and experience as whites, will earn, on average, between 10-30 percent less, and that blacks with a college degree are more likely to be unemployed than whites who dropped out of high school. So much for "reverse discrimination."
Consider the data from the Department of Justice, indicating that blacks are twice as likely as whites to have their cars pulled over and searched for drugs, even though whites, when searched, are twice as likely to have drugs on us. Or consider that although blacks and Latinos combined are only 23 percent of drug users, they are 90 percent of persons incarcerated annually for a drug offense. Whites, on the other hand, are 72 percent of drug users, but less than ten percent of those incarcerated for drugs.
Consider the studies on housing, which indicate that at least 2 million cases of discrimination occur annually against people of color looking to rent or purchase a home. Even when credit history, income and collateral are the same, whites are 56 percent more likely to secure a mortgage than their equally qualified black and brown counterparts according to the Boston Federal Reserve Bank.
Or consider our racially selective response to terrorism. Since 9/11 most Americans seem to support racially-profiling anyone who looks Arab, but they applied no such profile to white men after Oklahoma City. What's more, I dare say that if 19 members of the Irish Republican Army had hijacked those planes, or if 19 white supremacists had done so, we would not be rounding up white men, or applying a generalized suspicion to them in airports across the country, as we are with Arab and Muslim males presently.
Again, I know some are tired of hearing about these things. But however tired they must be of hearing it, people of color are a lot more tired of living it; and until whites join with our black and brown brothers and sisters to put an end to the kind of racial inequity described above, we'll continue to be confronted with the uneasy conversations, as well we should be. And so long as this kind of inequity is allowed to stand, the promise of America will remain unfulfilled and hollow.[/quote]
Almost all immigrants to this country started out disenfranchised and poor; most started from less than even the squalid inner city ghettoes. "No Irish Need Apply" was a very common sign, once upon a time. But, despite the fact that they started with nothing, within a couple of generations, most are doing okay.
This is pretty much where the dialogue breaks down. It's rather disconcerting that you would even attempt to compare folks who had the benefit of assimilating into whiteness, who had laws made to abolish indentured servitude so that blacks remained the only free labor, who had laws made to make them instant citizens simply because they were white and of European descent, who were allowed to acquire property and accumulate wealth for decades while blacks could not, with black folks who have had the cards stacked against them while all of this was going on.
You see, this is how both racism and the class system have been maintained - by playing off whites against people of color, offering the former just enough advantage in relative terms to keep them from aligning with the poor of color and rebelling on the basis of their absolute condition. Boogle alluded to it in his reference to Bacon's Rebellion.
In the 1700s, this meant ending indentured servitude and placing poor whites on slave patrols among other things, so as to make them, at least partially, members of the same team as the rich white elite. In the mid-1800s, and in the ultimate irony, it meant Southern aristocracy convincing poor whites to ally with the cause of secession and the maintenance of slavery, even though the latter drove down the wages of all low-income whites, since they would have to charge for their labor, while black property could be made to work for free. Such was the power of whiteness, that a poor white man could be convinced to give up his life for the right of a rich white man to own slaves, and thus free labor. In short, the poor white soldiers of the South were fighting against their own best interests and were fighting themselves out of jobs.
I'll have to address PigPen and those who posted after him a bit later as I've worked maybe one hour so far today. 
I suspect you would have to go back to a pre-1970s curriculum to find the kind of white-washed history being described. I'm in my forties and we were taught all that stuff about Columbus, about the poor treatment of indians and about slavery.
Fseven, I hesitate to even comment on your statements as you're so deeply entrenched in your position but I'm going to point out two things that really stuck out.
While this is true, banning a symbol of hate can take a lot of the zeal out of hateful groups who display this symbol.
It might also reinforce the group's beliefs by legally granting them a deviant status and truly marginalizing their belief set.
A perfect example of the dishonesty inherent in our history classes is Christopher Columbus. As Dickipedia states, "...the only thing American children are really taught Christopher Columbus is that “in fourteen hundred and ninety two, Columbus sailed the ocean blue.” With similar historical airbrushing, schools could also accurately teach that “in nineteen hundred and forty two, Hitler gave free showers to lots of Jews.” He did. Look it up." Nothing is really said of Columbus' accidentally bumping into America as opposed to purposefully discovering it. He thought he was in India, hence the dubbing of the indigenous people 'Indians'. Nothing is mentioned of his wholesale rape, murder, and genocide of the Taino Indians. Nothing is mentioned of Bartolome De Las Casas, Columbus' priest and record keeper who wrote of Columbus' atrocities. And likewise with black history. How else can it be explained that whites in general know so little about that part of American history. It's a tangent, a side story. As it exists, American history is synonymous with white history.
