Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby ObsessoMom » Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:42 pm UTC

Continuing the discussion from the Trump presidency thread:

sardia wrote:https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-how-trump-talks-about-race/
Some key points in the podcast:
"538 talks how support for Nazis is still low, but support for white supremacy/confederacy is still very high among the unwashed masses. However, Congress is much less supportive of white supremacy. Part of the reason is that a lot of people are ignorant(willfully or not) about what the statues mean to America. For example, a decent percentage of the supporters just want to stick it to liberals, or want government out of their lives. But the underlying issue is that America is built upon being unequal to minorities. Taking on this issue requires dismantling most myths of America that people don't want to confront.
Approval isn't the same as racist/moral.
The only difference between Trump and Republicans is that Republicans prefer to not answer the question(white supremacy/confederate statues) or say 'it's a local issue'. Trump just strips away the ambiguity. The media should not be surprised that Trump is a racist, nor should the media be surprised that Trump's voters are ok with him being racist (and voted for Trump anyway). Liberal/progressive/BLM groups are rudderless/disorganized, especially compared to Fox News/Breitbart/Koch brothers."

The frustrating part is that Trump's favorability polls are right where it was when he won vs an unpopular rival candidate. Which means Trump will have the incumbency bonus when he runs against whatever old white dude the Democrats run. So no guarantees for 2020, but it's not very secure for Trump either. Though 2018 should be interesting. Right now, Democrats have a +8% boost to their 2016 numbers, but that merely makes them competitive to take the House. This still bodes poorly for Democrats to minimize Senate losses. So we're still in trouble.


Belial wrote:I'm having difficulty confirming this but if true, it's great.

The only one I can find info on is the Syracuse rally, which is off.

Edit: well, Breitbart is whining about it so....


ObsessoMom wrote:The Guardian published a few chapters of Paul Butler's Chokehold: Policing Black Men a week ago. I found Butler's perspective on the implicit racism of "law and order" and "war on drugs" talk such as Trump's (and that of many other Republicans) eye-opening.

Spoiler:
Paul Butler wrote:The chokehold is something like an employment stimulus plan for working-class white people, who don’t have to compete for jobs with all the black men who are locked up, or who are underground because they have outstanding arrest warrants, or who have criminal records that make obtaining legal employment exceedingly difficult. Poor white people are simply not locked up at rates similar to African Americans. These benefits make crushing the chokehold more difficult because if it ends, white people lose – at least in the short term.

Progressives often lambast poor white people for voting for conservative Republicans like Donald Trump, suggesting that those votes are not in their best interests. But low-income white folks might have better sense than pundits give them credit for. A vote for a conservative is an investment in the property value of one’s whiteness. The criminal process makes white privilege more than just a status symbol, and more than just a partial shield from the criminal process (as compared to African Americans). Black men are locked up at five times the rate of white men. There are more African Americans in the US criminal justice system than there were slaves in 1850.

By reducing competition for jobs, and by generating employment in law enforcement and corrections, especially in the mainly white rural areas where prisons are often located, the chokehold delivers cash money to many working-class white people.


Link


sardia wrote:While the argument of reducing illegal/minority labor isn't as popular, it still falls under the assumption that the economy is a simple zero sum game.* So no, lower class whites are still wrong, just for slightly different reasons. Though it does correlate to previous ideas that white supremacy is much more popular than politicians think it is. Maybe Trump's onto something here.

*The presence of more people in the economy creates more jobs/grows the economy. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamespoulos ... ow-people/


sardia, I'm sorry, but the Forbes site never lets me read anything there for some reason (browser discrimination, maybe?). Could you please quote a few passages you found relevant?

CorruptUser wrote:Every economist agrees that more people means a larger economy, but the real question is per worker GDP.

Y = A * K^.7 * N^.3
Y is total economic output
A is "technology", which is anything other than the number of people or quantifiable capital which affects the economy, e.g., overall health, education, weather, etc
K is the vale of all capitol, such as bridges factories mines farms etc etc
N is number of people.

Immigrants increase the number of people, but they can't bring factories with them. Those do get built over time to match the people, but there are limits; you can always build more factories, but fisheries and farms and mines are limited. So the question is, do they being higher tech with them? Usually, but not always, and not necessarily enough to offset the lack of capital.


I've combined two of Sableagle's posts here:
Sableagle wrote:Anyone want to provide me with some answers to or questions for a Trump supporter?

Martin is in favour of genocide.mp3

(Filename does not contain any exaggeration, as far as I can tell.)

Mutex wrote:Any chance of a transcript of the most interesting bits?


Spoiler:
MT: "Yeah, they just fall straight back on it, don't they? The instant something happens: 'I'm black. That's it. That's why.' I'm voting for fucking Donald."
x1: " ... Duck?"
x2: "He was firing people at the weekend."
x3: "What do they actually think about him over there? Is he actually quite well-liked?"
x1: "33% at the last poll?"
MT: "Some in each direction."
x3: "Oh, is it?"
MT: "Yeah, they are. They either absolutely love him or they fucking hate him."
x1: "All the Nazis love him, and all the like Black, Jews, Muslims, gays, lesbians, transgender people, environmentalists, socialists hate him."
x2: "he's actually got quite a lot of ..."
MT: "He's got a lot. It's not Nazis. A lot of the Republicans follow him. I've got a lot of Republican friends there and they think he's great."
x1: "... and all the Nazis love him."
x2: "Well yeah, but you get extreme leftists as well."
MT: "Who commits most of the crime in the United States? Are they white or black? Where are most of the shootings? They're black, black-on-black. So what people should you annihilate to make the country better? All the black people. It just stands to reason."
x1: "You're in favour of genocide, then?"
MT: "Yeah."
x3: "At least we know where we stand."
MT: "That's it. ... happy if they were Muslims. Wars and everything's over. Nuke the fuckers. Turn the whole Middle East to glass and just send people in suits in to get the oil."
x4: "Do wasps as well at the same time."
MT: "Do wasps. You gotta do wasps. Be careful saying that in here, though, because there's a lot of ginger people around."
x5: "But mine's accidental."
MT: "That sort of makes it worse somehow, Liz. You're accidentally ginger, luv."
Last edited by ObsessoMom on Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:57 pm UTC, edited 9 times in total.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby ObsessoMom » Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:44 pm UTC

Double post, sorry. Someday I'll learn to differentiate the edit button from the quote button...

speising
Posts: 2069
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby speising » Tue Aug 22, 2017 4:59 pm UTC

TIL that white racism against wasps is a thing.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby ObsessoMom » Tue Aug 22, 2017 5:30 pm UTC

Sableagle, I'm not sure any appeal to either reason or compassion is going to convert someone who thinks it's appropriate to say "annihilate all the black people." But if the person claims to be Christian, you might ask them to read Luke 6:31-38 and ask whether that passage suggests that Jesus would approve of such a complete lack of empathy.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby sardia » Tue Aug 22, 2017 7:58 pm UTC

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/im ... y-growing/
Try this link instead, much more relevant and better sources.
The aging of the U.S. population poses major economic challenges: rising healthcare costs, more retirement spending and, crucially, fewer working-age Americans to help pay for it all. Already, economists believe, the graying of America helps explain the slow economic growth of the past decade-plus. The problem will only get worse as more baby boomers leave the workforce.

