Memorial Day, A Day Late
Posted by
tgirsch
I had hoped to write something yesterday, but something I saw fouled my mood irreparably. In yet another reminder that people like me are not welcome in the South, and have no business living in the South, my neighbor across the street decided to honor the day by flying a huge Confederate flag. I mean, what better way to honor the men and women who died (and who continue to die) to preserve and protect the Union than by flying the symbol of those who fought to destroy it? Even setting aside the racial issues (pretending for a moment that this is even possible), I’m not sure flying a symbol that clearly and unequivocally means “I don’t want to be part of the United States of America any more” is the best way to honor those who fight for the United States of America.
I swear, sometimes I just hate people.
“I swear, sometimes I just hate people.”
Your hateful nature is well documented in here. You didn’t have to tell us you are full of hate.
BTW, the fact that you are so bigoted and prejudiced against the South is also unsurprising. You let one person (who lives in the North) foul your mood irreparably and convince you that you wouldn’t be welcome in the South. Do you have a clue as to how strange that is? That’s like someone in the South saying they met one obnoxious yankeee and so all yankees must be obnoxious. You are surely a closed-minded prejudiced liberal bigot.
Comment 5/29/2007
“I swear, sometimes I just hate people.”
One correction. I’m not sure where you live. I withdraw the (who lives in the North) part of the comment.
Comment 5/29/2007
It’s well-documented that I live in Tennessee; prominent Confederate Flag displays aren’t exactly uncommon here, although I must admit they’re considerably less common here in Western Tennessee than in, say, East Tennessee or Mississippi.
As for the history of the flag, it’s unambiguous. It’s long been used as a rallying symbol for those who oppose civil rights, diversity, racial equality, etc. I’m proud that I don’t share those confederate “values.”
Comment 5/29/2007
Tgirsch, you almost elicited a full monte from Fred, but since you only got “strange” and “hateful”, you don’t get credit. You need to work on provoking “liar”…
Comment 5/29/2007
“As for the history of the flag, it’s unambiguous. It’s long been used as a rallying symbol for those who oppose civil rights, diversity, racial equality, etc.”
I saw a special on the Discovery Channel about some racists in Montana. At their front gate was a bunch of flags. About half were Confederate battle flags and about half were United States flags. Obviously, by your standards, the US flag must be a rallying symbol for those who oppose civil rights, diversity, racial equality, etc.”
“I’m proud that I don’t share those confederate “values.””
Neither do I. I’m a United States flag waving American.
Comment 5/29/2007
No doubt the US flag has been coopted by some awful causes. However, the US flag, at least, stands for a great deal more than that. The Confederate flag, on the other hand, was born of a movement to secede from the United States, largely for the purpose of preserving the institution of slavery. It mostly disappeared until the civil rights movement of the 50’s and 60’s, when opponents of that movement resurrected it. In other words, the entire history of the Confederate flag is racist, bigoted, and decidedly un-American, so I see no reason to embrace or celebrate that symbol.
As to the US flag, it’s important to remember that it’s just a symbol, and one that’s often coopted for less-than-admirable reasons. When I think about those warts, I can’t help but think of the poem Let America Be America Again by Langston Hughes, and try to remember that we have a long way to go before we live up to the ideals our nation is supposed to stand for.
Comment 5/29/2007
It’s unfortunate that Americans can be sucked into believing the Civil War was about slavery. It was about personal freedoms and state freedoms that the south wanted (i.e. the ability to sell their products to other countries without political interference from the Federal government).
It was two years into the warbefore slavery came up and that was only when Lincoln figured it was a good way to punish the southern states. It turned into a fight over slavery because Lincoln saw that move as a good one politically.
Please take a good look at the actual history rather than the “victor’s history” written by the union reps. It turned into a fight over slavery because Lincoln saw that move as a good one politically.
Comment 5/30/2007
“Your hateful nature is well documented in here. You didn’t have to tell us you are full of hate. ”
The pot calls the kettle what?
Comment 5/30/2007
Big U, technically, the Civil War was about secession from the Union. Had the eleven confederate states not attempted to withdraw, a war would not have been fought - at least not when it was fought. That much is certain.
As to why the eleven states withdrew, I suppose there is some debate, but to contend that slavery (be it abolishment or merely containment thereof) was not the central issue of contention is a stretch.
Comment 5/30/2007
“The pot calls the kettle what?”
I give up. What?
Comment 5/30/2007
Ted,
Look over the records. Lincoln didn’t even make freeing the slaves an issue until two years in. If freeing the slaves was the # 1 priority as has often been said, it would not have taken that long to be raised as an issue. It was more of an issue for the south than the north but more on the grounds of the right of states to determine their own laws instead of the federal government overruling them.
Not the following from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part4/4p2967.html
On November 6, 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States — an event that outraged southern states. The Republican party had run on an anti-slavery platform, and many southerners felt that there was no longer a place for them in the Union. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina seceded. By Febrary 1, 1861, six more states — Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas — had split from the Union. The seceded states created the Confederate States of America and elected Jefferson Davis, a Mississippi Senator, as their provisional president.
In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law — a position that horrified African Americans and their white allies. Lincoln’s statement, however, did not satisfy the Confederacy, and on April 12 they attacked Fort Sumter, a federal stronghold in Charleston, South Carolina. Federal troops returned the fire. The Civil War had begun.
Immediately following the attack, four more states — Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee — severed their ties with the Union. To retain the loyalty of the remaining border states — Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri — President Lincoln insisted that the war was not about slavery or black rights; it was a war to preserve the Union. His words were not simply aimed at the loyal southern states, however — most white northerners were not interested in fighting to free slaves or in giving rights to black people. For this reason, the government turned away African American voluteers who rushed to enlist. Lincoln upheld the laws barring blacks from the army, proving to northern whites that their race privilege would not be threatened.
Comment 5/30/2007
“You need to work on provoking “liar”… ”
That has been covered in previous posts.
Comment 5/30/2007
Ted wrote: “As to why the eleven states withdrew, I suppose there is some debate, but to contend that slavery (be it abolishment or merely containment thereof) was not the central issue of contention is a stretch.”
I’m not so sure slavery was as significant an issue as it’s often made out to be. Economically the south was being squeezed by the north; she depended on the north as the main market for her agricultural goods, for which the north set the prices they were willing to pay. The south was also dependent on the north, the more industrial of the two, for farm machinery and for loans from northern banks. The situation was more a classic domination of a more advanced, industrial society over an agricultural one. Those tension were pretty much the cause of the south wanting to secede. Slavery, by that time, was becoming an outdated institution in the south. The slave trade had already been outlawed. With advancements in farm machinery, there was less dependence on handwork in farming. The cost of owning and maintaining slaves was making the intitution economically unviable. Slavery was dying out in the south on it’s own. Also, given that the number of slave owners in the south was a very small minority of the patriarchy to begin with, I’m not sure it would have been a significant rallying issue with most southerners.
Was the south racist. Absolutely. Was the north less so. Given the state of the black working class in the north, I’m not so sure.
For a long time the confederate flag was just a symbol of southern pride. What battle-flag apologists conveniently ignore is that it was Strom Thurmond and his Dixiecrats who coopted the flag in the ’50’s, and cemented the associations of the flag with racists and segregationists.
Comment 5/30/2007
“It’s unfortunate that Americans can be sucked into believing the Civil War was about slavery. It was about personal freedoms and state freedoms that the south wanted (i.e. the ability to sell their products to other countries without political interference from the Federal government). ”
Wrong. Egregiously wrong. So wrong, in fact, that you are either comletely ignorant of history or delibertly lying.
Obviously, wars have many causes, and everyone goes to fight for their own reason. But to deny that slavery was a driving force behind the Civil War is historical revisionism at its worst.
The Constitution of the Confederacy expressly made emancipation unconstitutional.
The Confederate Vice president said :
“[The Conderacy’s] cornerstone rests upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.”
During the war, Maryland held a referendum on continuing slavery. The slavery was leading - until the absentee ballots of Maryland Union soldiers were counted. The soldiers voted overwhelmingly against slavery.
Union Soldiers went into battle signing John Brown’s Body.
Union soldiers continued to slog through apocalyptic battles like Shiloh and Antitiem. Does anyone think they were really doing that for tariffs?
Churches rang their bells in mourning the day John Brown was executed.
The economic conditions had existed since at least the 1820s, but, aside from South Carolinas unsupported experimentation with nullification, the South did not secede until Lincoln was elected on a platform of containing the expansion of slavery — not ending slavery, mind, just stopping its exapansion.
The British were interested in supporting the South during the war, but protests by mill workers against the South helped stay their hands.
The Democrat Party split into regional parties based upon the question of emancipation.
Lincoln rejected the Crittenden Compromise, because it would have allowed slavery to continue to expand.
If the war was really about State’s Rights, then why did the South enthusiastically support the Fugitive Slave Act, the largest federalization of police powers the country had seen to that point?
Southern opponents refered to Lincol as a “Black Republican”. I am sure they did that becasue of the color of his hats.
And that doesn’t even begin to cover the history of racial repression after the Civil War — lead by the same Soutern elites that instigated the civil war.
Like any war, there were lots of contributing factors, and many points of contention between the two parties. But slavery was different. Slavery wasn’t the only point of contention, but it is was the one that inflamed passions, and made reasonable people unreasonable. Slavery brought blood to the table.
Comment 5/30/2007
Janusz:
You’re right insofar as economics were a large factor in the South, but what you’re missing is that the entire economy of the South was based on the institution of slavery. Also, apart from what Kevin points out, slavery was a HUGE issue to the South, even before the war — they never wanted to allow the non-slave states to have an advantage in the Senate, because they knew this would result in an end to slavery. It was a central theme throughout the first half of the nineteenth century — hence the Missouri Compromise, etc. — and came to a head in the form of the civil war. Without the disputes over slavery, I think it’s exceptionally unlikely that secession would have occurred, and the war wouldn’t have occurred without secession; although you’re certainly free to present evidence to the contrary.