When I was in middle school over FOURTEEN years ago we discussed the Columbus myth. There's a great many failings of the educational system too numerous to cite here. Citing perceived curriculum issues as evidence for a systemic bias towards minorities is weak at best.
When I was in middle school over FOURTEEN years ago we discussed the Columbus myth. There's a great many failings of the educational system too numerous to cite here. Citing perceived cirriculum issues as evidence for a systemic bias towards minorities is weak at best.
These curriculum issues are not perceived Reaper. It's the norm. It's reality.
Please read this when you have five minutes free. I'd be interested on your thoughts about it.
I wonder if there'll ever be a day when I can look at the Confederate flag in the manner that Kat and Pigpen suggest.
To be wholly honest, it's probably not coming anytime soon. It's difficult to express the kind of raw nerve it still touches. I understand the nostalgia factor, the rebelliousness, and yet, "taking the good with the bad" seems a bitter pill to swallow. I don't support banning it, but I don't see myself looking at it as a nostalgic reminder of a bygone time of American rebelliousness against a oppressive government, of Southern heritage and so on. But that's just me.
EDIT: Nothing, actually.
Reaper81 wrote:When I was in middle school over FOURTEEN years ago we discussed the Columbus myth. There's a great many failings of the educational system too numerous to cite here. Citing perceived cirriculum issues as evidence for a systemic bias towards minorities is weak at best.
These curriculum issues are not perceived Reaper. It's the norm. It's reality.
Please read this when you have five minutes free. I'd be interested on your thoughts about it.
I have not doubt it exists, but it's regional. I was taught one thing up in OH and something else down in TN. So Reapers statement is still valid.
These curriculum issues are not perceived Reaper. It's the norm. It's reality.
Okay.
Please read this when you have five minutes free. I'd be interested on your thoughts about it.
He uses the word, 'white' a lot.
Makes the problem worse according to who? Blacks who continue to be discriminated against? Or whites like us who stand to lose our privileged stature and who stand to lose our unearned benefits that come with being white?
My overall belief is that, by staying stuck on things that can't be fixed, you prevent yourself from working on or even thinking about things that CAN be fixed. You make the problem worse by haranguing about something that was done by people that are dead and gone. That time is gone, past. We're in the now, and we need to fix what's wrong now. Talk to us about what WE'RE doing wrong, and those things we can fix. We can't fix something that happened a hundred years ago; there's no possible solution.
Also, your whole idea of unearned benefits is an extremely unstable foundation on which to base an argument. Who's to say what's earned and what isn't? It's a nebulous idea that sounds fabulous in the abstract, evil white people keeping all the wealth and holding the blacks down, but for the vast majority of people in this country, nothing could be further from the truth. There isn't much wealth that crosses generations for the middle class, at least not in my experience.
As far as I can determine from my family history, nobody in my ancestry was even vaguely associated with the slave trade, and no particular inherited wealth made any difference in my life. My father started from a dirt-poor upbringing in the Depression, and made a pretty comfortable life for himself. He was adopted, so his birth family was irrelevant; his adoptive parents were extremely poor, and as far as I could tell, about all they were able to provide was a roof, food, and enough clothes to pass in public. My mother had a little better upbringing, as her father was a well-paid blue-collar worker in the auto industry, and was able to get a nursing degree. So that much did come forward from our deeper past, but that was all.
Sum total of my family's inheritance from our ancestors: lack of poverty on one side, resulting in one nursing degree.
It's not like we had some enormous leg up here. And there is zero reason why a black person can't start and succeed precisely like my father did, coming from nothing to a very solid and prosperous life. The opportunity is there now, in spades; there are blacks in every field, in every area, doing just fine. Yes, poverty is a trap that's hard to escape, but that's poverty, not blackness. Ask the coal miners about how hard it is to escape the mines sometime.
Not very much wealth crosses generations, at least in the middle class. Mostly, it's just a lack of poverty. That's something we can help with, and in fact there are a great number of programs to do precisely that. But past that, it's up to the individual to succeed. All we can really truly do is make sure the opportunities are there; we can't force people to take them.