But by global standards, the U.S. is in pretty good shape. In parts of Europe, more than 20 percent of the population is of retirement age; in Japan, it is 26 percent. Those countries have the same challenges as the U.S.: a large generation born after World War II that is now at or approaching retirement, and a steep decline in fertility rates. But the U.S. has something they don’t have: a high rate of immigration.

You wouldn’t know it from this year’s overheated campaign rhetoric, but immigration is the only thing keeping the U.S. from facing a Japan-style demographic cliff. At a time when aging and other factors mean that fewer Americans are working, immigrants — who tend to come to the U.S. during their working years and have a higher rate of labor-force participation than native-born Americans — play an increasingly important role in the U.S. workforce. Foreign-born U.S. residents made up 13.1 percent of the population in 2014 but 16.4 percent of the labor force, up from 10 percent two decades earlier.1 Immigrants help the economy in other ways too: They are more likely than native-born Americans to start businesses, and because they pay into Social Security but only receive benefits if they stay in the country permanently, they help ease the U.S.’s long-run fiscal burden.
immigration grows the economy because it replaces old fogeys who are too old or sick to work. The US isn't any better at keeping it's population young via breeding vs other western countries. The sole difference is the US has high rates of immigration.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8750
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:39 pm UTC

Exponential growth in order to support the old farts is only going to lead to disaster, because once the immigrants retire you'll need even more immigrants. How many people can the US, or indeed the world, hold before we basically degrade the environment into a disaster?

So let's say we could have a sustainable retirement plan without exponential growth.

So WHY aren't Americans and Japanese and others having enough kids? Simply put, resources. To live a middle class lifestyle requires a significant amount of resources, perhaps more than the earth actually can support. People have basically said through deeds that they can't afford to have more children. They can't provide more kids with their own rooms, college, clothing, electronics, food, etc., while living the life they want. This doesn't even get into how millennials have been ducked when it comes to student debt and careers.

Now what happens when you bring in immigrants? There's even less resources to go around. There's less wood per person for homes, less land for beef, less metal for cars, less gas to fuel the cars. These are things you can't escape with magical utopian thinking. You could build things to last longer so they'd use up less resources, something that should be a goal regardless of immigration policy, but that still avoids the issue that more people means less base resources per person.

Now add in that most of the unwashed masses are coming from countries that have ridiculously high birthrates. Is it fair to enact policies that squeeze people into having smaller families in order to accommodate those that had far more kids than they could ever hope to feed?

There is a silver lining; scientists (and other creative types). Scientists magnify resources, making them go further. And more people means more scientists. But that leaves the question of why you would let the unwashed masses in along with the scientists, and whether the scientists need to even be in your country for you to parsitize their effort.

Obviously it's not a simple issue, and these are people, not numbers on a spreadsheet.

Personally... I really don't know the answer. Do you turn away the refugee to certain death, just because you don't want to pay slightly higher taxes? Is that right? What if the shoe was on the other foot, and a disaster turned the West uninhabitable, should the other countries prevent Europeans and Americans from escaping?

Sheikh al-Majaneen
Name Checks Out On Time, Tips Chambermaid
Posts: 1051
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 5:17 am UTC
Location: couldn't even find coffee in copenhagen

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Sheikh al-Majaneen » Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:37 pm UTC

Who was the Martin from the mp3 file and transcript?

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Belial » Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:20 am UTC

Okay, A) we have more resources than we need on nearly every front, the idea that we can't possibly feed, house, and otherwise accommodate these "ridiculously high birthrate" refugees is just handwringing and covers up the real fear of becoming a minority in an ostensibly Democratic government

B) generally the "disaster" that struck most of these countries was economic imperialism by North America and western Europe, or unrest caused ultimately by same. The morality of the situation changes considerably when you consider that.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby morriswalters » Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:58 am UTC

You live in a far different world than I do. Any number of things are scarce by any definition you want to impose. It all depends on how much money and education you have and where you live. What you seem to really mean is they aren't scarce for you.

I'm also sick of hearing about colonial sins. It happened, and all the chest beating in the world isn't going to change that. Just like the civil war happened. I don't like erasing history because history is difficult. We just had a fit over world heritage sites because various people wanted to rewrite and cleanse the past. How are you different, than them?

I'm trying to get my head around the idea that somehow those statues presence is meaningful. Skinheads and others will still be here if we tear down all the statues that could offend anyone. Why not just tear down all statues and make any new statues cubes, they all will look alike and offend no one.

It isn't even a particularly new idea. They took Arlington from Lee and turned it into a cemetery. If you want to go to extremes, let's hit every cemetery, that has civil war graves, and deprecate all headstones of those who didn't wear blue. While we are at it, tear down the Jefferson memorial and the Washington Monument because they were both slaveholders. Burn the Constitution, because it codified that blacks weren't really people. How much of our shared history do I have to give up to make you happy?

On statue in particular come to mind because I live in Kentucky. One is a memorial, to a man named Castleman. He's a mixed blessing. He fought for the South and was pardoned by Andrew Johnson. He was a man who influenced my city to some small degree. And his statue sits at the entrance to one of our Omlsted Parks, in a neighborhood he developed. What moral obligation do I have here? He was human, he did some things I detest, but on balance his life seems not to be that horrible. No more so than mine. Your voices seem to want to tear down that statue. What will I accomplish if I listen to those voices?


Another idea that is getting on my last nerve, is the idea that statistical truths are meaningful to individuals. Economist's can't agree on how to count unemployment, much less say anything about the population in general. Jobs aren't mobile and you can't predict where they will be available. If you live in the mountains and the jobs aren't there, then jobs become a scarce resource in those locations. If you live in the city and have the wrong skills you will be no more employable than someone in the mountains. And this describes lots of the poor, both white and black and immigrant. If the job market was like people seem to think it is, than we wouldn't have cities bidding for factories, like beggars on a corner in Delhi. Employment is not an incompressible fluid.

Sometimes this reads like, tough shit, don't feel bad because you lost your job. While you are hurting, hold onto the thought that people in Topeka are fully employed. The small problem of how you do whatever it is that you do to survive, is your little problem. We have full employment. See, unemployment is 3 percent. :lol: Obviously I don't find that funny.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby ObsessoMom » Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:49 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:You live in a far different world than I do. Any number of things are scarce by any definition you want to impose. It all depends on how much money and education you have and where you live. What you seem to really mean is they aren't scarce for you.

I'm also sick of hearing about colonial sins. It happened, and all the chest beating in the world isn't going to change that. Just like the civil war happened. I don't like erasing history because history is difficult.


"How much money and education you have and where you live" has nothing to do with history, then? Don't the advantages and disadvantages of the family into which you were born have anything to do with "how much money you have and where you live"?

It's easy to say (in effect--I'm paraphrasing), "Stop whining, everyone has to play the cards they're dealt," when the deck has been stacked for generations to actively disadvantage families other than the one into which you happened to be born.

No, you didn't stack the deck yourself. You may not even think your family was particularly advantaged. But your family probably was not excluded from certain business and educational opportunities that for generations were not available to the descendants of slaves. So it comes across as hypocritical to be enjoying the fruits of that inequality--perhaps even living in a community from whose loveliness blacks were excluded by generations of civic leaders emulating local heroes like Castleman--as you say that the inequalities of the past happened a long time ago, and why can't we just let bygones be bygones?