Although I must admit that there’s a part of me that wishes the South had been allowed to secede, if only so that the Confederate way of life could have failed on its own instead of being defeated militarily.
Comment 5/30/2007
“The Constitution of the Confederacy expressly made emancipation unconstitutional.”
The US Constitution made allowances for slavery.
Comment 5/30/2007
“The US Constitution made allowances for slavery”
Yes, but to claim that those allowances were the same as expressly forbidding for all time the emancipation of slaves is as bizarre a notion as I have ever come across.
For the record, the US Constitution did allow slavery to ciontue, did count slaves as three fifths of a person for representation purposes, but it did shut down the slave trade (too late, but it did shut it down) and it did NOT make it impossible to emancipate the slaves.
Comment 5/30/2007
Kevin >
Directly from a copy of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America March 11, 1861.
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
Clearly, the slave trade was on its way out (no more importation meant no fresh supply of slaves which would mean no way of maintaining current economic policies reliant on slave labor). The south was proceeding to end the slave trade as even they knew the world was ending it. This war had as much to do with the slave trade as Iraq had to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction. It was a feel good rallying cry for the north. Unless of course you want to say that Lincoln was a lying opportunist who would say anything to get support.
Comment 5/30/2007
“Yes, but to claim that those allowances were the same as expressly forbidding for all time the emancipation of slaves is as bizarre a notion as I have ever come across.”
That’s some very thin reasoning. I congratulate you on coming up with such inanities.
Every constitution or document can be changed, unless you lived in the times of the Medes and the Persians. Even then kings and rulers found ways of getting around laws. Just because the Constitution of the Confederancy said something was expressly forbidden does not mean that somewhere down the line it could not have been changed. Our own Constitution has been changed many times so that it does not mean what it originally said. Every amendment is evidence of that fact. Even after the 14th amendment, women were forbidden to vote. It took another amendment to change that.
The Constitution was a compromise document that never would have been approved without expressly allowing slavery in the Southern States. It was later changed. So much for your argument that once a document is produced that it must stay the same forever.
Comment 5/30/2007
Also, please show me where the Confederacy Constitution made emancipation illegal.
Comment 5/30/2007
Big U:
What you miss is that one of the motivating factors of the prohibition on the international slave trade was to protect the domestic slave trade. Even the main reason for the prohibition was not that they opposed the international slave trade, but that they feared other nations would not formally recognize the CSA if it were not expressly prohibited.
Also, please show me where the Confederacy Constitution made emancipation illegal.
Article I, Section 9, clause 4:
Negro slaves are property, and any law undermining this would be inherently unconstitutional. Also, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1:
Or, Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3:
Or, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3:
Seems pretty clear to me. But if that’s not good enough evidence for you that slavery was at the very heart of the Confederacy, and was by no means “on its way out,” I don’t know what would be.
Comment 5/30/2007
Big U
That is such crap. The slave trade was not needed by the 1860s because there was an internal slave trade that was large enough to meet the needs of the existing slave base.
And, really, thats your argument– that they protected a domestic slave trade market from international competition, and thats your rebuttal to everything else I wrote? And where id this sudden shift to the slave trade come from? This is an issue about SLAVERY which is not the same thing as the SLAVE TRADE. You notice how we use different terms for the two entities? That’s because they are not the same thing.
Oh, and here: “No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed”
Comment 5/30/2007
Of course (keeping in mind the origin of the current debate in this thread related to the cause of the Civil War), since there is no consensus as to why the US invaded Iraq, it does not surprise me that the true motivation behind the Civil War (other than to protect the Union) is debated today. But to claim that disputes over slavery were not major contributors to the war (especially by Janusz) amazes me. And I certainly don’t follow the logic that the South depended on the North economically and was thus motivated to secede.
Comment 5/30/2007
Tgirsch > Thank you for the clarification. I missed that and was indeed wrong about the south’s desire to maintain slavery at the level it was at. That was poor reading on my part and I apologize.
I still contend, though, that economic issues and state freedom was the bigger issue for the south (of which of course slavery was a part). The north had NO INTEREST in abolishing slavery until well after the war had started and it became a chance to rally troops and draft free blacks into the military. The reason Lincoln went to war was to preserve the union. Period.
Comment 5/30/2007
Tgirsch > here is some more info. No time right now to look up more detailed info but as I dig into it more, slavery did play a significant part in the Civil War. However, not in the idea of good north “freeing the slaves” from the bad south (which is what the impression has always been). Rather, the more I look into it, the more it ties into the economics of the North and their desire for cheap labor and a ready market (resulting in import tarrifs) versus the desire for the ability to remain free from big brother’s bullying in the south. Both sides were problematic.
I pulled this off of the following site:http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAcivilwar1.htm
Conflict grew in the 19th century between the northern and southern states over the issue of slavery. The northern states were going through an industrial revolution and desperately needed more people to work in its factories. Industrialists in the North believed that, if freed, the slaves would leave the South and provide the labour they needed. The North also wanted tariffs on imported foreign goods to protect their new industries. The South was still mainly agricultural and purchased a lot of goods from abroad and was therefore against import tariffs.
Comment 5/30/2007
BU,
Reread your first quote of the CSA constitution in #18. Importation is only allowed from the United States. That is to say, from the North.
To me, that’s mighty interesting.
Comment 5/30/2007
Ted wrote:”And I certainly don’t follow the logic that the South depended on the North economically and was thus motivated to secede.”
As touched on above, tariffs played a huge part in the division between the north and south. After the war of 1812, there was a recession in Europe, and British manufactured goods could be sold in the States at bargain prices. The tariffs instituted to protect American manufactured goods (produced in the north) made European goods prohibitively expensive. With the reduction of income from America, Britain was forced to cut back on purchases of American raw materials ie. cotton and other agricultural goods, items produced in the south. The south was forced to buy northern goods, at prices set by the north, while at the same time the market for her goods had been curtailed by the tariffs, again, placed to protect northern manufacturing interests. The north could set the prices for southern goods due to the limited markets. This is almost a classic example of an industrialized society exploiting an agricultural one.
Ted, I think you know me well enough to know I’m not an apologist for southern slavery or the segregation that followed. However, I’m not sure the intent of the north was entirely altruistic either, particularly given the racism and de facto segregation (in housing and then, by extention, in schools) that followed the civil war and well into the 20th century in the north. What can be said, is that the north did progress faster in the social/racial arena than the south did.
Comment 5/30/2007
Big U:
I still contend, though, that economic issues and state freedom was the bigger issue for the south (of which of course slavery was a part).
I’m sorry, but Kevin points out, this is simply revisionist history, plain and simple. Slavery was the defining issue of the Civil War. The South cared about economic issues to the extent that their economy absolutely depended upon slavery; they cared about “state freedom” to the extent that they didn’t want the federal government telling them what they could and couldn’t do with their slaves. Even today, “States’ Rights” is generally used to make appeals to racist elements, based on its history in the South — the “rights” those states were most interested in protecting from federal interference generally involved the oppression of certain groups.
However, not in the idea of good north “freeing the slaves” from the bad south
Well, of course it’s not that simple, but I don’t think anyone here ever said it was. The North had (and continues to have) plenty of racial baggage of its own. But the fact that both North and South were bad does not mean that they were equally bad.
The north had NO INTEREST in abolishing slavery until well after the war had started and it became a chance to rally troops and draft free blacks into the military.
Not exactly, but they did have an interest in stopping the spread of slavery, which the South vehemently opposed. Again, you’re falling for revisionist history. When Lincoln was elected in 1960, South Carolina seceded almost immediately precisely because of the anti-Slavery provisions of the Republican party. Indeed, the Republican party was born of opposition to slavery. To argue that there was no interest in abolition pre-war, or that slavery was some kind of secondary concern in the lead-up to the civil war, is to be flatly ignorant of the history of the time.
Janusz:
There’s some truth in what you write (especially about the North having plenty of its own warts), but that’s still not the same thing as saying that slavery wasn’t the defining issue of the Civil War. It clearly was. Yes, those other concerns were important, too, but they weren’t touchstone issues like slavery. You could even make a decent case that the North didn’t go to war because of slavery, but the South absolutely did. The North went to war because the South seceded, and the South seceded first and foremost because of slavery. I still contend that if not for the slavery issue, the differences would have been resolved, one way or another, without a full-scale civil war.
Comment 5/30/2007
Janusz, I completely agree that the North was not, is not, and never will be completely altruistic. But, as Tgirsch has written, that does not obviate the fact that slavery was a central issue behind the South’s secession, which in turn led to the Civil War. Read about the Missouri Compromise, the Wilmot Proviso, the Compromise of 1850, the Kansas-Nebraska Act etc. It is crystal clear from the legislative record that slavery was a highly devisive issue, the the division was primarily North/South.
Big U, I find it hard to believe that there was a huge labor shortage in the North at the time, given the extrodinary rate of immigration throughout the 19th Century. I believe I am correct in stating there were roughly 4,000,000 slaves in the US in 1860, and that many immigrants were arriving every five years or so. Also, to simultaneously argue that 1) the North was not concerned with freeing the slaves and that 2) the North lusted after the cheap labpr freed slaves would represent is less than convincing.
Comment 5/30/2007
Ted > Wanting to free the slaves in order to get cheap labor is far different than wanting to free the slaves because it was the right thing to do.
