Lol, hyperbole much. There isn’t a significant white-supremacist movement in the United States and there hasn’t been for some time.
BLM marches 50 times and causes all kinds of problem, crickets.
Some asshats march in Charlottesville and lord help us there are white-supremacists everywhere…
News flash, the United States has been predominately white since 1775. The idea that there needs to be an all black SCOTUS as proof we’ve moved past Slavery/Jim Crow is RIDICULOUSLY ABSURD.
No, Jesus Christ, I didn’t even allude to the above. I hate these conversations.
I didn’t say it impugned it - I recognized that it, along with other easily identifiable factors, could impugn it, but you haven’t bothered to even consider it (by your own admission) before wedding yourself to the conclusion you favored. My question - that you ignored - was more basic: don’t you think it makes more sense to consider all these alternative factors that could undermine your premise before declaring to the world your premise is right, which you obviously did not do?
It’s not at all ahistoric - it finds its roots as far back as the Constitution (and arguments over it), the Northwest Ordinance, and the (ongoing) feud between the philosophies of Hamilton and Jefferson.
Pretty darn far, as you would too, if you were familiar with the history. I do think this phenomenon has been exacerbated in the last 100 years by two things: more people joining the ranks of the Rest of Us over time (blacks, women, immigrants) and modern economic events like industrialization and globalization.
You have a habit of erecting straw men and then following with a “surely you don’t disagree with…[positions I’ve never taken].” No, all of those things happened, and they were bad and had impacts on AAs’ lives. We’ve covered that.
But yes, all those things were in fact in play while slavery was going on. In fact, a really, really interesting twist on it all was how the early labor movement and slavery worked both against each other and helped each other out during the 1800s.
You ascribe, again, to the zero sum view of race in America - white people in America have living the dream since 1776, and their gain has always come at the expense of AA prosperity. History destroys that fallacious approach, even beginning as early as the birth of the country. It’s messy and complicated, and it can’t be ignored for the convenience of ideological pursuits.
Really? Will you define what you mean by “significant”? Because it seems significant to me.
BLM is not a supremacist organization. And except for a few bad apples, they are nonviolent. And what do you mean by “all kinds of problems”?
I didn’t say it was necessary. But the fact that the paucity of black SCOTUS justices and black POTUSes is so pronounced as to be considered noteworthy is strong indication that we’ve not moved past the legacy of slavery/JC. When Gorsuch was nominated, no one said ‘Wow, a white SCOTUS justice–isn’t that something!’
So, try this instead. When there are multiple black SCOTUS members, and this fact is no longer even considered newsworthy, call me.
So, the fact that there exists a sociocultural shift that I didn’t take into account is somehow proof that I haven’t thought my position through carefully? By what lights am I required to consider every possible socioeconomic/cultural variable, such that not doing so somehow constitutes a valid criticism of my reasoning? Full disclosure: I didn’t consider the Pokémon craze of the 90s either. Is that also evidence of a lack of careful consideration on my part?
For someone who, in his next breath, chastises me for a lack of unfamiliarity with history, “pretty darn far” is a laughably vague answer.
And to write:
followed shortly by…
…evidences a stunning lack of self-awareness/critical thinking.
A big, obvious one that can undermine your entire premise? Yes. Yes, it is.
This is just tantrum pretending to be a response, and a straw man besides - no one said you had to consider every possible socio-economic/cultural variable, Good Lord, but you do have to consider big, obvious ones that bear directly on the validity of the conclusion you’re advocating.
Does anyone not know this? How exactly are you fighting this point?
You mean “vague” in the sense that I expressly noted this phenomenon dates back to specific historic events by name in the preceding paragraph:
Damn, man. Why sully all this with dishonesty?
You do erect straw men, ED, but worse that that, you’ve resorted to pulling the debate into a ditch by misrepresenting what I’ve said.
I tried to keep the discussion above board, but I can’t say I have much appetite for much else at this point.
How did you come to decide that the recent trans-racial spike in unwed motherhood ‘undermines my entire premise’? I’m afraid you’re going to have to unpack that for me.
See above.
Handwaving about ‘the Constitution’ and ‘the Northwest Ordinance’ is not an argument–it’s a cliché. Again, serious unpacking is needed.
You’ve got to be kidding me. Remember what I said about a lack of self-awareness?
Why do you insist on framing things in ahistorical terms?
Victim Mentality is a thing. And its often inferential caused by informing a person they are a victim of something they otherwise wouldn’t have known on their own. Given the inferential nature of the discussion, the case for reparations, etc. are inferring causes for black misery, if that’s a thing. Because misery knows no race. Lot’s of people are miserable and many times are so at the hands of others.