Aren't you advocating "erasing history" when you advocate wiping the slate clean?

morriswalters wrote:If you want to go to extremes, let's hit every cemetery, that has civil war graves, and deprecate all headstones of those who didn't wear blue. While we are at it, tear down the Jefferson memorial and the Washington Monument because they were both slaveholders. Burn the Constitution, because it codified that blacks weren't really people. How much of our shared history do I have to give up to make you happy?


Slippery slope, much?

Moving a Confederate statue that is a rallying point TODAY, for white supremacists TODAY, to a location less convenient for that purpose is not erasing history.

Nor is it hitting every cemetery to deprecate (whatever that means) all headstones of those who didn't wear blue.

Nor is it burning the Constitution.

This "dear heavens, if we move a rallying point for today's white supremacists to a museum, where will all it end?" is a hyperbole courtesy of the King of Hyperbole himself, Donald J. Trump. Such hyperboles don't make for reasonable conversation. Which is a pity, because I do think you are interested in having a reasonable conversation, and have valuable contributions to make to such a conversation. Perhaps dial back the hyperbole a bit?

[Edited to not put words in your mouth so much, which is also not conducive to reasonable conversation. Sorry.]
Last edited by ObsessoMom on Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:04 pm UTC, edited 5 times in total.

Trebla
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Trebla » Thu Aug 24, 2017 12:56 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:deprecate all headstones of those who didn't wear blue.


I am unexplainably amused by the thought of walking through a cemetery and seeing half the gravestones with lines drawn through them. (I know this was a typo for "desecrate", but it amused me).

You live in a far different world than I do. Any number of things are scarce by any definition you want to impose. It all depends on how much money and education you have and where you live. What you seem to really mean is they aren't scarce for you.


You guys are talking about different types of scarcity. While fresh food may be scarce in some areas, as a nation we have more than enough. You can't magically wave a wand and say that it can be distributed properly, perhaps the real scarcity is competency in macro-scale planning?

While we are at it, tear down the Jefferson memorial and the Washington Monument because they were both slaveholders. Burn the Constitution, because it codified that blacks weren't really people. How much of our shared history do I have to give up to make you happy?


At the moment (and this could always change), nobody in the main conversation is attempting to give up history. The current movement is to *stop celebrating people/statues for the terrible things that they did.* Not erase them from history, remember them, but don't leave up monuments to celebrate them for fighting to continue slavery. Washington and Jefferson are known for their positive deeds, the terrible things they did were part of who they are, but that's not what's being commemorated by their monuments. It's not clear to me what Castleman's distinction is... to me, the clear line about these statues is the purpose of the statue (which is usually easy to tell by the inscription) and whether it's celebrating something positive or negative.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8750
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:31 pm UTC

I'm already a minority, so that argument falls flat.

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby morriswalters » Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:19 pm UTC

ObsessoMom wrote:Slippery slope, much?
What exactly do you think those statues represent?

In several fields, deprecation is the discouragement of use of some terminology, feature, design, or practice; typically because it has been superseded or is no longer considered efficient or safe – but without completely removing it or prohibiting its use.


We have 14 National Cemeteries dedicated to the Union dead. After reflecting on this, I find this is a discussion I don't need.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby ObsessoMom » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:09 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
ObsessoMom wrote:Slippery slope, much?
What exactly do you think those statues represent?


Okay, I'll attempt to answer. Feel free to correct me if you think my interpretation is inaccurate.

I think statues of Washington and Jefferson tend to represent and honor BOTH their wartime AND peacetime public service activities, on behalf of both the United States of America AND the State of Virginia. (Obviously, Jefferson didn't have battlefield duty, but I consider his diplomacy in France during the Revolutionary War to be wartime activity.)

I think statues of Lee and Jackson tend to represent those individuals in a much more limited way: namely, ONLY in the act of taking arms against the United States of America. Yes, both men served in the United States Army during the Mexican-American War, but that service is not what their statues are honoring. And yes, Lee did plenty of public service before and after the war, especially during his leadership of the military academy at West Point and of what is now Washington and Lee University, but again, that is generally not what statues of him are honoring. When statues depict Lee in a Confederate uniform--often seated on his warhorse, Traveller--he is being honored mainly for taking arms against the United States, rather than for any of his many other contributions to society.

Some have argued that all four of these Virginians (Washington, Jefferson, Lee, and Jackson) were rebels against what they saw as a tyrannical and oppressive government, and were expressing their right to self-determination. Some have argued that Washington and Jefferson were obviously slaveholders, and that the Declaration of Independence's proposition "that all men are created equal" was not intended as a statement of racial equality until Abraham Lincoln belatedly reinterpreted it as such in his Gettysburg Address. Some have argued that the Constitution that Washington and Jefferson helped to establish enshrined slavery, before it was amended.

However, the statues honoring Lee and Jackson have become a rallying point for modern rebellion against the (amended) U.S. Constitution's principle of racial equality. Statues of Washington and Jefferson have not (yet), because Washington and Jefferson did not take arms against the United States.

It's really that simple.

You asked whether we should "Burn the Constitution, because it codified that blacks weren't really people."

News flash: the Constitution was already amended to remedy that injustice. So why would moving the statues of Confederate generals to museums lead us down any slippery slope to burning the Constitution? The portions you mention are no longer in effect, due to the amendment process.

You also say:

morriswalters wrote:We have 14 National Cemeteries dedicated to the Union dead. After reflecting on this, I find this is a discussion I don't need.


I honestly don't know what you're so upset about in this regard. You seem to be missing the forest for the trees, or the missing the (non-existent) federally-maintained Confederate cemeteries for the many, MANY federally-maintained Confederate headstones and memorials.

Please read this 2013 article from the Atlantic:

You Won't Believe What the Government Spends on Confederate Graves: Taxpayers now pay more to maintain rebel graves and monuments than those honoring Union soldiers.

I've spoilered the first part of it:

Spoiler:
The most visible commemoration comes every Memorial Day when the president places a wreath at the Confederate Monument in Arlington National Cemetery, the vast memorial built on an estate confiscated from Robert E. Lee. Lower down in public awareness is the fact that 10 military bases—including prominent installations like Fort Lee and Fort Bragg—are named after Confederate leaders, a fact that Jamie Malanowski highlighted and criticized in a Memorial Day New York Times op-ed that stirred a heated debate.

But even most Civil War experts don't realize the federal government has spent more than $2 million in the past decade to produce and ship headstones honoring Confederate dead, often at the request of local Confederate heritage groups in the South, and overwhelmingly in Georgia. Going back to at least 2002, the government has provided more headstones for Confederate graves than for Union soldiers' graves. In that time, the Department of Veterans Affairs has provided approximately 33,000 headstones for veterans of the Civil War. Sixty percent of those have been for Confederate soldiers.

I found out about this program in 2002 while researching the resurgence of political activity by so-called "neo-Confederate" groups in the early part of the last decade. Since then I've spoken to at least a dozen Civil War experts who had no idea it existed and were surprised to hear about it.