Just as I am sure you would agree that today, wanting to allow illegal aliens to come to the US to provide cheap undocumented labor in sweat shops is far different than wanting to provide opportunities for people from other countries to come and realize their dreams.
I have acknowledged that maintaining slavery was a part of the south’s reason to secede. BUT it was not because they wanted to exploit blacks. It was because they felt they had the right to own slaves. They were fighting to maintain a right they felt the federal government had no business removing. (Regardless of the morality of it, they were fighting for a way of life, not a way to opress blacks). If this were not the case, then the three out of four whites that DID NOT OWN SLAVES in the south would never have gone to war.
If you want to say that slavery was THE main reason the north went to war, then you have to say that creating a democracy was the main reason the US went into Iraq. Why you ask? For the first 2 years, Bush, et al cited weapons of mass destruction, imminent danger, etc. But slowly the focus was changed to try to get the country onside (and to save face). For the first 2 years of the civil war, Lincoln and the north said NOTHING about freeing the slaves and in fact stated that they were not interested in doing so. It wasn’t until they were two years in that Lincoln brought up the issue.
I get the idea we are arguing different sides of the same coin.
Comment 5/31/2007
Big U, you wrote “BUT it was not because they wanted to exploit black. It was because they felt they had the right to own slaves. They were fighting to maintain a right they felt the federal government had no business removing. (Regardless of the morality of it, they were fighting for a way of life, not a way to opress blacks).”
My response is: I have no response. I am speechless.
Comment 5/31/2007
Big U:
I’m sorry, but you’ve clearly bought into some revisionist spin here, and seem unable to bring critical thinking to bear on the problem. Pretty much every major claim you’ve made about the Civil War and slavery has been conclusively proven false, yet you continue to fall back with more “yabuts” (”Yeah, but…”) instead of simply admitting that you’ve been wrong about this. There’s no shame in it; a lot of people aren’t as familiar with the history as they should be, and I have to admit that I’ve learned a great deal just in the context of this debate.
But it’s simply impossible to argue that the war wasn’t primarily about slavery, or that slavery wasn’t about exploitation of blacks, you simply have to ignore the vast majority of the facts of the matter.
I can easily dig up quotes from Southern politicians and ministers of that era, arguing that slavery is a God-ordained institution, and that “the negro” is inherently inferior to the white man, and thus slavery is his destiny, and that negro slavery is part of the natural order of things; there’s no shortage of such quotes. But at this point, I’m not sure it would matter any more. You seem unwilling to accept just how vested in African slavery the South truly was, and just how important it really was in the broader context of the war, no matter what evidence we give you.
It’s not enough that you concede slavery was “also” important. We’ve demonstrated, quite convincingly, I think, that at least from the perspective of the South, slavery was the single most important issue of the day, and I don’t think it’s a stretch to call it the defining issue of the war.
What puzzles me, however, is why you would be so vested. You’re Canadian, after all; you don’t bear any of America’s shame over slavery. And we’ve already long since conceded that the North, while not as bad as the South, was anything but a racism-free Eden.
For the first 2 years of the civil war, Lincoln and the north said NOTHING about freeing the slaves and in fact stated that they were not interested in doing so.
Uhh, are you not paying attention? I’ve already demonstrated that the “Party of Lincoln” was established as an anti-slavery party, and that Lincoln ran on an anti-slavery platform in 1860, and that Lincoln winning on that platform is what caused South Carolina to secede. No, they didn’t specifically support ending slavery, at least not immediately, but they did support ending its expansion, which the South opposed.
And in any case, you’ve just soundly contradicted yourself: If the North had “no interest” in freeing the slaves, then why would the South be worried enough about their “right” to maintain slaves to actually secede and incite a civil war? You can’t have it both ways, you know…
Comment 5/31/2007
“you don’t bear any of America’s shame over slavery.”
I’m a United States citizen, and I don’t bear any of the shame over slavery. I had no part in it. I think slavery was the worst sin that has ever happened in the US. It was morally wrong and hurt this country and is still hurting this country. However, let those who committed the sin be ashamed. I’m not among that group.
Comment 5/31/2007
Fred, is that also your stance on original sin?
Comment 5/31/2007
“Fred, is that also your stance on original sin?”
Why do you ask?
Comment 5/31/2007
Fred, most adults know the difference between shame and blame. It’s also likely that Ted is trying to get you to admit either to hypocracy, or to not following the teachings of most Christian churches. I fully expect you to avoid this cunnundrum by not answering his question, possibly with some unwarrented insults, gratis.
Comment 5/31/2007
Dan M. > apples and oranges. Ted needs to explain what he is meaning by the comparison. Most evangelical churches teach that people are born with a sinful nature. I see nowhere how that would lead to a comparison to individual’s actions from over 100 years ago. Clarification is indeed in order.
Comment 6/1/2007
“I fully expect you to avoid this cunnundrum(sic) by not answering his question, possibly with some unwarrented(sic) insults, gratis.”
I don’t know what this has to do with anything else in the posts, but I will give a brief answer.
Whose definition of original sin should I use: Augustine’s, Luther’s, Calvin’s, etc. I do not believe in original sin as taught by the Catholic Church and many other churches? Most of them teach an extra-biblical doctrine. Sin is not a substance that can be transferred from one person to another. Everyone is responsible for his own deeds, not for the misdeeds of others. Shame is to be bourne by the one who commits a shameful act.
Comment 6/1/2007
Oops, question mark should be after the first sentence, not the second.
Comment 6/1/2007
Sorry, I didn’t mean to redirect the thread. I occasionally react poorly to Fred’s posts.
Tgirsch mentions national shame over slavery - a concept that most adults understand and accept. And Fred responds that he had no part in slavery, so he is not ashamed of anything related to slavery. That strikes me as immature and egocentric. But certainly not surprising coming from Fred.
Fred has described himself as an evangelical, so I wonder how literally he accepts the dogma of original sin which generally imparts responsibility for another’s action onto all believers. I would see contradiction in being able to accept responsibility for another’s action but not tolerating the concept of national shame. I only offer this in response to Big U’s call for an explanation, my intention is not to extend this part of the debate. I stipulate that it is off-topic and irrelevant, so I withdraw it.
Comment 6/1/2007
Thanks for the clarification Ted.
Comment 6/1/2007
“I stipulate that it is off-topic and irrelevant, so I withdraw it.”
Good. Much of what you say is irrelevant.
“I wonder how literally he accepts the dogma of original sin”
I accept the biblical dogma that each person is responsible for his own sins. That is a whole lot more mature than saying sin is inherited. I explained that in my post. Most evangelicals believe this as well.
BTW, when did I describe myself as an evangelical? I don’t remember doing that. It would be unusual for me to describe myself that way.
Comment 6/1/2007
Ted still has a salient point with the national shame thing, though. Fred’s position on this would be warranted if all the lingering effects of slavery had magically vanished the day the Emancipation Proclamation was signed, but real life just doesn’t work that way. African-Americans were systematically discriminated against (not just in the South, mind you, but all over the country) for over 100 years after that declaration was signed. That’s a span that spills over into our lifetimes. And even if you were so naive to assume that all racial discrimination ended with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 (barely over 40 years ago), you now have an entire generation of people who have inherited literally three centuries worth of economic disadvantage for no better reason than the color of their skin. People like Fred would argue that because we weren’t directly responsible for that discrimination and the lingering disadvantage that continues to exist because of it, we bear none of the shame for it, and none of the responsibility for righting those wrongs. I respectfully disagree.
You may not have ever personally discriminated against anyone, but whether you realize it or not, you almost certainly have benefited in tangible ways from that past discrimination. Statistics show over and over again that if you changed absolutely nothing about me or Fred except for darkening our skin color — we retain the same relevant experience in our careers, the same education, etc. — we would earn substantially less; we would be substantially more likely to be pulled over by the police and/or arrested; we would be substantially less likely to get that new job or promotion; etc. All of these truths have their roots in slavery, even though slavery ended nearly a century and a half ago.
Fred may not feel any shame that this is true, but I’m not at all afraid to admit that it does shame me that even in 2007, this remains true. I do what little I can to change that, little by little, whenever I can, but I don’t pretend that any amount of this undoes what has been done, or magically absolves us of any and all responsibility for it.
Comment 6/1/2007
“magically absolves us of any and all responsibility for it.”
No magic needed. One does not need absolution from the deeds of another. You can bear all the shame you want. I’m not going to live that way. I do my best to treat everyone fairly. If I don’t, then I need to be ashamed. If you don’t, you need to be ashamed.
BTW, anyone who believes and practices Affirmative Discrimination should not lecture others about discrimination and fairness. Get that beam out of your own eye first.
Comment 6/2/2007
So what you’re telling us, Fred, is that you don’t give a shit that some people start off at a serious disadvantage through no fault of their own. As long as it’s not your fault, fuck ‘em.
And as I said, your advantages are in part because of their disadvantages, whether you want to admit it or not, and whether you did anything directly or not. You can go on living with that cognitive dissonance if you want to, I suppose, but that doesn’t make it right.
Comment 6/2/2007
TG,you’ve gone through this many times. You are comfortable, and in fact think it is right, to discriminate against people because of their race. You are morally bankrupt. It is no more right for some poor white man to be discriminated against because some rich white man owned slaves in the past than it is right for a poor black man to be discriminated against because he is black. I help people because they need help, not because of a person’s race. I have spent my entire life helping people, with most of my career being spent in non-profit orginazations that put into practice non-discrimination. I won’t be lectured by someone who believes in discrimination based on race. Your racist views certainly are a window into your character.
Comment 6/2/2007
Fred, you’re still not grasping the difference between culpability and duty. The claim is not that those advantaged by slavery are culpable for it, but that they have a duty to reduce the disadvantage of others. Because a lack of culpability does not remove a duty, the lack of one kind of responsibility does not remove the other kind of responsibility.