There's also a very fundamental racism to your whole attitude, that even given the same opportunity, that black people need extra help just for being black. I just don't see that anymore. At one time that was probably true, but I think at this point it's becoming offensive. It says two things; that A) skin color is a valid differentiator between people, and B) that if you have black skin, you're inherently inferior and need help. I buy neither argument personally. Affirmative action programs are designed to fight racism, but in fact entrench it. Basing your hiring decision on skin color should be as silly as hair color, but affirmative action programs make absolutely certain that it can't be reduced to that level.
I wonder if there'll ever be a day when I can look at the Confederate flag in the manner that Kat and Pigpen suggest.
To be wholly honest, it's probably not coming anytime soon. It's difficult to express the kind of raw nerve it still touches. I understand the nostalgia factor, the rebelliousness, and yet, "taking the good with the bad" seems a bitter pill to swallow. I don't support banning it, but I don't see myself looking at it as a nostalgic reminder of a bygone time of American rebelliousness against a oppressive government, of Southern heritage and so on. But that's just me.
Oh, I totally appreciate that. And nobody's asking you to look fondly at the Confederate Flag. I only meant to explain that the Confederate Flag has very little to do with racism for many of the people who fly it. (Sort of how like a swastika doesn't mean genocide to Hindus.)
Imagine what drives someone to proudly -- defiantly -- display a given symbol, even though it's commonly associated with something as negative as institutionalized racism. Imagine how strongly they must believe in those ideas: The righteous rebellion, the honor of clinging to a lost cause, the longing for an idealized past that never really was. What does that tell you about how cynical, resentful, even angry that person must feel?
The funny thing is, many of the people who fly the Confederate Flag feel just as disenfranchised by their government as those who take offense. Something the two groups have in common.
I'm not saying everyone who flies the flag feels that way (Pigpen pointed out another reason, too). But many do. And dismissing the Confederate Flag as a symbol of racism ignores the deep resentment and anger that keeps driving many to fly the symbol.
I hate to compare it to Nazism, but here you go: Nazism was never about the Jews (or the Gypsies or homosexuals or communists or all the other people who died). It was about hungry bellies, abject poverty and shattered dreams -- and giving citizens who had no hope someone to blame. Likewise with the Confederate Flag; there's a reason you tend to see it flown most frequently in poor, rural areas. (And not just in the South, either; I would frequently see it in my drives through Pennsylvanian and New York Appalachia.)
If we ever plan to retire the Confederate Flag, then we better start addressing the reasons why people fly it, of which racism plays only a very small part.
Yes, poverty is a trap that's hard to escape, but that's poverty, not blackness.
Indeed. Coming from a destitute mining region myself, it's been a struggle upwards for me. Where race becomes a factor is that race isn't a factor for me in this country.
My first experience with non-white, non-Native (I don't use Indian because the Native guys I serve with don't) culture was in basic training. I learned there I had more in common with the poor guys than the rich guys. There was little that seperated us. Rich people gained from the toil of our families' labors.
I learned that life isn't fair.
Arguing the issue of white priviledge contains some seeds of truth. My priviledge is I have no inherent disadvantage. White male and able bodied. That makes me systemically superior to a black male who is able-bodied currently. Therefore, the system is unfair, racially.
There are two things this society can do. Sow seeds of change and wait... or destroy the system violently.
I favor the latter.
I also own guns.
The two are not unrelated. 
There's also a very fundamental racism to your whole attitude, that even given the same opportunity, that black people need extra help just for being black. I just don't see that anymore. At one time that was probably true, but I think at this point it's becoming offensive. It says two things; that A) skin color is a valid differentiator between people, and B) that if you have black skin, you're inherently inferior and need help. I buy neither argument personally. Affirmative action programs are designed to fight racism, but in fact entrench it. Basing your hiring decision on skin color should be as silly as hair color, but affirmative action programs make absolutely certain that it can't be reduced to that level.
This statement alone I think is tantamount of your inability to comprehend my points. Well, that and your request for examples of what can be fixed now, my deliverance of them, and your continued insistence that I give examples.
My black wife would certainly be amused at your suggestion that my arguments can be summed up as a thinly veiled belief that black folks need extra help just for being black.
I'd be happy to continue the conversation with other folks but I personally feel, Malor, that if you can whittle my arguments down to those two absurd points A and B, that you are missing a fundamental basis of comprehension on both the subject matter and the arguments I have stated, and cannot continue to discuss it with you.