But they—we, our federal government—do provide headstones for Confederate dead all over the country: 18,593 of them in the last 10 years, and an average of more than 2,000 per year going back at least several years before that, according to the VA. At an average cost of around $176 to manufacture each headstone, and an average shipping cost of $75, that's more than half a million dollars every year. (The total cost over the last 10 years is lower due to inflation: In 2003, the VA told me manufacturing was closer $100 per headstone, and shipping was around $10.) By far the lion's share of these headstones are for graves in Southern states and for a number of years, Georgia had more than twice as many orders as any other state.

The Confederate headstones are provided by the VA's National Cemetery Administration. Providing headstones for America's fallen soldiers is a tradition that goes back to laws passed in 1867 and 1873 that ordered the Department of War to properly establish national cemeteries and furnish graves with headstones. In 1879, the country began furnishing headstones for veterans buried in private cemeteries, too.

It wasn't until the 20th century, though, that Confederate veterans were included in this tradition. It started with legislation passed in 1906, at first providing headstones for a very limited number of Confederate veterans, specifically prisoners of war, "who died in Federal prisons and military hospitals in the North and who were buried near their places of confinement." That mandate for the Department of War was expanded to all Confederate graves with a law passed in 1929.

Responsibility for headstones was transferred to the VA in the National Cemeteries Act of 1973, which declared, "The Administrator shall furnish, when requested, appropriate Government headstones or markers at the expense of the United States for the unmarked graves of" a number of categories of veterans and those who'd served the country or were buried in a national cemetery, including specifically, "Soldiers of the Union and Confederate Armies of the Civil War."

In addition to headstones, the NCA is now responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of a total of 33 monuments and memorials that honor Confederate soldiers and causes, according to NCA Senior Historian Sara Amy Leach. The monuments were often erected by private groups like the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Looking through a list of them gives a sense of the various waves of Confederate nostalgia in America: Nine were built in the years 1910 to 1912, four were built in the 1920s and '30s, and the most recent wave saw four more built between 2003 and 2006, with other key periods of concentration in the century and a half since the Civil War.
[/quote]


Show me another government that so honors the memory and dignity of those who took arms against it, and lost. Other governments that put down rebellions tend to be much more hard-hearted about such memorials, because they do have an unfortunate tendency to encourage future generations to pick up the lost cause.

QED.

By the way, here's a recent NPR interview with Rev. Robert Lee IV, regarding the use of his ancestor's image by white supremacists:

http://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544817830 ... te-statues

A snippet:

GARCIA-NAVARRO: Please tell us, what are your feelings, in the wake of Charlottesville, about the statues of your ancestor?

LEE IV: Well, I'm a pastor. And one of the things that I automatically go to is this is a form of idolatry, very plain and simply. We have made an idol of Robert Edward Lee. We have made him an idol of white supremacy. We have made him an idol of nationalism and of bigotry and of hate and of racism. And that's unacceptable. And not only as a person of goodwill but as for me as a Christian, I can no longer sit by and allow my family's name to be used as hate-filled speech.


There are many descendants of Robert E. Lee, and they have expressed many different opinions, but I found this one interesting.

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby morriswalters » Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:43 pm UTC

@ObsessoMom

I've spoilered part of this because it is preachy, which I hate, and it got long. But it gives you some perspective on my point of view. I appreciate that there are other valid points of view. What follows is best described as an essay telling you what I will discuss, and why it is the only thing I will discuss. And that I'm only interested discussing it without reference to race.

What we discuss, must end as close to a center as it can, so that at that point, if it is true for anyone, it must be true for everyone. I'll give you an analogy. I want to fashion this as a deleted neighborhood proof in Mathematics. I will only look at this one thing since it is representative of the whole problem. The only true statements, will be statements which don't require racial references.

This restricts the conversation in such a way, that it is about the problem and not the emotions. How do I distribute that resource in a way that is blind, or random. So that when we distribute the resource everyone's odds of obtaining that resource is precisely the same. There is a Mathematical form for this equation, as it turns out. And it shows up everywhere. y=kx. Proportionality. Not equality. y/x=proportionality. The underlying premise is that we can't all be equal, but that resources can be shared in a way, such that the is no Tragedy of The Commons. Else this becomes a shouting match to no point. I'm guessing nobody want this conversation. We seem to like the other more.

This is running long so I'll end it, and I'll tell you that if you want to talk to me, the only thing I will talk about is education, bounded in the fashion I suggested. If you don't fix access to this you can't fix it anywhere. And I'll understand if you don't wish to talk to me at all.

Spoiler:
Do you find the idea that they are still buying tombstones offensive? Almost all the bodies had to be moved at least once. The graves were so thick on farms around battle fields that they were unfarmable. They moved the bodies because they had to. The only planned National cemeteries for Confederates were graveyards in at least three places that held Confederate prisoners. Including one in Chicago. Mostly the Confederate dead were buried in smaller private Cemeteries. I find this thought painful for any number of reasons, but mostly because they are all American graves. This is what the deep right and the deep left will do if they both get their way. I find that thought sickening.

I won't deny the case that some statues are designed to do more than that. But the bulk of them are makers for the dead. Castleman's statue makes the point. He died after 1900. He moved on, and joined public life. The man honored by that statue, in that place, isn't the 19 year old who went off to Rebellion. It sits in a neighborhood he helped build, looking at a park that he he had a hand in making what it is today. Thank you to the MF that defaced it. :evil: That will cost my government 9000 dollars. Call that hyperbole. Almost certainly someone somewhere is thinking about tit for tat.

Certainly we need to have this discussion, but we need to understand what the statues truly represent. I wasn't really joking about cubes, but I will use it for an analogy anyway. What I want you to see, is that a statue is a symbol where half the meaning, is in the shape, and half the meaning is in the text on the statue. I want to understand the text. You do whatever. But once it's done, for me it's over. I move on. We're still fighting the civil war because people can't move on.

In terms of the Constitution, either end will rewrite it if they get an opportunity. Just what do you think they want to do? It's exactly what they did at the end of the war. And why the Constitution is amendable and difficult to amend. The Supreme Court exists to give us a way to the law that embraces everyone equally. Civil Wars happens when that process fails. And people are fools if they believe that process can be made perfect as long as there are humans in the chain. Every human is a bigot in waiting. I find no humor in that at all.

Here is how you remove racism. You destroy differences. You don't enshrine them in laws. This behavior was the basis of institutional racism. Civil Rights laws came in two forms. In one form they described behaviors that were illegal, discrimination by race. The others sought to add parity, to say we took something, and to make it right, we have to find a way to return an intangible. So they came up with set asides. Things like affirmative action. People are asking valid questions now. How long will this continue? And if it continues, is it time to change the former to make more equitable, not to be confused with fair, so that we don't introduce inequality in some other axis. The process isn't very satisfying to anyone.

Here is what they didn't do at the end of the war. They ended slavery, but they didn't remove the laws that set up a case almost as bad as slavery was. What King and others recognized was that to break this hold, you had to changes those laws. The Civil War was layered with nuance. But both sides were racist. They fought for a lot of reasons, not just one. Had it been merely about slavery and equal rights, those laws would have been changed and enforced. It took close to a 100 years to get to The Civil Rights Act of the 60's.

My mother, sometime in the fifties, found herself in a theater with blacks for the first time. My father shushed her when she pointed it out. I watched King, the Panthers, and others make a sea change in one generation. Ending in King's assassination and the riots nationwide. Starting in 63, we had a President assassinated, his brother shot dead, King, and others. The body count was non trivial. And it ended with Nixon resigning. I only say this so you see the prism I'm looking through.