Comment 6/2/2007
Let me see if I undersand what you just said. A person who was not a slaveholder has a duty to give an advantage based on race to someone who was not a slave. Now, you are spouting racism. Why not just help anyone who needs your help regardless of the color of their skin?
BTW, are you Tg’s sockpuppet?
Comment 6/2/2007
Fred:
You still misunderstand me (which doesn’t really surprise me). I don’t “support” race-based discrimination. I just happen to believe that righting past wrongdoings involves more than simply ending the wrongdoings themselves. You can live in your little fantasy world where all you need to do is end racial discrimination, and all the effects of decades of discrimination magically disappear, but that’s not the world we live in. It’s not enough to stop wronging others; you have to actively right the wrongs.
I don’t support affirmative action because I think it’s a perfect solution. I support it because I don’t have a better idea. You, apparently, are okay with the idea of just allowing the haves to continue to have, and the have-nots to continue to have not, even if the have-nots are disproportionately minorities, and even if those minorities are among the have-nots precisely because of past discrimination.
You want to end affirmative action? Actually, me too. Just give me a better idea to replace it, something that will actively correct for the lousy hand that most minority families are dealt. You’ve just never suggested a viable alternative.
In fact, I’ve got an idea, and one which will actually work, and make our system fair for all, irrespective of race, color, or creed: end affirmative action practices, and at the same time, institute a 100% estate tax with no exceptions. You don’t get to leave anything at all to your children. Each new generation is required by law to start over from a level playing field. If we did that, then no child would ever inherit the economic disadvantages their parents had because of their race, and no child would ever inherit an unfair economic advantage that their parents and grandparents got in part through the unfair exploitation of others.
Of course, I don’t really support doing that (and I’m sure you just about popped a blood vessel reading that), but it illustrates the underlying problem that you continue to blissfully ignore. You would much rather pretend that yesterday’s racism has no lasting impact today, but that’s just naive to the point of stupidity.
Oh, and I have no need for sock puppets. Why would I? I’ve never been shy about calling you on your stupid bullshit under my own screen name, have I? You’ll also see that Dan M sometimes calls me out in other threads (see the “Third-Party Voting” thread, for example). If you think that I would chastise myself through a sock puppet, you are truly a strange person.
Comment 6/2/2007
I’m no sockpuppet; I just actually understand what TG said.
As to racism, Fred again don’t appear to be listening. I’ve said that we have a duty to correct inequities in the system, and that those inequities fall along racial lines. That means that any successful fix must have racially dependent results, but it doesn’t mean that criteria for the fix need be racial.
I’m actually against most racial criteria for selection of benefits, but I support racial criteria for the analysis of benefits. Should college tuition assistance only go to blacks? Of course not. Should advertising about assistance programs be targetet at blacks? Of course.
If Fred actually has spent his time working to alleviate poverty (I may be oversimplying or mischaracterizing his claim; sorry any confusion.), then he’s got to have done one of two things. Either a fair use of needs-based criteria has probably caused him to help more blacks than non-blacks, as a matter of the demographics of need, or he has unfairly distorted need-based criteria to counter-act those demographics. I actually trust Fred on this one; I bet the former of these is the case. If that’s the case, then he’s fulfilling that duty, even while not recognizing it as such.
Comment 6/3/2007
“I just happen to believe that righting past wrongdoings involves more than simply ending the wrongdoings themselves.”
You haven’t explained why taking from one person because of his race and giving to another person because of his race makes anything right. Your concept of right is perverted.
As to your your idea about not being allowed to leave your possessions to anyone you want to, I didn’t blink an eye. I certainly didn’t pop a blood vessel. That idea is not new to socialists. It did not surprise me at all that you would come up with that idea.
Comment 6/3/2007
“I’ve said that we have a duty to correct inequities in the system, and that those inequities fall along racial lines. That means that any successful fix must have racially dependent results”
Actually, it appears we agree. You want make skin color a part of deciding who you will help. I agree that that is what you want to do. Your way is racist.
“If Fred actually has spent his time working to alleviate poverty (I may be oversimplying or mischaracterizing his claim; sorry any confusion.), then he’s got to have done one of two things. Either a fair use of needs-based criteria has probably caused him to help more blacks than non-blacks, as a matter of the demographics of need, or he has unfairly distorted need-based criteria to counter-act those demographics. I actually trust Fred on this one; I bet the former of these is the case. If that’s the case, then he’s fulfilling that duty, even while not recognizing it as such.”
My help of people has not involved deciding who to help based on race, as you seem to want to do. The last organization I worked for probably had about a 75% black clientele. I can’t be certain because we did not keep records based on race. We helped those who needed help.
“Should advertising about assistance programs be targetet at blacks? Of course.”
More evidence of your racist tendencies.
Comment 6/3/2007
Notwithstanding your epithets, you just agreed with me:
me: [I bet that] a fair use of needs-based criteria has probably caused him to help more blacks than non-blacks[.]
Fred: The last organization I worked for probably had about a 75% black clientele.
I can’t speak for TG, but this is all I really ask for, except that I think measuring success or failure at the gap might be useful. Knowing that there are correlates to race does not constitute racism.
Comment 6/3/2007
s/at the gap/at closing the gap/
Comment 6/3/2007
“Notwithstanding your epithets, you just agreed with me:
me: [I bet that] a fair use of needs-based criteria has probably caused him to help more blacks than non-blacks[.]
Fred: The last organization I worked for probably had about a 75% black clientele.”
The help was not based on race. That is the point.
People who agree with Affirmative Discrimination should at least have the intellectual honestly to admit up front that they believe discrimination based on race is acceptable as long as it is for a “good” cause. That is racism cloaked in a fancy, pretty dress with underwear that stinks to high heaven.
Comment 6/3/2007
Fred:
You haven’t explained why taking from one person because of his race and giving to another person because of his race makes anything right.
You haven’t ever shown anyplace where I’ve said we ought to do any such thing, so I’m left wondering what the hell you’re talking about.
And I can’t help but notice that you still haven’t suggested any alternatives. What do you think we ought to do to correct racial inequity? As far as I can tell, you believe we should simply pretend it doesn’t exist, ignore it, and hope it goes away.
Comment 6/3/2007
“And I can’t help but notice that you still haven’t suggested any alternatives”
Then you have a serious reading problem. My alternative to your racist affirmative action is to treat people equally without regard to their skin color.
If you give a job to someone because of the color of his skin when he is less qualified than someone with a different skin color then you have taken something away from someone and given it to someone else based on skin color.
Comment 6/4/2007
Fred:
Then you have a serious reading problem. My alternative to your racist affirmative action is to treat people equally without regard to their skin color.
You’re the one with the serious reading problem, not me. Because I’ve already pointed out a dozen fucking times, here and elsewhere, that this only works if everyone starts from a position of equality, rather than people of certain races disproportionately inheriting poor economic and social status because of past systemic discrimination.
Fact: Irrespective of race, the poor tend to stay poor, and children of poor families themselves generally wind up poor.
Fact: Ethnic minorities, especially African-Americans, are disproportionately poor, in large part because until very recently, their economic opportunities were artificially limited by discrimination, both official and unofficial.
Conclusion: If you do nothing other than “treat everyone equally,” then minorities will stay disproportionately poor, simply because they’ve inherited poverty.
But it will surprise absolutely no one that you don’t have any interest in changing that for the better.
Comment 6/4/2007
I have understood what you have said from the first time we discussed affirmative discrimination last year. You want to discriminate against or in favor of certain individuals based on their race because you think it will ultimately benefit a preferred class of people. It is certainly your right to believe anything you want. Hopefully, your discriminatory practices and ideals will fail as other racist policies have. I’m done with this discussion. I feel uncomfortable talking to someone with such racist views.
Comment 6/4/2007
Tgirsch, you backed Fred into an inescapable corner, so he responded as expected. Rather than attempt to defend his position, he simply quit. I suppose I can’t blame him, one can only get so much milage out of redefining terms (racist, preborn babies, etc) in an attempt to manipulate emotions rather than debate.
Comment 6/4/2007
“Rather than attempt to defend his position, he simply quit.”
I don’t see a need to defend my position of treating people equally no matter what their race. The ones who need to defend their positions are those who want to treat people differently depending on their race. As for debate, I’m on the pro side of equality and you are on the con side. I like my position better. I certainly am not backed into a corner. Tg and you are the ones who should stand in a corner for promoting racial discrimination.
Comment 6/4/2007
Nice try, Fred, but “treat everyone equally” serves only to (at best) protect the status quo. And the status quo is that ethnic minorities are disproportionately poor. So I’ll ask again: What are you willing to do to change the status quo, so that there is no disproportionate relationship between ethnicity and economic standing?
You can’t solve a problem by pretending it doesn’t exist (which is precisely what your position is), or by ignoring the causes of the problem.
Comment 6/4/2007
He’s solved the problem. He’s decided not to have shame about the vast unfairness of current reality. A perfectly theistic position; when your sky daddy will fix everything when you’re dead, life doesn’t need to be fair.
Comment 6/4/2007
I realize the unfairness of individuals being discriminated against because of their race in order to give privileges to someone else because of his race. I thought liberals were against that too. I guess I was wrong. You don’t mind unfairness toward individuals if it benefits your approved group. Very sad. Obviously, individual rights are not important to you.
Comment 6/5/2007
Way to dodge the question again, Fred. Could it be that you refuse to answer because you don’t have an answer?
I’ve never said I thought Affirmative Action was a flawless, wonderful, perfect idea. I’ve just argued that until someone comes along with a better idea that will work, we’ve got no choice but to continue it. And challenged repeatedly to suggest a better idea that would work, you bob and weave and dodge and (as usual) call people names.