Now, the irony of this discussion occurred to me. We are talking ‘about’ black people rather than talking to, black people. I am pretty certain they don’t spend the day walking around in a circle grumbling about the past. They are moving on.
Your proposition comes from a good place, I believe that. But I think it’s designed to make you feel better, rather than help down trodden people.
The best thing to do is for us to be better people and try hard to be better everyday. If we all do that, we help our selves and each other. Slaving over past grievance holds us back.
The guilty parties, are mostly dead as well as their victims. There is not a lot we can do about that. It’s important to understand our past, but not let it define who we are now.
This discussion really requires black people to be involved in it. Isn’t it just American as shit to have a bunch of honkey’s sitting around talking about whats best for black folk? I’ve never been black, I didn’t grow up in the inner city, etc.
I think this discussion needs to be had with the black community, rather than about the black community. Are their any people, who happen to have dark skin, willing to chime in??
I am not suggesting reparations be considered for vague states such as ‘misery.’ Rather, reparations should be considered to ameliorate objective, measurable SES indices that can reasonably be linked causally to the AA community’s history of slavery/JC/de facto discrimination.
"For blacks, far more than for whites, conversations about race are fairly commonplace. Overall, about a quarter of Americans say they often talk about race relations or racial inequality with friends and family, far less than the share saying they talk about the presidential election campaign (59%) or the economy (45%) with the same frequency. 16 About a quarter (27%) say immigration is often a topic of conversation with friends and family.
Blacks are about twice as likely as whites to say the topics of racial inequality and race relations often come up in conversations with friends and family. About four-in-ten black adults say racial inequality (41%) and race relations (38%) are frequent topics of conversation, compared with about one-in-five whites. Among Hispanics, about three-in-ten (31%) say they often talk about racial inequality and about a quarter (26%) say they often talk about race relations."
There is a great deal we can do about the ongoing, current legacy of what the guilty parties did.
The priest was killed because he was Catholic, not because he was white. People forget that the KKK was (is?) as virulently anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic as it is anti-black. (Remember the gallows-humor observation: KKK stands for Koons, Kikes and Katholics.)
The Irish and Italians were persecuted because they were, well, Irish and Italian–not because they were white.
Further, you will note that discrimination against both the Irish and Italians dissipated relatively quickly compared to that experienced by AAs. I wonder why that is?
Well, I shouldn’t be surprised, given that unpacking logic for you appears to be my new (unpaid) job, but as is:
Your premise is that the economic plight of AAs is caused by racism.
Unwed motherhood results in worse economic outcomes for everyone involved, and therefore could be a big cause of economic plight.
AAs have high percentages of unwed motherhood, up from years ago.
If the AA unwed motherhood phenomenon is not caused by racism, and it is causing AA economic plight, then your premise may not be accurate.
It’s not really debatable that AA unwed motherhood is causing AA economic plight (to some degree). Ok then, is it caused by racism?
Doesn’t appear so, because we’re seeing the same bad phenomenon in other ethnic groups including whites, the ones who would be committing the racism. Instead, the “oppressing” groups are suffering the same bad phenomenon.
As a result, this other bad phenomenon not caused by racism could be a cause of AA economic plight. Premise - the cause is racism - potentially undermined.
I’ll “unpack” for a bit, but I’m running out of interest.
There were debates over how to deal with “class” issues as early as the debates over the Constitution (read Ganesh Sitaraman’s most recent book for a brief history), and the early significant legislation - see the Northwest Ordinance - began the centuries’ long debate over creating equality of opportunity. In the case of the NO, the government had to decide how to sell federal lands - sell at “market”, which allowed wealthy landowners to grow their spread and resist a chance of yeoman ownership, or deliberately sell the land in restricted smaller lots at lower prices to allow the lower orders a chance owning and growing wealth. It was the subject of much debate. And this issue (generally) was one of the most important domestic issues facing the young country - Hell, it’s the reason the Democratic-Republican Party was formed.
Meaning? There have been ongoing “class” issues since the birth of the country which impacted the lower orders’ fortunes in this country. Meaning? Once AAs were liberated from slavery, they stepped into this big mix of “class” issues that have been under debate since the country was founded, and now, while they have issues unique to being AAs, they share far more of issues with other people in the lower orders, and that’s what drives their broader issues, not the things unique to them.
*Lower orders just shorthand for working and middle classes.
Sorry dude, people bring two things to a debate: argument and credibility. You’ve knocked some shine off the latter for yourself in recent posts. I’m disappointed, but it is what it is.