So here is my question. What conversation do you want to have? While your looking at statues, I'm seeing the enforcement arm of the US Government hi jacked by someone much closer to the extremes than someone in the center. And a man sitting in the center who is a populist, the ultimate democrat who believes that fair is something applies only to the group that elected him. I'll suggest that because of this there are other more important battles to have. If Hillary's failure says anything, it says that people are tired of the same stories told by Democrats and Republicans. Neither mainstream got elected.

We have other problems of import to the Black and White communities, not to mention all the minorities that we don't talk about.

Extraordinary murder rates in Black urban communities.

A question revolving around set asides. It's a tactic, and the question is, when does it do more harm than good? And if that point exists?

One question is in education. How do you make education a non zero sum game? Here is the geometry. There are a finite number of seats each year in Harvard. There are more candidates for those seats then there are seats. How should we fix that, if it needs fixing? That status quo is one solution among many. Are there better ones?

There is a social problem. Whites are a majority. Whatever you think about white FU's, to get to them you have to go through the middle. So any choice you make, has to take into account the fears that everyone has in common. Whites becoming less dominant is something that will happen, no matter what. The course you have to navigate to is that point. My personal point of view is that eventually there will be another Civil War if we can't find a way to answer these questions. Is there a point where everybody feels, that whatever they lost, they received value for it, when they gave it away. Or did they feel like it was stolen?

And this one I won't argue here, people go out of their minds on it. We seem to want both equality and diversity. Those are opposites. It implies a situation that SCOTUS said was implicitly illegal in one case because it's unfair. Separate but equal. They seem to want diversity among points of view that they understand. Not all points of view. This is the dichotomy of Morals. I'd like to see less diversity, not more. But I'm looking at a different axis where everyone gets the same chances.

The reason I chopped off my earlier replay, was that while thinking of those graves, I came to the conclusion, that if I where Emperor, I would surround both the far left and the far right, and kill every damn one of them. Erect a monument with no names, just a reminder. This is what happens when talking fails. This is hyperbole. But it is why, as I write this, that I have become angry. And I'm trying hard not to be angry.


Morris Walters

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Belial » Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:53 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:You live in a far different world than I do. Any number of things are scarce by any definition you want to impose. It all depends on how much money and education you have and where you live. What you seem to really mean is they aren't scarce for you.


I mean they objectively aren't scarce on a global scale. They are *hoarded*. We, collectively, the human race, have all of those resources, we've just allowed some people to hoard more than they could possibly use personally, at the cost of others having too little or none.

I'm also sick of hearing about colonial sins. It happened, and all the chest beating in the world isn't going to change that. Just like the civil war happened. I don't like erasing history because history is difficult.


I said economic imperialism. Which is still happening. We destabilize and exploit other governments, drain their resources, hollow out their economies and make it impossible for them to get back on their feet and thus cut off our sources of cheap labor and raw materials. Then we act surprised when their starving and homeless citizens turn up on the shores of the bloated, pampered empire that we built with what we stole from them.

That's imperialism. That's happening. Right now. We just do it without flying our flag over their country these days, and sometimes two or three colonial powers share the take, and somehow people act like that makes it different.

Finally, on statues: if you're worried about erasing history, you will be thrilled to learn about the concept of books. That's where we put history. Statues aren't historical pedagogy, they're celebrations, and they reflect the values of the people doing the celebrating. Which is why liberated countries often tear down the statues of their former dictators first thing. Strangely no one forgets the dictator existed.

Right now, a lot of the South is saying it celebrates white supremacy. Not...ideal. It's not "preserving history" to build a heroically posed statue of Osama Bin Laden in the middle of ground zero, and it's equally fucked up to keep a statue commemorating Stonewall Jackson in the American South.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8750
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:12 pm UTC

1) Statues

Statues arent always celebration, sometimes they are memorials and sometimes they are warnings.

The question then becomes, can you honor fallen soldiers in a way that doesn't also the cause they died for? The best answer I can give is that the Vietnam memorial does a pretty good job at that, and even lightly denigrates the cause as it memorialized the sacrifices: the list of names begins in the middle and ends there, saying we end where we started.

2) Economic Imperialism

And yet, Mexico's economy is growing faster than their population, and their birth rate is slowly declining and stabilizing. And most of Latin America for that matter, except notably Venezuela; the "economic imperialism" seems to slowly improve the countries it's in and the countries that reject it slide backwards. According to your theory, Latin America should be experiencing permanent stagnation instead of steady growth.

Or maybe your description is just a European thing?

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby morriswalters » Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:06 pm UTC

Belial wrote:I mean they objectively aren't scarce on a global scale. They are *hoarded*. We, collectively, the human race, have all of those resources, we've just allowed some people to hoard more than they could possibly use personally, at the cost of others having too little or none.
By the rules I gave in my last post I shouldn't be discussing this. But I will using my other rule. To discuss this consider the ideal case.

Everybody gets a little bit of everything. Call it oil. The first axis is that somebody has to start. It's discriminatory by location on the surface, it isn't everywhere. There is another axis. The point in time when you can actually see oil as a resource. And still another axis, when the infrastructure exists to use that resource. There is another axis where people close to a resource believe that resource is theirs because they are close to it. So the main axis describes a situation where someone has to be first. The only other possibilities are a tie, or second place. So if you suggest equal allocation, align these four axis in time.

You can't make them equal, that moment is in the past. Now what? Someone has to distribute the oil. It's equally available to anyone who can pay. The price isn't discriminatory, the ability to pay for it is. Fix that problem. What you want to do is make the price affordable as is possible. You do that by competing with oil and driving down the price. Call that solar.

I'll show you the irony. This defines scarcity in any regime that is dependent on location. Even solar. And you can't get to solar without that process. To get to solar cells or thermal boilers(solar concentrators) you have to use oil like what it is, a battery. With every thing it implies.
Belial wrote:I said economic imperialism. Which is still happening. We destabilize and exploit other governments, drain their resources, hollow out their economies and make it impossible for them to get back on their feet and thus cut off our sources of cheap labor and raw materials. Then we act surprised when their starving and homeless citizens turn up on the shores of the bloated, pampered empire that we built with what we stole from them.
This is abundance. In a confined space with a fixed amount of sugar, yeast cells will reproduce until they die of starvation. All the yeast cells don't all die at the same time. This is a problem with a fix. But one nobody wants to use. What you want is a solution that will support the yeast cells for the longest period of time. With everybody getting equal parts of the resources that they need to survive. That is attackable in precisely two ways. Grow fewer yeast or get more sugar. I will now argue that there really aren't two choices. The yeast will always outgrow their food supply. And resources aren't infinite. If you want to fix the problem you think you've identified, I suggest that you must first do that.
Belial wrote:Which is why liberated countries often tear down the statues of their former dictators first thing. Strangely no one forgets the dictator existed.
You've made an obvious category error. Historical statues aren't monuments to dictators, they are tombstones for dead men and ideas. There is an argument to be made, that they belong in graveyards, and not on the streets. I can get behind that idea, because of what they are. When seen in the vein I would mark any King statue with a list of every name, of every US citizen, that King made better. So we are reminded of why he did what he did.