Stuff
I fully understand what you mean there, and I too, do not believe its display is solely about outright racism. I know, for me, I don't see myself ever looking upon it kindly, and i'd say that's in no small part due to family history (Mom's side of the family is from Louisiana and was very involved in the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's). People have a right to fly it, for a plethora of reasons. I just can't get behind... I don't know, there's a phrase i'm looking for here that's escaping me...
...well, like you said, I may never look upon it "fondly". Or anything close to that.
I don't see you making any specific claims about what needs fixing now or how we might do it, rather just sweeping generalities about how bad things once were. When I say that we can't make things right that happened a hundred years ago, you make grandiose statements about going to the moon, but then don't actually make any suggestions.
You haven't broached a single concrete idea that I can see. For all those heartfelt words, there's nothing there. It's just generalities and guilt without anything solid to work with.
I'm a big believer in civil liberties; I want things to be as fair as possible for everyone, of whatever color, gender, or sexual preference. But I reject, categorically, that I should be punished or taxed extra merely because I have white skin. That's a crime too.
New crimes don't make up for old ones. Nothing does. You can imagine what the country would have been without slavery and racism, but that's imaginary, a fantasy. Trying to force the real economy and the real world into your fantasy of what things might have been would be enormously destructive.
...well, like you said, I may never look upon it "fondly". Or anything close to that.
Totally understand. I don't look on the swastika with many warm fuzzies, either.
Saw this in the Times. The ignorance of the South is simply overwhelming.
“I think there are going to be outbreaks from blacks,” she added. “From where I’m from, this is going to give them the right to be more aggressive.”
I just can't get behind... I don't know, there's a phrase i'm looking for here that's escaping me...
I may disagree with your choice of flags but I'll defend to the death your right to fly it?
Again, I'm not going to continue discussing this with you Malor but just to respond to your accusation that I' haven't presented any examples of what can be fixed now, I'll repeat what I quoted a few posts ago:
Past racism continues to have an effect in the present. Since whites were able to own property, procure loans, hold jobs and attend schools all of which were off-limits to people of color, the wealth accumulated by those previously privileged whites, elevated by law above all non-whites, has been passed down. Today, the typical white family has twelve times the net worth of the typical black family. In large measure this is due to the head start whites have been afforded in the race to accumulate assets. An example of a disparity which exists now that is a direct result of racist policies and programs.
The problem is not just the residue of the past, however. For people of color, there are many reminders that even in 2003 they are often viewed as second-class citizens. Consider the recent study by researchers at the University of Chicago and MIT, which found that job-seekers with "white-sounding names" were 50 percent more likely to be called back for an interview than those with "black-sounding names" even when their qualifications were identical. An example of a disparity which exists now.
Consider that blacks, Latinos and Asian Pacific Americans with the same education and experience as whites, will earn, on average, between 10-30 percent less, and that blacks with a college degree are more likely to be unemployed than whites who dropped out of high school. So much for "reverse discrimination." An example of a disparity which exists now.
Consider the data from the Department of Justice, indicating that blacks are twice as likely as whites to have their cars pulled over and searched for drugs, even though whites, when searched, are twice as likely to have drugs on us. Or consider that although blacks and Latinos combined are only 23 percent of drug users, they are 90 percent of persons incarcerated annually for a drug offense. Whites, on the other hand, are 72 percent of drug users, but less than ten percent of those incarcerated for drugs. An example of a disparity which exists now.
Consider the studies on housing, which indicate that at least 2 million cases of discrimination occur annually against people of color looking to rent or purchase a home. Even when credit history, income and collateral are the same, whites are 56 percent more likely to secure a mortgage than their equally qualified black and brown counterparts according to the Boston Federal Reserve Bank. An example of a disparity which exists now.
Or consider our racially selective response to terrorism. Since 9/11 most Americans seem to support racially-profiling anyone who looks Arab, but they applied no such profile to white men after Oklahoma City. What's more, I dare say that if 19 members of the Irish Republican Army had hijacked those planes, or if 19 white supremacists had done so, we would not be rounding up white men, or applying a generalized suspicion to them in airports across the country, as we are with Arab and Muslim males presently. An example of a disparity which exists now.
Are these not "concrete" enough for you?
I just can't get behind... I don't know, there's a phrase i'm looking for here that's escaping me...I may disagree with your choice of flags but I'll defend to the death your right to fly it?
Close enough. 