At least you have conclusively demonstrated that you have no better ideas.
Comment 6/5/2007
“At least you have conclusively demonstrated that you have no better ideas.”
I have stated my solution of not discriminating for or against someone based on race. You have stated your “solution” of discriminating for or against someone based on race. There’s really no need to go round and round about this. You may not like my policy of non-discrimination, but your policy of discrimination is awful. Move on. Hopefully one day you will end your hatred.
Comment 6/5/2007
Fred:
You are a coward. There’s no other way to describe it. You still have not addressed how you would correct the existing inequities. Your policy of non-discrimination would simply preserve those existing divides. Yet no matter how many times it’s pointed out to you, you still change the subject and dodge the question. You have a laughably simplistic view of the problem, and when confronted with real-life complications, you cut and run. To be absolutely clear, here is the situation you have refused to address:
As far as I can tell, you’re only willing to prevent any new discrimination; you’re not willing to do anything at all to right the wrongs of past discrimination, or to correct their lingering effects.
Fred’s answer to the fact that the typical African-American child starts off at a significant economic disadvantage as compared to the typical Caucasian-American child? “Not my problem.”
Comment 6/5/2007
“you’re not willing to do anything at all to right the wrongs of past discrimination, or to correct their lingering effects.”
I understand your position perfectly. You think you can right the wrongs of past discrimination by discriminating against people who had nothing to do with past discrimination. That method is not moral. You may as well give up. I don’t see me agreeing with you anytime in the future that discrimination to cure discrimination makes moral sense. Your socialist views are not good for individuals or the country. I just hope that you are in no position to put your racial prejudices into practice.
“Fred’s answer to the fact that the typical African-American child starts off at a significant economic disadvantage as compared to the typical Caucasian-American child? “Not my problem.””
To coin a phrase: Why do liberals lie so much?
I would put my record of helping disadvantaged children, regardless of race, against yours at any time.
Comment 6/5/2007
Hey, guess what, Fred dodged the question yet again and did a bit of his usual labeling. And, as is commonly the case, he even gets that part wrong. “Socialist views”? yikes. Talk about a non sequitur.
Comment 6/5/2007
“I would put my record of helping disadvantaged children, regardless of race, against yours at any time.”
A statement fraught with self-righteousness? Nah…
Comment 6/5/2007
“Hey, guess what, Fred dodged the question yet again”
I can’t do something again that I haven’t done in the first place. I have answered, but the only answer that proponents of affirmative discrimination will accept is that discrimination based on race is fine and dandy as long as the discrimination is against a perceived privileged class.
Comment 6/5/2007
In all fairness, it sounds like Fred is saying that any and all race-based programs should be eliminated. Based on what I have seen in Canada, I would agree. Programs based on race lead to further discrimination and make it HARDER for disadvantaged people to make it. Anyone from a disadvantaged group that does make it is automatically viewed as someone who couldn’t have without the help.
You want a program that works? Focus on providing opportunities and support for groups (such as the poor) REGARDLESS of race. I have seen several times in Canada where as soon as the issue of race or historical wrongs are removed as driving factors and replaced with personal responsibility and opportunity as driving factors, suddenly people start to make significant strides to improve.
An attitude of “oh, the poor downtrodden black community” is simply a cop-out to make social activists feel good.
Comment 6/5/2007
A cop out of what exactly?
Comment 6/5/2007
Big U, are you suggesting that the solution to breaking the cycle of poverty experienced by some blacks in the US, a cycle that has its roots in slavery and prejudice, is merely to eliminate race-based programs? In other words, if all affirmative action is discontinued, then the cycle of poverty will simply go away? Because the question that has been posed, over and over by Tgirsch is: what is an alternative. This is the question to which Fred has not given an answer.
Comparing the situation faced by blacks (and the possible programs to help those in need) in the US and Canada is perhaps not the most useful exercise. While the two countries have many things in common, significant slavery is not one of them. I believe the number of slaves in the history of Canada is in the low thousands, whereas in the US the number is in the millions. So whatever damage was done in Canada was done in the US on a scale of 1000 fold. And most people in this country understand that the abuse and mistreatment of blacks in this country did not end with the passage of Civil Rights legislation, much less the Emancipation Proclamation.
That said, in general I (and most others) agree that a reliance on race as a determining factor for aid is at best a tenuous practice, to be used sparingly if at all. Some, like our friend Fred, pretend that the practice is pervasive and they object whenever it occurs, regardless of the circumstances. Any policy that does not yield a strict Pareto improvement is to be discredited by them – but of course only when race is involved. The Pareto criterion is conveniently overlooked when a policy otherwise suits.
Comment 6/5/2007
The cop-out is this: The programs as a general rule are empire building by the beaurocrats. Someone has to track the programs. But, since a program is in place, then social activists can pat themselves on the back and talk about what a great job they are doing helping the poor (insert ethnic minority here) community.
Starting out poor does not mean staying poor. The issue is, a lot of times people are proud of their poverty and wear it like a badge. Oh I’m so poor, look at me. Oh I’ve had such a rough life look at me. I came from a family that had nothing and worked my tail off to get to where I am today. I had no help and I certainly had no breaks. I was one of the poor and I worked my way out. And I know a lot of other people who have done the same.
Every once in a while you hear of people rising from poverty and the poor. Usually it has to do with the work they did themselves and almost never does it have to do with the “help” they got from any government programs. It also often has to do with getting away from the influences of the people they grew up with.
Tough? Yes. Impossible? No. But the attitude of victimhood that is prevalent and often reinforced by those in positions of power does nothing to help anyone. In fact, if anything, programs like affirmative action tend to make it harder for people who are disadvantaged to get ahead because the stigma of getting a job because they met the quota will follow them forever.
Comment 6/5/2007
Fred:
You think you can right the wrongs of past discrimination by discriminating against people who had nothing to do with past discrimination. That method is not moral.
Then for the FIFTIETH FUCKING TIME, offer up an alternative, already! If you do as much work with the poor as you say, that’s admirable, but one man’s work will only go so far. Societal problems require societal solutions.
Big U:
I’m not terribly familiar with Canada’s history on racial issues, but the US is something of a special case, given that minorities were systematically suppressed and denied opportunity until at least the late 1960’s. I have friends who have personally lived through segregation and its immediate aftermath, and can tell you firsthand that this isn’t exactly ancient history we’re talking about. I said before that you can’t fix a problem by ignoring the causes of that problem, and I stand by that statement.
Also, in the US, the poverty demographics are quite a bit different than in Canada. In the US, a US-born black citizen is more than 2.5 times as likely to live in poverty than a US-born white citizen, and this is largely because of the aforementioned artificial repression because of their race. Is this the case in Canada? I seriously doubt it.
Also, Canada has much more robust social services than the US does, such that living in poverty in Canada never means having to do without health care, for example. I’m also reasonably sure that you haven’t kicked your public schools to the curb to quite the extent that we have down here.
It’s a two-dimensional problem, really. The poor in general, irrespective of race, have less opportunity (educational, economic, and otherwise) than those who are not poor; but ethnic minorities are disproportionately poor in the US by a huge margin.
When that disparity is statistically insignificant, then we can go about gutting Affirmative Action and moving forward with Fred’s proffered solution.
Finally, I could be wrong, but I don’t think Canada even tracks poverty statistics by race; so even if there were a racial disparity there, you simply wouldn’t know about it, because the stats aren’t there. (Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe the stats are there, but I sure can’t find any…)
Focus on providing opportunities and support for groups (such as the poor) REGARDLESS of race.
Believe it or not, I’m actually quite sympathetic to this idea. The problem is, it suffers from the same flaw as affirmative action does: it starts too late. By the time people get into high school, at least here, the poor (irrespective of race) are already well behind, and it’s hard to make up for that disadvantage. If we as a nation would get off our collective asses and provide high quality education to everyone, irrespective of race, religion, or income, a lot of that takes care of itself, and such programs become superfluous. (And if South Carolina State University is any example, it can be done.)
An attitude of “oh, the poor downtrodden black community” is simply a cop-out to make social activists feel good.
What Dan M. said. Copping out of what, exactly? To me, ignoring the problem altogether is the true cop out.
Side question: Are you in Alberta? I ask because most of the Canadians I encounter who are sympathetic to US Republicans are from Alberta.
Comment 6/5/2007
Big U:
The cop-out is this: The programs as a general rule are empire building by the beaurocrats.
Methinks you need to revisit the definition of cop out.
Starting out poor does not mean staying poor.
In the US, at least, the vast majority of the time it does mean that. The single best predictor of whether or not someone in the US will be poor is if they have poor parents. It’s by far the best; it isn’t even close. (This may be true worldwide, but I know it’s true in the US.)
I came from a family that had nothing and worked my tail off to get to where I am today.
That’s admirable, but it makes you one of the lucky ones. This isn’t to diminish the value of hard work, but all the hard work in the world won’t make a difference without a lucky break or two (or the lack of any unlucky breaks).
I had no help and I certainly had no breaks.
I’m sorry, but I find that extremely difficult to believe. Are you seriously telling me that you’re not the beneficiary of public education, socialized medicine, and various other social programs that enable upward mobility?
In fact, if anything, programs like affirmative action tend to make it harder for people who are disadvantaged to get ahead because the stigma of getting a job because they met the quota will follow them forever.
There are many thousands of counterexamples to this, some of whom I work with every day. Part of the problem, though, is that you’ve bought into a straw man of what affirmative action actually is. Hard racial quotas were struck down in 1978, almost thirty years ago. Protected classes do indeed get a certain degree of preferential treatment, but it’s not what you’re often led to believe. Most of this is focused on collegiate admissions and government contracts — the private sector is mostly unimpeded by it.