Your last paragraph is noise by my rule, I decline it.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby ObsessoMom » Sat Aug 26, 2017 6:28 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:This is running long so I'll end it, and I'll tell you that if you want to talk to me, the only thing I will talk about is education, bounded in the fashion I suggested. If you don't fix access to this you can't fix it anywhere.


I couldn't quite grasp the complicated way you were defining the boundaries for this conversation, so I hope you'll forgive me if I inadvertently or apologetically break the rules. Discussing ideal cases helps to remove some of the emotional distractions, but sometimes the particular details of real cases are important.

In a probably-futile attempt at brevity I'm going to focus on just one part of your latest post for now. (It's only tangentially related to educational access, but I did at least want to answer your question before moving on.)

morriswalters wrote:Do you find the idea that they are still buying tombstones offensive? Almost all the bodies had to be moved at least once. The graves were so thick on farms around battle fields that they were unfarmable. They moved the bodies because they had to. The only planned National cemeteries for Confederates were graveyards in at least three places that held Confederate prisoners. Including one in Chicago. Mostly the Confederate dead were buried in smaller private Cemeteries. I find this thought painful for any number of reasons, but mostly because they are all American graves. This is what the deep right and the deep left will do if they both get their way. I find that thought sickening.


Oh, no, I don't find it offensive that the U.S. federal government is still buying tombstones for Confederate soldiers, at significant expense. I only mentioned it because you seemed offended by the disparity between the number of national cemeteries honoring Union dead and those for Confederate dead.

I do acknowledge the existence of (but don't share myself) the misguided attitude that the United States should keep punishing the Confederates for having dared rebel. Am I correct in assuming that you feel that this attitude explains the dearth of national cemeteries dedicated only to Confederate soldiers?

You say "They are all American graves," and Abraham Lincoln seems to have shared that perspective. However, the occupants of those Confederate graves would probably have objected to being called "Americans." They had renounced their United States citizenship and had taken oaths to a new and different nation (the Confederate States of America). They fought and died because they wanted the right to declare themselves NOT to be "Americans" anymore.

I'm quite confident that once people are dead, they don't care about such things anymore, but while they were living those Confederates might have balked at the notion of an American flag someday flying over their grave, declaring them to be citizens of the U.S.A. rather than the C.S.A.

If you think about it, it's surprising that the Southern states transferred the maintenance of Confederate headstones and collective memorials to the very entity against which the Southern states had rebelled--namely, the federal government of the United States. (Then again, the economy of the South was so shattered for so long that surrendering responsibility for those graves and memorials might have been the best way to get funds for them at all.)

I'm not surprised that the federal government of the United States accepted the responsibility for these Confederate graves. The Union had claimed that since the Constitution was establishing a new nation "in perpetuity," there were provisions in the Constitution for new states to join the Union, but none for old states to secede from it; so the Union regarded the secessions as invalid, and said that the rebels were still citizens of the United States of America, even against their own will. Treating the Confederate graves as American graves reinforced that view.

I'm not surprised that the effort to provide headstones for Civil War soldiers is still going on, some 160 years after the end of the Civil War. Obviously, war is chaotic, and in chaotic conditions the immediate needs of the living must often be a higher priority than the meticulous identification of the graves of the dead. And for some decades after the war, many Northerners never forgave the South for rebelling. Making it difficult for former Confederates to have the comfort of visiting their lost ones' graves might have been a petty form of payback.

I wonder why today there is so little publicity that the U.S. federal government is still trying to do right by the Confederate dead, in addition to the Union dead. It's so hush-hush that hardly anyone knows that this is happening, which to me seems to negate much of the point of it happening at all.

I think you are right when you say that "They are all American graves," but mainly because many current-day Americans feel such affinity and kinship with the occupants (identified or unidentified) of Civil War graves, and not just on the Union side.

Disrespecting Confederate graves disrespects many modern Americans. (Just as diminishing the horrors of slavery, lynchings, and racially biased laws and policing disrespects many modern Americans.)

Sorry that this is so long--I don't have time to make it shorter.

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby morriswalters » Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:44 pm UTC

Who was the governing authority after the war? Who else was there to speak for the dead? And please don't tell me a 150 years after the event that I'm supposed to thank the government for doing something they are supposed to do. That they are still putting tombstones up today, says how unimportant it is except for some very few. And lest you forget how close that war is to today, there was at least some civil war veterans alive in the year of my birth.

Here's my rule. Talk about the problem. The problem isn't racism. We killed 3 million and it didn't stop racism. It's baked in at some level. Talk about what racism does. I picked education because when you look at it deep enough, you start to see the scope of the problem in that one topic.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby sardia » Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:38 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:1) Statues

Statues arent always celebration, sometimes they are memorials and sometimes they are warnings.

The question then becomes, can you honor fallen soldiers in a way that doesn't also the cause they died for? The best answer I can give is that the Vietnam memorial does a pretty good job at that, and even lightly denigrates the cause as it memorialized the sacrifices: the list of names begins in the middle and ends there, saying we end where we started.

2) Economic Imperialism

And yet, Mexico's economy is growing faster than their population, and their birth rate is slowly declining and stabilizing. And most of Latin America for that matter, except notably Venezuela; the "economic imperialism" seems to slowly improve the countries it's in and the countries that reject it slide backwards. According to your theory, Latin America should be experiencing permanent stagnation instead of steady growth.

Or maybe your description is just a European thing?

I'm surprised nobody here realizes why those confederate statues were even put up. http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2 ... e-statues/
Yes, these monuments were put up to honor Confederate leaders and soldiers. But the timing of the monument building makes it pretty clear what the real motivation was: to physically symbolize white terror against blacks. They were mostly built during times when Southern whites were engaged in vicious campaigns of subjugation against blacks, and during those campaigns the message sent by a statue of Robert E. Lee in front of a courthouse was loud and clear.

No one should think that these statues were meant to be somber postbellum reminders of a brutal war. They were built much later, and most of them were explicitly created to accompany organized and violent efforts to subdue blacks and maintain white supremacy in the South. I wouldn’t be surprised if even a lot of Southerners don’t really understand this, but they should learn. There’s a reason blacks consider these statues to be symbols of bigotry and terror. It’s because they are.
It's like saying those burning crosses are really meant to inspire jesus into the hearts of black folks. Now these white folks protecting these statues may not know this, (willful ignorance not withstanding) but I'd look real carefully before declaring statues of treason as harmless.

As for immigration, youth bulges, and boomer retirements: Those immigrants aren't being custom made, they already exist. If countries have too many people, and the US has too few, it sounds silly to refuse them.

xkcdhatguy
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 7:36 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby xkcdhatguy » Sun Aug 27, 2017 9:37 am UTC

i don't believe that someone is racist just because they don't actively hate upon nazis. i mean, bad as they are, they're not significant in the world's eye anymore. so why pay any attention to them at all except to belittle a president who is already off the rails when it comes to needing to fix his reputation?

everyone's entitled to their own opinion on race. people make death threats against each other for differing political ideologies every fucking day (which is total nonsense and the reason politics shouldn't even be taken seriously anymore). and, though this may not relate directly, is political party choice even a non-genetic variable? hardly. it's almost always decided for you.

hate is bad. but really the amount of hate you guys are laying on Trump for something he probably doesn't even believe in (and frankly i think you are just shitting yourself in that you ACTUALLY believe that's the case) is even worse than whatever paltry influence a dead and dying party/belief system the nazis hold is doing in terms of damage to the country. and i mean, if your response is this heavy to them/Trump's lack of response, then you've really won the fucking war already. social pressure is your weapon and you make plenty of good use out of it as it (though hell, you should be more inventive with this and maybe think up some way to really oust the fuckers who are clinging to such a fucked up ideology of the past).