In your opinion, are people who display the Confederate flag racists? There was a man who marched from North Carolina to Texas in a Confederate uniform while carrying the Confederate Battle Flag, does that mean he's racist or supports racism?
CannibalCrowley wrote:And yet, there are blacks who disagree with your assertion that the confederate flag is a symbol of slavery.
Three men in different parts of the world might insist that the sky is red but that doesn't necessarily make it so. Also, what blacks? I'm quite interested in learning who these folks are and hearing their argument.
What's done is done indeed.
Jews got their own nation.
Blacks haven't even got their promised forty acres and a mule.
What about Liberia?
Are these not "concrete" enough for you?
These problems do exist. How do we fix them?
F7, now that you've laid the problem out in great detail, what do you propose we do about it? I may have missed your proposals in earlier posts, but I think that's all Malor is asking for.
Also, I don't mean to cherrypick, but one of your greivances:
Or consider our racially selective response to terrorism. Since 9/11 most Americans seem to support racially-profiling anyone who looks Arab, but they applied no such profile to white men after Oklahoma City. What's more, I dare say that if 19 members of the Irish Republican Army had hijacked those planes, or if 19 white supremacists had done so, we would not be rounding up white men, or applying a generalized suspicion to them in airports across the country, as we are with Arab and Muslim males presently. An example of a disparity which exists now.
I don't think the support for racial-profiling, post 9/11, was something only supported by whites.
To be wholly honest, it's probably not coming anytime soon. It's difficult to express the kind of raw nerve it still touches. I understand the nostalgia factor, the rebelliousness, and yet, "taking the good with the bad" seems a bitter pill to swallow. I don't support banning it, but I don't see myself looking at it as a nostalgic reminder of a bygone time of American rebelliousness against a oppressive government, of Southern heritage and so on. But that's just me.
Hence why, when it is a symbol to me of the fact that I hold state's rights supreme to federal power, that I hold the concept of a southern gentlemen to be important, that I value my past as a southerner, recognizing that there is much good that sides with the horrid issue of slavery...hence why I don't fly it. Because to me, for all those things, I understand it is a symbol of 'hate' for many, and why, for simple pride, would I try to incite such feelings in my brothers across the aisle and country?
F - this issue they ask for, is not many seem to disagree with many of your foundational concepts, but there is no 'meat' there on the path ahead. I advocate an open dialogue, like in these forums, and that we forge a path ahead to ensure the field is 100% leveled. All reparations does is further the divide, because you have many whites who sure aren't better off than blacks in the slums, and their thoughts would be 'reverse racism'. And it becomes a yo-yo concept that goes on forever.
To take your issue deeper, in a discussion of reparations bogs down at all levels. Who is eligible? Descendents of slaves? Well, as I alluded to, my 3rd great grandfather took his estate to the borders of bankrupty to buy some 30? slaves, and free them. His newspaper office was destroyed for its issues supporting the rights of all men, and its anti-slavery position. Does my family get some of that back. Because, over that 100+ years, that wealth, would have, to some degree, spread out within my family. I know, its not realistic or fair, but I'm showing you how reparations for the past open a huge can of legal and 'class distinction' worms. Look at the Irish, look at Native Americans, etc. You would create a huge divide, widening the gap of racism in the country if you took these steps to rectify past mistakes. Think of all the poor white, latino, irish, etc communities who would simply learn to resent blacks now for their handout and step up. It would create more hatred when what we need is more understanding and respect.
Also, for the issue of the
Jews have their own country
. Jewish is a religion as well as a separate nationality. I'd say many Jews in the US would say that America is their nation, not Israel, if I take your meaning to be correct. Not Jewish, but would appreciate some clarification on this comment and issue. That would be the same bias I would apply if I made an ignorant statement that
blacks have their own entire continent
made up of countries (albeit ones dominated by tribal warfare, ignorance, external corporate 'rape' of resources and corruption for the most part) To wit, its not a valid argument on either point, nor based on any merit pertaining to the discussion imho. We are talking the US here.
*edit* please note, I also concur with Reaper. Banning a flag, a symbol of 'hate', makes no sense. Under that premise, all flags and symbols would be banned, because to someone, every flag in the world espouses hate in some form. To me - breach the divide, but if someone wants to fly a confederate flag, or burn a US flag; let them. Try to discuss with them the implications of it - how some view it as hate if you can. But they have that right in this great country, and I'll die to defend that same right.
Pages