Comment 6/5/2007
My apologies if I have an incorrect understanding of affirmative action. Here in Canada, several social activists cite affirmative action as the type of thing we need to do to level the playing field and often say our programs are similar in nature to the Affirmative Action programs in the US.
It is true that my view of race-based and gender-based programs are tainted by what the governments have done here in Canada. Here in Canada, the big race issue is the natives. There are literally billions of dollars poured into native programs in order to “help” them out of their difficult position in life. Poverty is rampant on reserves as is substance abuse, etc. And yet in spite of spending well in excess of $8 billion dollars per year the situation continues to decline. All the race based initiatives in this country do nothing to improve things and in fact tend to promote reliance on the government. Natives faced incredible abuse in the past and to this day continue to push the fact they were victimized a hundred years ago as a reason for them not being able to do well now.
In response to your comment about public education, socialized medicine and other social programs, I had access to the same programs most other Canadians can access. However, what I do not have access to that natives have access to is “tax-exempt status”, free university, annual government funding, preferential hiring (in Canada, there have been examples of specific quotas, though they are unofficial), and free housing.
One of the best ways to deal with the problems of poverty, etc. is as follows:
1. Get government out of the way. Have the government provide the funding but not the programs. People on the ground in the areas ALWAYS know better than some beaurocrat what is needed.
2. If people are unable to obtain work where they are, provide opportunity for them to move to where there is work. A lot of people are loath to leave their familiar location even if it means they stay on welfare or go without work.
3. Get the communities to work on improving themselves. I was amazed when I watched the Rodney King riots to see the community turn in on itself. If they had gone after the white communities, that would have made sense, but that wasn’t what was done. Instead, all the damage was done to the businesses that try to improve things in their own area.
4. Stop the blame game. Yes, segregation is real. Yes, racism is real. But too many people rely on those issues as excuses. Being a huge sports fan, I am constantly amazed when hearing athletes (black players especially) talk about how they had to dump all of their friends in order to succeed. Their friends did not want them to be successful and move on to better things. I just don’t understand that. That is a type of peer pressure that has nothing to do with being rich or poor. And yet it happens most in poor communities. Bill Cosby made a clear speech a couple of years ago and was roundly criticized and booed because he told the black community it needed to take responsibility for what it was doing and quit blaming others. And he was criticized by black leaders for it. To me, that is an attitude of victimization that guarantees failure. It has always amazed me how groups that are disadvantaged (blacks in the US, natives in Canada) always blame others for their problems but rarely if ever look at the issues in their own communities that make the problem worse.
For an example of what can be done when a group decides to stop relying on others and starts to rely on itself, go here:http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/aboriginal_issues/chief_clarence_louie.html
Comment 6/6/2007
“offer up an alternative, already!”
Either you are stupid or blinded by your love of discrimination. I have offered numerous times an alternative to discrimination. The alternative to discrimination is non-discrimination. Gee whiz! (That’s about as strong as my language gets.)
Comment 6/6/2007
Fred, every one knows that the question was not what is the alternative to discrimination, but clearly you can’t answer the actual question (which has been restated numerous times). So you choose to redefine the question to a trivial one and then offer an equally trivial answer.
But I see your point; let me try my hand at it. What is the solution to poor health care in the US? Good health care. What is the solution to pollution? Stop polluting. How do we improve education? By making it better than it is. I like it. By restricting my depth of understanding and appreciation of complexity to your level, I can come up with a solution to any problem. And as long as I restrict my audience to complete idiots, I can probably convince some people I am offering serious solutions.
Comment 6/6/2007
Fred:
The alternative to discrimination is non-discrimination.
As restated several times, that does absolutely nothing to correct the effects of past discrimination; it only eliminates future discrimination. But you knew that. As far as I can tell, you’re perfectly okay with blacks being poor at 2.5 times the rate that whites are.
Big U:
As you say, it’s complicated, but it has to be addressed from both sides. If the assistance you give comes in the form of a simple hand-out, people can and do become dependent on that, and you get nowhere. So you have to be more intelligent about it than that, and move to something more incentive-laden. But again, I want to be damn sure that the proposed alternative will work better before I scrap what we have now.
As to the aboriginal people, both here in the US and there in Canada, they REALLY DID get a lousy deal, and in both cases, we’ve done a lousy job of trying to correct those injustices. “Here, have casinos” has been our solution in the US, and it hasn’t exactly been a smashing success.
The problem with Cosby’s remarks is the same problem as many activists, except at the opposite end of the spectrum. At Cosby’s end, the problem exists solely with the people, and government and society bear no responsibility; at the other end, all of the responsibility is externalized, everywhere but with the individual. The truth, as with so many things, is considerably more complicated than that.
Finally, there’s no polite way to say this, but I think it needs to be said: you seem to be harboring some very strong, highly generalized attitudes about race that are coloring your opinions here.
Comment 6/6/2007
“As restated several times, that does absolutely nothing to correct the effects of past discrimination;”
And as has been pointed out several times, your solution to past discrimination is more discrimination.
Comment 6/6/2007
Tgirsch > “you seem to be harboring some very strong, highly generalized attitudes about race that are coloring your opinions here.”
I can see how you would get that impression. Most my knowledge about the black population in the States comes from reading and television. I do not have any personal contact with the poor neighborhoods in the US so it is very possible that my views are skewed in that way. I have had extensive dealings in business with people of all races throughout the US and have never paid any attention to what their race was. Don’t know if that makes me a non-racist or not.
Regarding any actual attitudes about race, there is no way I can convince you that I am not racist other than to say I’m not. I would like to know what I have said that would cause you to think I am harboring certain attitudes and specifically what those attitudes are (I’m curious to see what I need to change). Any attitudes I may express regarding natives are strictly based on personal experience and interaction.
Comment 6/6/2007
Fred:
And as has been pointed out several times, your solution to past discrimination is more discrimination.
Round and round we go. What’s your solution to past discrimination, then? We’ve already established that you wouldn’t do any additional discrimination, but you still haven’t addressed how you’d correct for the past injustice. You claim to support justice, but you sure are willing to ignore past injustice. Fine, my idea amounts to discrimination. Let’s concede that for a moment, and you tell me how you can correct the past injustice without discrimination. Of course, you can’t, so you keep changing the subject away from that.
I swear, arguing with you is like arguing with a spoiled child, except that the spoiled child is more likely to admit that he’s wrong when he obviously is.
Big U:
I didn’t go so far as to call you a racist. As far as what those attitudes are, it seems that you view the worst examples (Rodney King, etc.) as if they are typical, and seem to hold the entire group responsible for the failings of its worst members. It’s an attitude that is sadly all too common, but it’s neither healthy nor productive, in my opinion.
Comment 6/6/2007
Tgirsch> The Rodney King incident was just an example used to indicate a seemingly very pervasive problem on the way to seeking a solution. You clearly misread what I stated in referencing Rodney King as I was pointing out something completely different than what you took from it. I was in no way indicating that the entire group is responsible for the failings of its worst members. I was indicating that too often the black community is its own worst enemy.
If blacks would start to treat their own community with respect and focus their anger and attention on inequities that come from outside, they could make much greater strides.
Comment 6/6/2007
“I swear, arguing with you is like arguing with a spoiled child, except that the spoiled child is more likely to admit that he’s wrong when he obviously is.”
Don’t flatter yourself (Well, maybe you should. No one else will.) You haven’t shown me to be wrong. You are wrong that more discrimination will correct past discrimination. If someone has a provable case of discrimination against a business or a school, then fine, go after the business or school. If someone’s great grandpa was discriminated against by some white plantation owner who was not my great grandpa, don’t expect me to pay for his guilt.
You are right. This has gone round and round. Arguing with you is like arguing with a spoiled child who keeps repeating his demands and threatening to hold his breath until he gets the preferred treatment he doesn’t want to earn. Grow up.
Comment 6/6/2007
Big U: “Don’t know if that makes me a non-racist or not.”
The only way you can be a non-racist in the liberals’ viewpoint is to agree with them on everything concerning racial matters.
Comment 6/6/2007
Big U:
You clearly misread what I stated in referencing Rodney King as I was pointing out something completely different than what you took from it.
Not at all. Hundreds of thousands of African-Americans in the greater Los Angeles area didn’t riot after the Rodney King beatings; but you pay them no attention — you only pay attention to the relatively few who did, as if the whole African-American community ought to be punished for their actions (or, at the very least, ignored until such incidents stop happening). THAT is how I read your attitude there.
But when white people do similar things, it’s just “a few bad apples.” A more recent example here in the US was post-Katrina in New Orleans, when black people were reported to be “looting,” while whites were reported to be “finding” things.
If blacks would start to treat their own community with respect and focus their anger and attention on inequities that come from outside, they could make much greater strides.
Most of them do, but they don’t get the publicity. That’s kind of my point. Yes, there are things that a lot of African-Americans could be doing better. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the historical aspects of their plight, how they as a group got there, or do nothing to correct any of this until they’ve cleaned their house completely — that day will never come (nobody’s house will ever be completely clean).
Fred:
If someone’s great grandpa was discriminated against by some white plantation owner who was not my great grandpa, don’t expect me to pay for his guilt.
Are you really that thick? Whose “great grandpa” was being discriminated against in the 1960’s?!? You can continue to live in your ignorant bubble, where all racial discrimination magically disappeared with the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, but real life doesn’t work that way. In many places, the vestiges of segregation continued to exist into the 1990’s, and still exist to this day.
In any event, your approach to this is essentially, “Any injustice that exists that isn’t directly Fred’s fault also isn’t Fred’s responsibility to help fix.” You seem not to care about correcting injustices that aren’t directly your fault. How very sad, and un-Christian.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a spoiled child who keeps repeating his demands and threatening to hold his breath until he gets the preferred treatment he doesn’t want to earn. Grow up.
If anyone is acting like a child here, it’s you, not me.
Comment 6/6/2007
“How very sad, and un-Christian.”
I will let Christ be the judge of that. Since your witness is false about me, you are in no position to judge me.
Comment 6/6/2007
Fred, please answer me these short hypotheticals:
If a child’s parents are killed by a natural disaster, what is your responsibility to that child, and what is society’s responsibility?
What if the parents are killed by a murderer?
What if the parents are killed by a murderer, who is then killed by a natural disaster?
And can you see how answers to these questions directly pertain to this discussion?
Comment 6/6/2007
Tgirsch > 3 points for you to ponder.
1. You read my attitude wrongly. I brought up an example of an incident where it showed that the African-American community was attacking itself. This continues to this day in different ways. And often, the community is complicit in how it deals with the problem. Blame is often aimed at whites or those in political power.
2. In Fred’s defence, there is a HUGE difference between saying “I am not personally responsible for what has happened to African-americans in the past” and saying “I am not going to do anything to help poor people improve their lot in life”. Fred has stated that replacing one form of discrimination with another form of discrimination is wrong. You say it is right. Fred says he feels no personal guilt for something that was done by someone else. You say it is his responsibility to feel guilty about what has happened in the past simply because of his skin color. That is racism plain and simple.
3. Look at the Rutgers women’s basketball team. Slighted by a shock jock who made a stupid comment. He gets fired, the stations apologize. The team goes on Oprah. Look at the Duke lacrosse team. All charges dropped and guess how many apologies were received from the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, Oprah, national media, etc. Uh, that would be virtually none. Racism in action. But since it is against whites, it would seem you (and most others) are okay with it. If it had been black athletes aquitted of an attack on a white woman, they would have been trotted out as an example of white racist policies or some such thing. Since it was the other way around, it is ignored.
Comment 6/6/2007
Fred:
Still ducking the question. OK, then.
Big U:
Re #1, that could be said about any community, including whites! So why is it somehow relevant with respect to blacks? Nobody argues that it doesn’t happen, or that it isn’t counter-productive. But no amount of bad behavior there excuses the past actions that got us to our current point. So there’s tension within the black community. So what?
Re #2, sorry, but you’re full of shit. There is inequality in our country that exists disproportionately along racial lines. Fred argues that trying to fix this with preferential treatment is itself racist, and that’s his right to argue. But when REPEATEDLY asked what should be done to fix it, he’s conspicuously silent. And for challenging him on this, you’re not calling me a racist? I’m sorry, but you can kiss my ass on that count.
When Fred argues that Affirmative Action should be eliminated and replaced with nothing, even what it’s pointed out to him that even today, African-Americans are more than 2.5 times as likely to live in poverty than their Caucasian counterparts, I think it’s safe to assume that he’s okay with that situation staying as-is. After all, he’s unwilling to suggest any way to rectify that situation, and dismisses existing solutions as discrimination. So what’s left?
I also feel the need to address this specifically:
You say it is his responsibility to feel guilty about what has happened in the past simply because of his skin color.
I haven’t said any such thing. There’s a difference between individual responsibility and collective responsibility, you know. Neither Fred nor I personally had a major role in things getting to where they are today; our entire society did. In a very real sense, our modern society was built on the backs of people who were repressed. My country is what it is in part because of slavery, segregation, and mandated discrimination, and there continue to be flesh-and-blood victims of that history. To argue that my society owes them (and their immediate ancestors) absolutely nothing is absurd.
Arguing, as Fred seems to, that the only victims of discrimination are those who were personally discriminated against is like arguing that the only victim of a murder is the person who was killed.
Re #3, you’re doing it again. Holding all of African-American society accountable for the sins of Al Sharpton accomplishes what, exactly? And why single out Sharpton and Jackson? What about Nancy Grace, and what about the prosecutor himself? Are they, too, racists for unapologetically crucifying the Duke team? Black or white, an asshole is still an asshole.
Of course racism still exists, and of course whites don’t have a monopoly on it! But I fail to see how that’s relevant here. You’re still exhibiting that same attitude that I was complaining about before: until THEY as a RACE are perfectly, 100% squeaky clean and free of all faults, we needn’t worry about any wrongs they suffered or do anything at all to correct them. I say that attitude is BS.
Comment 6/6/2007
BU,
Re (2): You’ve conflated guilt, culpability, and duty.
(3) Hm, rather like OJ? The lacross team thing was a media frezy fueled by sensationalism and anti-fraternity sentiment, not racism, except possibly on the part of the local prosecutor.
Comment 6/6/2007
Dan M. > When people in media were citing the case as a perfect example of privileged white males feeling they can do anything they want to black females, it was racism pure and simple. If the stripper had been white, it is likely the national media would have ignored it and you can be guaranteed black activists wouldn’t have touched it. The case became what it was strictly because of race. That is racism.
Tgirsch > did you ever look at the video I posted? perfect example of a group of disadvantaged and previously abused people taking it upon themselves to make things better. No focusing on the past, no focusing on their victimhood. Just looking for opportunities, grabbing them by the balls and running with them.
In regards to # 3, you keep bringing up the idea that I am holding all of African-American society accountable for what only a portion of African-Americans do. Would you be happier if I found a list of everyone that attacked the Duke Lacrosse team? Racism is racism. Call it what you like, but the fact of the matter is the Duke Lacrosse team was attacked the way it was BECAUSE THEY WERE WHITE AND THE ACCUSER WAS BLACK. That, in any sense of the word, is racism. And yes, every white person that attacked them was guilty of racism.
As far as saying the African-American community must be 100% clean and free of faults to get help, those are your words, not mine. What I said was that if the community as a whole took it upon itself to improve things, they would make greater gains than any kind of affirmative action will ever make. That was only one of four points I made regarding improving on affirmative action.
Now, you say America has a responsibility to make right or make up for the wrongs of the past. Fine, let’s go with that sentiment. In your mind, does that include the large groups of African-Americans that are successful because they learned how to succeed in this racist society? Do they need to feel guilt for all they have because they have it due to how American society was built and developed on the backs of the oppressed? If not, then you have no right to insist that all non-black Americans must feel a collective guilt over the sins of the past.
Comment 6/6/2007
The term racist really seems to have lost its meaning here. All the people (black and white) who attacked the Duke lacrosse players were racist? Being accused of rape is an issue only if the alleged victim is not the same color as the accused? I think not.
Also, let’s for a minute assume the rape actually did happen (I’m not suggesting it did - clearly it did not, but bear with me). Would all those attacking the Duke team still be considered racist? If not, then can anyone explain how a person’s racism can hinge on a truth not available to them or anyone else (other than a handful of people who were in the room in the rented house adjacent to the Duke campus).
After the charges were dropped, the Duke lacrosse program was reinstated, the team won the national championship the next year, and the accused players got plenty of time in the spotlight. The equivalent of the Rutgers team “going on Oprah”. Big U says the Rutgers team “was slighted”, somehow making it about their reaction to Stern. They had virtually no reaction to him, they did not ask for him to be fired, all they did was play a basketball game. But Big U seems to imply some culpability in Stern’s firing on their part. THAT hints of racism.
Big U also wonders why Al Sharpton has not apologized to the Duke players. Apologized for what exactly? I would be interested in specifics. Even ignoring historical context (how the justice system, especially in the South, has treated white on black crime), I am unaware of Sharpton saying anything other than he supported the legal system determining the innocence or guilt of the accused. That is racist? Or is he racist simply becasue he is black and takes interest in cases involving other blacks, in part becasue fo shared heritage and in part because of a historical pattern of judicial discrimination against blacks.
To say something is racist simply because it is predicated on skin color (as Big U did above) is just plain ignorant. Or maybe we need to rethink the recent MLB celebration of Jackie Robinson. That was all about him being black. I doubt anyone other than maybe Fred would call that racist.
Comment 6/7/2007
“When Fred argues that Affirmative Action should be eliminated and replaced with nothing”
Non-discrimination is “nothing”? You keep saying that I am ducking the question. That is untrue. Quit lying about my position.
“Arguing, as Fred seems to, that the only victims of discrimination are those who were personally discriminated against is like arguing that the only victim of a murder is the person who was killed.”
You really need to quit distorting and lying about what I say. Your analogy carried to it’s logical conclusion would need to say that the murderer’s family deserves to be punished for the murder. That’s exactly what affirmative discrimination does.
Comment 6/7/2007
Ted,
My point is this: the media and others involved went after the story BECAUSE OF THE RACE DIFFERENCE between the players and the accuser. Sadly there are rapes occuring all over the US every day and yet the majority never make the news. Why did this one? It certainly wasn’t the national celebrity status of the Lacrosse team. Please explain to me how if it wasn’t a race issue, why the national media and people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton got involved?
BTW Ted, the lacrosse team did not win the national title this year.
And as far as Sharpton taking interest in cases involving other blacks, he seems pretty selective: http://www.mrc.org/BozellColumns/entertainmentcolumn/2007/col20070518.asp
Oh that’s right. Condi Rice is a republican so she doesn’t matter to Al (or anyone else who screamed that Imuz should be fired)
Comment 6/7/2007
Sorry, they played in the national championship game (they should have won).
Race does play a part in what the media covers. And of course race was why Sharpton and Jackson got involved. They are friggin black activists. Why are they black activists? Because blacks have been oppressed and abused in the US for hundreds of years. Seems reasonable to me. What type of cases do animal rights activists get involved with? Cases involving animals. Environmental activists? Environmental cases. Do you see a pattern emerging? Come out and say what you mean. Is it you don’t think anyone should be a black activist. Does selecting a cause and then focusing on it make someone a racist? That’s being a tad over-sensitive for me.