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby morriswalters » Sun Aug 27, 2017 11:05 am UTC

sardia wrote:but I'd look real carefully before declaring statues of treason as harmless.
The curve the writer is looking at speaks in numerous ways. It's an always descending curve for one. It gets closer to zero with every tick of the clock. Would you like us to say that all statues that were put up are racist? Or is he saying that some were? Here is what he did imply without saying it. All statues were put up for the same reason. By treasonous racists. And if I accept that reasoning, I would melt them back to their competent metals. Or crush the stone they are made of. I don't. I'm sure some were, and I'm just as sure others weren't. Talk about how you draw that distinction.

Why exactly did we fight? You can't answer that question cleanly. I don't think the events of the Jim Crow years were an exclusive property of the South. Certainly slavery wasn't abolished till the end of the war. And all slave states didn't secede. And all men didn't go to war to free the slaves. That's naive reasoning. See this. His graph may represent how the importance of that frame of mind is dying more than it represents anything else. At the turn of the 20th century the men of that generation who fought in the war were dying as a group as they moved into their 60's. The last of them died during the second peak. 1900 represented the the political peak of the generation that fought and lost, in terms of their ability to control the agenda.

The Military remained segregated until sometime after WW2. Even the Space program was segregated. And some form of it will exist as long as the population is majority white. What the Civil Rights Era represented, was blacks saying enough is enough. And they got the attention of Johnson, a Senator from Texas, a rebel state and the US Congress. There were 151 race riots in 67, and at the assassination of King, there were 11 very nasty ones. Including one in DC that required Federal Troops. An interesting point I had never considered, I accepted it without thought, or wondering why Cops never shoot rioters in most cases.
Compared to the previous summer of rioting, the number of fatalities was lower, largely attributed to new procedures instituted by the federal government, and orders not to fire on looters.[6]

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:04 am UTC

Bernie is shaping up to be America's Trotsky.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7302
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Zamfir » Mon Aug 28, 2017 5:25 pm UTC

Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:Bernie is shaping up to be America's Trotsky.

In charge of the red army, ousted once the enemies of the revolution have been defeated?

User avatar
Dr34m(4+(h3r
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 4:34 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Dr34m(4+(h3r » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:05 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
Dr34m(4+(h3r wrote:Bernie is shaping up to be America's Trotsky.

In charge of the red army, ousted once the enemies of the revolution have been defeated?


The false hope spot of a nation plunging headfirst into despotism.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8750
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:07 pm UTC

I was more hoping for "affair with Selma Hayek".

But seriously, no, I don't see Bernie as that last hope before despotism thing. And even if I did, I don't agree with Trotsky being a last hope. Even if Trotsky had won and had turned Stalin into fertilizer when Trotsky had the chance, it wouldn't have protected Russia from despotism because it was already a steaming pile of mass murdering despotism in 1918. And before then, but that's not the point. Trotsky is kind of like Che Guevara in the sense that he makes a great folk hero for those who don't look too closely, but the reality is that Trotsky and Lenin were murdering people from the start, and in ways that ducked up the whole country in ways only a radical idealist could. E.g., blaming the kulaks (less-poor peasants) for "hoarding," murdering the ones with extra grain, and wondering why the other peasants stopped producing a surplus.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby morriswalters » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:18 pm UTC

So much for race relations.

duodecimus
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby duodecimus » Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:40 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:Talk about how you draw that distinction.


How does "statues of men who fought to keep slavery, erected during an upsurge in white on black violence" sound as a standard of statues that should probably get taken down for being racist? The slippery slope that leads to the destruction of all art and culture is a bit of a stretch, isn't it?
I'd rather try to understand why you think that distinction is hard to make. Sardia just gave fairly solid ground that these statues were put up to send a message. Could someone go full on 'lets erase history'? Sure, but I don't see why you thing that it inevitably goes there.


morriswalters wrote:You can't answer that question cleanly.


I think that one side thought slaves should be free, and the other side wanted to keep having slaves, and then the ones who wanted slaves free won, and slaves got freed.

Its not that simple, sure, but it wasn't all that long ago. I would be very surprised if there aren't extensive records of military and personal communication by the movers and shakers of the time. Heck, the black codes wiki page you linked has a bibliography a third the length of the page.

---

Your posts are very hard to follow Morris. You switch subjects sentence to sentence, and don't follow a clear progression. Take this sentence from your second paragraph: "His graph may represent how the importance of that frame of mind is dying more than it represents anything else" I have no idea what this sentence is referring to. Who is 'He'? There is no graph on the wiki page, and the the page is about how southern states instituted a new slavery-light via low wages and debts, which shows the frame of mind about slavery was not dying.

I'm going to assume you have a graph that you forgot to link that shows when confederates died of old age. You understand that racism can be taught, right? Societal change basically revolves around children deciding their parents were wrong about something. That doesn't happen often unless said kid is exposed to new ideas. It seems breakneck today just because communication is so absurdly easy.

You then note how the military and NASA were segregated by race in the past and suggest that segregation will exist so long as there are more whites than everyone else. Then you drop that to mention the civil rights era, the first name of some senator, and that there were riots when M.L.K Jr was killed. Some point was accepted that somehow has to do with cops not shooting rioters.


I have no idea what your point is here. You've just listed things and assumed we filled in the blanks you left out.

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby morriswalters » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:02 am UTC

If you take the time to follow the the links, you will find a graph that Sardia posted. I apologize for not being clearer. I won't compound the problem by trying to make it clearer.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby ObsessoMom » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:18 pm UTC

I encourage everyone who missed the speech New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu gave in May 2017 (on the removal of three Confederate statues and a white supremacism memorial from prominent locations in New Orleans) to check it out: full text here, video here, for two reasons:

1. It is an excellent speech, and very relevant to this thread's discussion.

2. Mitch Landrieu's name is being bandied about as a potential candidate for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination in 2020.
Last edited by ObsessoMom on Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:32 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby ObsessoMom » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:35 pm UTC

Sorry for the double post. Once again I demonstrate that I'm too stoopid to tell the "edit" icon from the "quote as a new message" icon. SIGH.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8750
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Aug 29, 2017 10:54 pm UTC

You could learn about the delete post button:P.

ObsessoMom
Nespresso Bomb
Posts: 506
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 5:28 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby ObsessoMom » Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:28 am UTC

Or maybe I could learn to stop fussing with things after I've posted them.

Oh, my goodness, you were serious, there is a "Delete post" option immediately after I've posted something. But apparently not after anyone else has posted after me. Hmmm. Good to know. Maybe there's hope for me after all. Thanks.

User avatar
Peaceful Whale
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 10:38 pm UTC
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Peaceful Whale » Wed Aug 30, 2017 12:43 am UTC

Hey... read a tiny bit through this fora... and I'll tell you where I'm coming from.