Comment 6/7/2007
Ted:
My turn to pick nits. The Rutgers thing involved Don Imus, not Howard Stern. You had the right kind of asshole, but the wrong specific asshole.
And as Big U points out, Duke Lacrosse didn’t win the championship. They lost in the title game to Johns Hopkins by one goal; oddly, this was the exact same result as the year before the rape scandal.
Big U:
you keep bringing up the idea that I am holding all of African-American society accountable for what only a portion of African-Americans do.
Because, in a way, you are. You write:
What I said was that if the community as a whole took it upon itself to improve things, they would make greater gains than any kind of affirmative action will ever make.
Yes, and if wishes were horses… You keep talking about the African-American community as if it’s some monolithic entity that consistently acts as a single, cohesive group, but this concept has no bearing in reality. Many of my black friends despise Al Sharpton, for example, calling him a self-serving opportunist (an allegation that carries some weight). Yet you use his actions to illustrate the problems with the black community as a whole. It’s the same sort of “blame the victims” mentality you conservatives are supposed to oppose. In these instances, I like the famous Carl T. Rowan quote:
On that basis, and judging from your attitude, African-Americans still haven’t “arrived.”
In your mind, does that include the large groups of African-Americans that are successful because they learned how to succeed in this racist society? Do they need to feel guilt for all they have because they have it due to how American society was built and developed on the backs of the oppressed?
First off, as Dan M. points out, you’re conflating, guilt, shame, blame, and culpability. Society as a whole bears responsibility for correcting its past injustices, and that includes all of its members, not just the white ones. Every single US taxpayer, irrespective of race or gender, pays to help support Affirmative Action programs. Despite what the Freds of the world may tell you, there is no extra “whitey tax.” Those African-Americans who have overcome the odds and achieved great success pay the same share as a similarly-successful Caucasian. The only guilt those successful African-Americans ought to feel would be if their success were achieved because of that exploitation, rather than despite it.
the media and others involved went after the story BECAUSE OF THE RACE DIFFERENCE between the players and the accuser.
As Ted points out, that has as much to do with our sensationalist media as it does to do with the obvious fact that racism is still fairly prevalent in the US. (Note that if the races of the players and stripper had been reversed, it would have garnered even more coverage…) But as I’ve already noted, that racism continues to exist is irrelevant to my point, and in a way serves to underscore it: there are still ongoing wrongs to correct.
Sadly there are rapes occuring all over the US every day and yet the majority never make the news. Why did this one? It certainly wasn’t the national celebrity status of the Lacrosse team.
I’m sorry, but that’s just ignorant. Not all of the rapes that make the news involve disparate races; not all of the disparate race rapes make the news, either. Several factors combined to push the Duke case into the national headlines, and race was only one of them. Indeed, perhaps the biggest factor was the fact that it was Duke, a prestigious private school that is both loved and reviled (depending on who you ask) all across the nation.
Finally, you’re not going to find much sympathy here quoting Brent Bozell, especially when the topic is Sharpton, about whom I’m largely ambivalent. The only reason I even care about the Sharpton factor is that people commonly use his antics as an excuse to ignore legitimate racial disparities that still exist. Suppose we were to concede, just for the sake of argument, that Jackson and Sharpton are the two biggest asshats on the face of the Earth. Now what? How does that change anything?
That politicians in the US routinely coopt 9/11 for personal political gain does nothing to reduce the gravity of what happened that day, or to diminish the rights of its victims. Why should it be different with black politicians and anti-black discrimination?
Fred:
Non-discrimination is “nothing”?
It does nothing to correct the “2.5 times more likely” scenario that I have repeatedly stated, other than to perhaps prevent it from getting even worse. You still have yet to explain how you would correct that problem.
Your analogy carried to it’s logical conclusion would need to say that the murderer’s family deserves to be punished for the murder. That’s exactly what affirmative discrimination does.
No, it’s not. Affirmative Action does not single out those who are directly related to, say, slaveowners, and ask them specifically to pay up. As noted above, it requires all of society to participate. Society as a whole is responsible for the current state of things, and thus society as a whole has a responsibility to correct them.
Comment 6/7/2007
Ugh, I made the horrific mistake of actually reading that Bozell link. You’d have to look far and wide to find someone who would condemn Imus’ remarks while defending Opie & Anthony’s. And Bozell had to take Sharpton’s remarks wildly out of context in order to make that point. Quoth Bozell:
But from what I can see, Sharpton never says any such thing. The host describes the O&A incident as “reprehensible,” “offensive,” and “disgusting,” and Sharpton doesn’t say one word to contradict any of that. He never says that Imus was “more offensive” than O&A, only that the Imus case was different because there was a long history there. Here’s how Bozell quotes Sharpton:
Here’s what Sharpton actually said, in context:
[Emphasis mine]
It’s worth noting that the “Debbie” in question was defending both Imus and Opie & Anthony.
So what has Bozell done? He’s taken Sharpton defending his decision to call for the firing of Imus but not for the firing of Opie & Anthony, and misstated it as if Sharpton were actively defending Opie & Anthony, and calling their specific remarks “more offensive.” That’s spun so hard, all the water has been pulled out!
If anything, what Sharpton espouses here is what can only be described as a conservative viewpoint! He says that it’s up to the advertisers to decide what kind of programming they’re willing to support, and that people who are offended have a right to pressure advertisers:
You know, “Let the market decide,” and all that.
Comment 6/7/2007
So Sharpton went after Imus because he said he would quit making racist remarks and didn’t, not because he made racist remarks. If Imus had refused to say he would quit making the remarks would Sharpton have left him alone? I doubt it.
So I guess he speaks for the real black community about as much as Falwell spoke for the real Christian community. Point taken. I will ignore Sharpton from here on out. I just wish the media would do the same.
Regarding your comment of “Note that if the races of the players and stripper had been reversed, it would have garnered even more coverage…)” please tell me why, then, the rape of a white student from University of Richmond by four black students from Virginia Union University in January 2006 got virtually no media coverage?
Comment 6/7/2007
“You still have yet to explain how you would correct that problem.”
I would correct the problem of discrimination by not discriminating.
Comment 6/7/2007
Fred, have you asked yourself how that solves the socio-economic disparity between racial groups? “Not discriminating” sounds all well and good, but it doesn’t necessarily lead to equal opportunity. Perhaps what you should explain how “not discriminating” leads to equal opportunity…
Comment 6/7/2007
Fred:
I would correct the problem of discrimination by not discriminating.
The problem of discrimination is not the problem you’re being asked about. But you knew that. This is why everybody here (except maybe Big U) realizes that you’re ducking the question.
Big U:
If Imus had refused to say he would quit making the remarks would Sharpton have left him alone? I doubt it.
No, but Sharpton never said he would have. He said that he only called for the firing after several go-rounds, and that Imus’ gaffe was not an isolated incident. Maybe O&A are also “repeat offenders” (I’d guess that they probably are), maybe not. But we know that Imus was one (he once referred to respected African-American journalist Gwen Ifill as “the cleaning lady”), and Sharpton’s calls turned to calls for firing only after repeated incidents over time. If O&A continue making such jokes and engaging in such racist antics, I’ll guaran-damn-tee that Sharpton will go after them, too.
So I guess he speaks for the real black community about as much as Falwell spoke for the real Christian community.
Setting aside the idea that there’s any such thing as a “real” black community or a “real” Christian community, I’d argue that it’s even less true for Sharpton than it was for Falwell. By no means did Falwell speak for all (or even most) Christians, but in the grand scheme of things, he still had a lot more influence than Sharpton has ever had.
please tell me why, then, the rape of a white student from University of Richmond by four black students from Virginia Union University in January 2006 got virtually no media coverage
Thank you for helping to make my point. Duke is a prominent, often polarizing university, while nobody outside of the State of Virginia has ever even heard of U of Richmond or Virginia Union. That’s at least as much of a factor in the national coverage as the race of those involved. That, and of course the prosecutor himself had a ton to do with it.
As I said, there are lots of reasons why rape cases garner national attention. There was the Duke thing (alleged white-on-black rape), the Kobe Bryant thing (alleged black-on-white rape), etc. I’m sure if we looked, we could find high-profile white-on-white and black-on-black rape cases, too. What’s so different about this case that makes you absolutely certain that the race of the accusers and of the accused were the primary motivator in the incident garnering national attention? The case that you have built for race being the primary motivator is quite thin.
Comment 6/7/2007
“you’re ducking the question.”
I’ve answered your questions. Which one have I not answered? And I’m not talking about the answers you didn’t like.
“Fred, have you asked yourself how that solves the socio-economic disparity between racial groups? “Not discriminating” sounds all well and good, but it doesn’t necessarily lead to equal opportunity. Perhaps what you should explain how “not discriminating” leads to equal opportunity…”
I’ve never known an advocate of Affirmative Discrimination who wanted equal opportunity. The goal for them is equal results. I’m all in favor of equal opportunity. Schools should be places of equal opportunity. Poor districts should receive extra help (not because they are black districts, but because they are poor districts). Scholarships should be awarded based on merit or need (not because the student is black, but because he or she has merited a scholarship based on hard work and need).
There’s much more that can be said about how to have equal opportunities, but right now my wife has me painting the bedroom. Equal opportunities, Yes. Affirmative Discrimination, NO!
Comment 6/7/2007
Fred:
I’ve answered your questions. Which one have I not answered?
The question is not whether or not you would continue or end discrimination. It is how you suggest solvin