I'm going to 8th grade in the D.C/ VA area. Honestly, I've never really seens any obvious racism in my school. Sure, there are those kids who bully, but not that many do it solely based on someone's race. No one really cared if you use terms like black instead of African American, I have heard 'N...' a lot, but that's from other black kids, and the "why can't I say that?" joke is pretty big here. I've got high hopes for the future. Especially becuase I'm in the advanced classes, and while their is a white majority, it's not that obvious. (I think in my classes, asians outnumber everyone 4-1. :P )

Any questions/words of advice? I've grown up in a completely different environment than a lot of you. 9/11 is something that we learn in history class, and the Afghanistan war's been going on my whole life. (Feel old yet?)
Peaceful Whale wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:Spell it out for me.
I-T

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8750
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:02 am UTC

Peaceful Whale wrote:Any questions/words of advice? I've grown up in a completely different environment than a lot of you. 9/11 is something that we learn in history class, and the Afghanistan war's been going on my whole life. (Feel old yet?)


Having lived in the DC area, my advice is NEVER try to drive to 7 corners when a derecho has knocked out all the traffic lights.

But more useful to you, some basics.

Spoiler:
1) Scared? Confused? Everyone your age is. That really confident person? Only good at convincing you they aren't.
2) When angry, ALWAYS ask yourself if you will care about this in 3 years.
3) All that kid stuff you think is stupid that you liked 5 years ago? 5 years from now you will think the same thing about today. And that never ends, at least it hasn't for me. Maybe it stops around age 40?
4) Most importantly, just always understand that the world is bullshit. Not that it's bullshit and there's no point, but that the bullshit is part of the point. Think of everything like a hazing in a fraternity, in that it's all nonsensical but we do it to prove we want to be a part of society.
5) You won't use 80% of what you learn in school, but you don't know which 80% just yet. And even if you know which 20% you actually need, half the point of learning everything else is to learn discipline of doing things you don't care about or don't want to, because even if you find the dream job you want, 80% of it is doing things you don't like. Want to be a doctor? Most of your time is spent filling in charts, or continuing ed, or fighting with insurance companies. Lawyer? Musician? Author? Just as bad.


More relevant to your question about race, though is try to imagine that 40 years from now you still think eating meat is ok, but the vast majority of kids are vegan. You, carnivore, are a monster. You grew up in a time before vat-meat was a common thing, so to you eating a regular steak is just something you do, not an act of hatred towards cows. But society doesn't care, and most of the young people are waiting for you to just fucking die already so they can outlaw slaughtering cows. That is racism and homophobia and transphobia in this day and age; it's inevitable that those things are going to mostly be relegated to the history books, but the old people fight tooth and nail against that, and we are just waiting for them to kick the bucket so we can be done with it. But unfortunately, those old people are still in control of politics and the corporate world, so they are still screwing preventing it from being completely eradicated until we are in control, at which point we will be fighting tooth and nail to enforce our own biases on the next generations. So yeah, you won't expect to see much more racism in your classmates than you'd expect to see in yourself, but you'll find plenty of it in the world outside of school where most people are older than you.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby sardia » Wed Aug 30, 2017 2:19 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:More relevant to your question about race, though is try to imagine that 40 years from now you still think eating meat is ok, but the vast majority of kids are vegan. You, carnivore, are a monster. You grew up in a time before vat-meat was a common thing, so to you eating a regular steak is just something you do, not an act of hatred towards cows. But society doesn't care, and most of the young people are waiting for you to just fucking die already so they can outlaw slaughtering cows. That is racism and homophobia and transphobia in this day and age; it's inevitable that those things are going to mostly be relegated to the history books, but the old people fight tooth and nail against that, and we are just waiting for them to kick the bucket so we can be done with it. But unfortunately, those old people are still in control of politics and the corporate world, so they are still screwing preventing it from being completely eradicated until we are in control, at which point we will be fighting tooth and nail to enforce our own biases on the next generations. So yeah, you won't expect to see much more racism in your classmates than you'd expect to see in yourself, but you'll find plenty of it in the world outside of school where most people are older than you.

You skipped systemic racism and implicit bias. I'm pretty shakey on some of it, but an example goes something like
1. Systemic racism - all the black people get priced out of cheap housing decades ago. Fast forward and now those cheap houses are worth a lot but black people didn't get any of that. Now the descendants of those people are separated by the wealth gap that ensued. Now those descendants are forced to grapple with why the black people's schools have worse schools (based off property values), less educations (college degrees are funded by equity or the option to tap that equity needed to go to school), and more crime (the best jobs are taken by white people living in the best neighborhoods). It's more complicated than saying KKK is bad, and don't lynch black people. Instead you get into these long drawn out histories and distributions of wealth ages ago that reverberate throughout time. Fixing that requires convincing people that what they have is based off taking from people decades before them AND it means taking some of it back.

2, Implicit bias is when you see a black guy. Your first instinct is to shoot him/see a threat/not hire him/etc etc. Your first thought after that is to justify an action that you were already going to do. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40124781
Over the past few decades, measures of explicit bias have been falling rapidly. For example, in Britain in the 1980s about 50% of the population stated that they opposed interracial marriages. That figure had fallen to 15% by 2011. The US has experienced a similarly dramatic shift. Going back to 1958, 94% of Americans said they disapproved of black-white marriage. That had fallen to just 11% by 2013.

But implicit bias - bias that we harbour unintentionally - is much stickier, much more difficult to eradicate. At least that's the claim. The IAT, first introduced two decades ago as a means of measuring implicit bias, is now used in laboratories all across the world. From Harvard's Project Implicit site alone, it has been taken nearly 18 million times. And there's a pattern. My result was far from unique. On the race test, most people show some kind of pro-white, anti-black bias. They are speedier connecting black faces to bad concepts than white faces. (Black people are not immune to this phenomenon themselves.)

Implicit bias has been used to explain, at least partially, everything from the election of President Donald Trump (implicit bias against his female opponent) and the disproportionate number of unarmed black men who are shot in the US by police.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 8750
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Aug 30, 2017 4:20 am UTC

My point is that it's inevitable that we are going to win the war against racism (and sexism and transphobia). It's not a question of how we can win that war, but how we can win it sooner.

I have a lot to say about a number of things, mostly about how we should focus more on fixing the broken criminal justice system than anything else, but I have a lot of unorthodox views on the other stuff which is only going to lead to a fight.

Trebla
Posts: 357
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby Trebla » Wed Aug 30, 2017 1:31 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:My point is that it's inevitable that we are going to win the war against racism (and sexism and transphobia). It's not a question of how we can win that war, but how we can win it sooner.


There are plenty of plausible (if improbable) ways to imagine this not happening, at least not for many generations. You could just as easily say "It's inevitable that we'll win the war against climate change" or "...that we'll colonize other planets" because of the obvious march of technological progress.

So while it may seem likely that we'll win the war against racism (eventually), and it's nice to think it's inevitable, I'm not sure that argument is any stronger than the Technological Singularity's inevitability.

morriswalters
Posts: 6904
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Let's talk about race, 2017 edition

Postby morriswalters » Wed Aug 30, 2017 5:53 pm UTC

You're an optimist. What you can do is to fix the tools that let it hurt people. Like education, policing and the court system, among others.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests