I will point you to the judgement in KIYOSHI HIRABAYASHI v. UNITED STATES (1943)
'Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality. For that reason, legislative classification or discrimination based on race alone has often been held to be a denial of equal protection. ' It has been cited in a number of civil rights cases.
Also I happen to like the formulation from Natalie Wales Latham Payne's Common Cause (1947) basic principles -- While people possess differing gifts and talents, they should be equal under the law and in the moral order.
Common Cause was a short lived moderate anti-Communism movement endorsed by Dorothy Thompson, and Albert Schlesinger Jr among others. Its principles still resonate today imho.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character”.
Sorry Martin, but it turns out your dream has become a nightmare that must be destroyed by the Marxist left.
At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
By the 1960s, Japanese-Americans were already successful in American society.
In World War II, Japanese-Americans were interned in various camps and typically lost everything. Yet, by the middle 1960s, they were more successful than whites in America. Back then, racism towards Japanese-Americans wasn’t hypothetical or limited to the internment camps. See “ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920)” (https://immigrationhistory.org/item/alien-land-laws-in-california-1913-1920/).
It should be noted that the Japanese-Americans in question were hardly elite. They were brought to America as farm laborers. However, even after the Word War II camps, they were highly successful. See “"Success Story, Japanese-American Style” (New York Times (1923-Current File); Jan 9, 1966)
The Japanese experience in the U.S. is no way analogous to the black experience in America. A brief period in internment in WW2, while horrible, is not African-American experience in America. Apples and oranges.
But, luckily for the Japanese, they never had to deal with government-codified segregation/Jim Crow. Makes things a lot easier.
Also, you might want to do a little more digging into the Asian "model minority" myth too while you're at it.
In the 20th century, Japanese-Americans faced far more discrimination than blacks (in California where almost all of the Japanese-Americans lived). Japanese-Americans were sent for years to internment camps. Nothing like that happened to blacks. There were laws forbidding Japanese-Americans from owning land. These laws did no apply to blacks.
Jim Crow didn't exist in California. However, Japanese-Americans in California were sent to camps.
By the way the 'model minority myth' is a myth. Asian-Americans are ahead in almost everything (arrest rates, crime rates, imprisonment rates, school discipline rates, years of education, SAT scores, college education, personal income, family income, etc.). Try facts before you post. You won't like them. But you won't be so trivially humiliated.
At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
I was surprised that statement was not included in the article. It is often specifically picked out by leftists to be dismantled and derided, in the same category as "color blind."
The progressives' rhetoric that "color blindness" is racist is a black hole. Once you go down it you give these totalitarians everything they ask for in the future because you have abandoned logic and reason in favor of endless grievances enforced by BLM/antifa blackmail violence. The end will only come when white people are enslaved in a quid pro quo. (Yep, antifa whites are useful idiots.)
At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
I agree. And this statement comes from arguable one of the most important speeches to ever be delivered regarding the need to abolish institutional racism.
Sorry, but when MLK made his famous Lincoln Memorial speech ("I have a dream"), he was attacking AA,. Let me quote from his speech.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. "
The reality of life in America is intense discrimination against whites and Asians. Quote
“How much harder is it for an Asian-American applicant? Mr. Zhao and the complaint cite 2009 research by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade that found an Asian-American student must earn an SAT score 140 points higher than a white student, 270 points higher than a Hispanic and 450 points higher than an African-American, all else being equal. So if a white applicant scored 2160 on the SAT, lower than last year’s Harvard average, an Asian-American would need to hit 2300, well into the 99% percentile, to have an equal chance at getting in.” So racism is actually quite real in the U.S. Anti-Asian racism is pervasive and profound.
The Homestead act was more than 100 years ago. Let's try for something a little closer to present. Singapore is only 34X richer than Haiti. Must be because of 'structural racism'.
"Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs ... And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war." - MLK, 1965
"Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic." - MLK, 1964
"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro," - MLK, Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community.
You are trying to educate someone who is deliberately twisting Martin Luther King’s legacy to suit his own political preferences. He does not care one whit what MLK stood for or what he said. He just thinks is a good rhetorical shot. Don’t waste your time.
MLK said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." You can't change that.
Not sure what Asians have to do with Martin Luther Kings stance on affirmative action but he was in favor of it. Here is another nice quote of his that I like.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
MLK said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." No matter how hard you try, you can't change what he actually said.
Those were different times no? Affirmative action may have been a band aid back in the 60s but it does not belong in current times where, I feel, there are no constraints on anyone to succeed.
Not unless it benefits you to continue to create generations of an underclass, a pre-defined group of people who are taught from cradle to grave that they are weak and unable to compete as equals. Convince them that they need ... oh, shock... the exact people who are oppressing them with the tyranny of low expectations.
“ At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
He was a strong supported of affirmative action because in his day it was needed. As the example of California's experience in abandoning affirmative action, and the lack of harm to minorities, it is no longer needed.
" Because of Proposition 209, students of color in the study earned 5 percent less on average every year, an effect that persisted into their mid-30s, when the study period ended. The impact on wages was concentrated among Hispanic students, who were also significantly less likely to earn more than $100,000 per year."
"In other words, the measure in California seems to have set back a generation of Black and Hispanic students, pushing them down and out of the University of California system and helping to widen the racial wealth gap, with seemingly little offsetting benefits for other students."
Great question! The Trump admin took firm steps to end racially-driven policies (unlike the Obama and Biden admins, who actively sought them) and the results showed for all races in economic success, decreased murder rate, lower taxes, etc. Actions, not words, matter. Meanwhile, minority Americans are being murdered in numbers we've not seen for decades.
He also restored funding to traditionally Black colleges, which had been cut by Obama, and has since been cut by Biden. I can't stand the man personally, but I don't let that prevent me from seeing the policies he put in place were effective.
As I and many others here have often repeated - I elected him to accomplish specific executive functions. He delivered very well, despite fevered leftist opposition.
I didn’t elect him to be my wise uncle, my spiritual guide, nor my moral compass. If you expect that from politicians…well, good luck.
I see your point but the actions of a president have consequences. You may not be one of them but there are too many impressionable people that are influenced. The civility among us has gone down many notches since he normalized bad behavior.
I hear the gripe against the woke ideology and I disagree with it however not all of us think in a way you are portraying me. Did calling me a fool really help the conversation? Certainly was easier for half the nation to be rude just because the the ex-president had no problem being of lesser character.
Biden’s character is pretty lackluster too. He promotes the gender virus that’s sterilizing young people in ridiculous numbers for very sinister reasons. Trump’s vulgar delivery on Twitter is no match for that-- a lot less visibly harmful.
Biden had to drop out of the 1988 US general election due to plagiarism and lies. He showered with his daughter when she was ~12. He constantly tells lies now as US President about things he never did, places he never was. However, as I said about Trump, I don't need politicians to guide me morally. The fact that he uses is scumbag son as a bag man to collect money in exchange for influence to Sen Biden, VP Biden and now President Biden needs to be investigated though as those are crimes.
The partial, out of context "Content of character" quote. Everyone's favorite.
At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
By the 1960s, Japanese-Americans were already successful in American society.
In World War II, Japanese-Americans were interned in various camps and typically lost everything. Yet, by the middle 1960s, they were more successful than whites in America. Back then, racism towards Japanese-Americans wasn’t hypothetical or limited to the internment camps. See “ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920)” (https://immigrationhistory.org/item/alien-land-laws-in-california-1913-1920/).
It should be noted that the Japanese-Americans in question were hardly elite. They were brought to America as farm laborers. However, even after the Word War II camps, they were highly successful. See “"Success Story, Japanese-American Style” (New York Times (1923-Current File); Jan 9, 1966)
It has been heartbreaking to me to see the setbacks in race relations over the past several years. This essay brings up some very good points and mirrors thoughts, I myself, have had. I have severe reservations about establishing certain groups as perma-victims and others as perma-villain's. For those who buy into this, it creates an inescapable and negative destiny. I think this country is more intelligent and socially conscientious than that.
“ At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
The Homestead act was more than 100 years ago. Let's try for something a little closer to present. Singapore is only 34X richer than Haiti. Must be because of 'structural racism'.
“Once considered a progressive attitude, color-blindness is now seen as backwards—a cheap surrender in the face of racism, at best; or a cover for deeply held racist beliefs, at worst.”
——————————————————
By far the most obnoxious part of the “color-blindness” discussion is when leftists, quite dishonestly, pretend the concept is illegitimate because you aren’t aCkShUalLy color blind.
Obviously, unless you are a leftist trying to manipulate and confuse people in order to gain a position of dominance, it just means you do, in fact, see color but your job is to not care about it.
I’m sure there’s some evolutionary mechanism, which is probably greatly dissipated at this point, where everyone is naturally drawn to people who somewhat look like them because there were tribes competing for resources or whatever and you could more safely approach people from your particular tribal region.
But we never get to that part of the discussion because we get bogged down by leftists lobbing grenades at you about how you aren’t *literally* color blind so now you’re being a liar and trying to hide your racism.
The point is that it’s really easy to not care about skin color so everyone should just focus on that and get back to work and stop trying to parlay this insignificant factor into another chance to try communism.
Regarding people naturally being drawn to other people who look like them, there was a featurette I saw about the making of the original Planet of The Apes movie. One of the funniest and most memorable parts of it was someone talking about how everyone would go to lunch in their makeup, dressed as apes. Some of the actors knew each other from other projects, and some of them had only met, but regardless, within a very short time, previous relationships ceased to matter. Very quickly without realizing it was happening and regardless of who already knew each other, the actors sorted themselves by what kind of ape they were. Gorillas ate with gorillas, orangutans ate with orangutans, and chimpanzees ate with chimpanzees. It could have been just that actors dressed the same all acted in the same scenes, but the person who pointed this out was pretty sure that the reason was human nature. I’m not sure how meaningful it is, but I thought the story was interesting.
Humans are naturally tribal. It's baked into our brains to affiliate with people that are the most similar to us. For some people, that's race. But it doesn't have to be this way: we can form tribes based on political views, sports fandoms, etc. I hope one day humans can move past race (while still acknowledging history), and form friendships based on the people that make us happy.
I think many of us never focused on skin pigment - particularly since humans come in all shades of brown basically everywhere in this country and even in many immediate blood families. Like all mammals, humans have a distinct binary of sex. Ova or Gonads and the binary secondary sex characteristics that go along with one or the other. However, humans aren’t like orcas - we don’t have distinct races / sub species. There are no secondary racial characteristics (despite the comedians insistence). There is no way biologically to segregate modern humans into distinct races biologically.
I was born in 1982 and shared experiences form bonds for me, not shared looks or beliefs. I can see, but I didn’t even know my now husband was of Cuban decent until we’d been dating 6 months. It never occurred to me to ask. We were in undergrad. We were mostly focused on having fun. I have blonde hair and blue eyes so the attraction is not likeness of looks - I just didn’t/ don’t think about it unless it comes up as part of a unique human story (which I find fascinating most of the time). Until recently I thought I was like most people in this approached life that really didn’t put much thought into skin tone aspects of appearance.
I fear all this focus on race is going to result in a return to racists approaches to life that feel grossly wrong to me. Twenty years ago I thought it impossible that would happen in this country. Clearly I was wrong. Hopefully we turn back from this dark path of judging others based on skin pigment. It’s not healthy for any human soul.
Also, Jesus was color-blind. Jesus taught all humans are of one body.
They've done multiple experiments that prove this is inherent in human nature. One involved having young children in a classroom setting consistently wear one of two colors of t-shirts; although supposedly nothing was said by the adults, the children themselves favored those wearing the same color of shirt.
And who can forget Dr. Suess's Sneetches, with their constant attempts to gain or remove a belly star in order to gain access to the "more desirable" group (which ended up constantly changing). Mr. Geisel was very good at capturing the realities of human nature.
I am delighted by this thread here because it's critical to understand how inescapable and baked into the animal brain this is because it CC conferred evolutionary advantage to favor in-group and reject outgroup. Now apply this to the commentariat here assembled, which is no different from the leftist in-groups I used to be part of. We make ourselves and each other feel good by dumping on the benighted. It would, for instance, be interesting to see how many people here understand that legacy admissions are as unjust as racial preference admissions. John Roberts would fight getting rid of those tooth and nail, I'm sure, although I agree with his stance on race. Please don't lecture me on the legal and constitutional difference because I understand that. This is here only a question of what's fair. We can't help herding, and so beliefs come in packages. Nothing you can do except try to bias control yourself as best you can.
Legacy admissions are absolutely unjust. They are the "old boys' club" in action.
I think the only people who would object to getting rid of legacy admissions are those who benefit from the pride and prestige associated with multiple generations attending the same school.
Correct, so you have W Bush with an average IQ getting a degree from Yale. Nevertheless, we have a centrist position here and most on the Right would find a way to justify it.
Why? Why would people on the Right want to justify it if they don't personally benefit from it? That's the same kind of biased statement as accusing all Republicans of being "White Supremacists."
I don't know where legacy admissions stand but it appears to me that these days you get into Harvard and Yale by writing the most "Woke" admissions essays - or by being "Jazz Jennings" (abused as a boy), etc. And, the Obama children & Chelsea Clinton went to Harvard and Standford - probably not based on brains.
Uwe, I have looked into this in some detail. W. Bush apparently was not a 'Legacy Admit'. He was pretty typical for Yale in the year he was admitted. Later (decades after Harvard) Yale switched to a more merit based system (which would have excluded W. Bush). However, he was admitted under the old system. See http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/99_12/admissions.html for some details.
If it’s a real thing, and I was speculating wildly, then it would not give evolutionary advantage to “favored in-groups”. It would have given a marginal survival advantage to *all* humans thousands of years ago when humans lived in small tribes.
And leftists are the out-group here, generally speaking, which is totally fine because it is not based on immutable characteristics. It is based on leftists having creepy ideas.
QED. Every group, Left or Right, has people who drag the conversation to a level at which they know how to operate. In this instance, start with "explaining" what everyone knows, like evolution works on everybody. Then follow that up with a slur.
I only explained evolution because you just said that it favored in-groups.
Saying that leftists have creepy *ideas* is not a slur.
Both sides of everything have flaws so that’s just a weird thing to say, unless you are trying to position yourself as separate and above the groups with flaws.
I did enjoy the old internet cliche where you claim that something that totally didn’t prove your point “proves my point”.
Geisel was great. The t-shirt experiment you report reflects what I observe - people meeting each other seem to sort out less by skin tone and more by things like who has full body tattoos, who has purple hair, who looks "clean cut", who has hip facial hair, who looks country, who looks urban - OK I am making up the categories but you get the idea. I think it also has much to do with who you grow up around. Wasn't there a study done on ducks and the little ducks grew up to hang out with whatever kind of duck they were put with as ducklings?
If they were, we wouldn't be seeing all the interracial harmony that exists and has to be ignored and argued away by the woke mob. What people are, though, is naturally inclined to stereotype by conspicuous characteristics and race is one of those. This goes in both favorable and unfavorable directions. Beyond that is something I actually did argue, which is that we also naturally sort ourselves and make boundaries of trust and mistrust. This does affect race relations, too, among other things. Humans have many problematic characteristics. We also get the flu but we don't make a political program out of that the way we do with identity. I like to remind people of the fact that what facilitated Hitler's success was identity politics....
That is an interesting story and I don't doubt it is true. I have often wondered if being tribal and this part of our human nature is not rooted, at least somewhat, in insecurity. People seem to feel more comfortable with their thoughts and ideas when they are validated by others. As well people seem emboldened to act and speak out when they feel the tribe is behind them. The tribe also often hesitates to disagree with one of their members.
This entire phenomenon seems out of control right now. I think a return to open-mindedness, respectful debate and independent thinking is sorely needed.
I never said they aren't. Children are born barbarians. We have to civilize them to not be. Took us the last 10,000 years to work on that and only really made any progress in the last 300.
Leftists love to debate things that no one said, because they know what you really mean. See, it's all "dog whistles" and "coded language." That alleviates all need to make any logical points.
This is the first time I disagree with you. Give me one example where a leftist on this BBS has, "they are just introducing nuance and context so as to have a robust dialogue."
I have not seen one instance where a leftist on this BBS wanted a robust debate. Far from it, if you give a logical historically accurate statement that is irrefutable, they respond with some grade school playground, rather stupid response designed to divert from your point.
An example of this is comprof's standard retort, "That happened a long time ago." as if history is irrelevant. He won't discuss the racist Democrats presidents of the 20th century or the racism of the Obamas' but the hypocrite will bring up Barry Goldwater which was 50 years ago, "along time ago".
The left cannot defend their ideas or policies, therefore irrelevant snappy responses. They cannot defend the disgusting PC or Woke movement so once again "snappy responses".
Oh..., so now the past (history) is NOT irrelevant? Interesting, because that's never been your position before. Yes, "That happened a long time ago" is always your answer to everything. Now you have a problem with it?
So, let me ask you this since you suddenly have such a sudden, newfound appreciation for the power of past history and how it effects the present. What year did the U.S. become a legitimate democracy?
Don't blame me/get all emotional about the GOP running on an anti-civil rights/pro-segregation platform with Barry Goldwater who voted against/called the 1964 Civil Rights Act "unconstitutional."
Obama publicly lied about the death of the thug Michael Brown and the innocence of Darren Wilson. Pure racism. Obama had Al Sharpton (the 'hero' of the Tawana Brawley case) over to the White House dozens of times. Pure racism.
"The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking, and Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to his family and his community at this very difficult time. As Attorney General Holder has indicated, the Department of Justice is investigating the situation along with local officials, and they will continue to direct resources to the case as needed. I know the events of the past few days have prompted strong passions, but as details unfold, I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding. We should comfort each other and talk with one another in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. Along with our prayers, that’s what Michael and his family, and our broader American community, deserve."
Leftists cite the concept of nuance itself as an argument in their favor. "Your argument is too black-and-white; reality has shades of grey!" It's their get-out-of-jail-free card when losing an argument.
It's hogwash. If there's actually a nuance that's missing from the argument against you, the onus is on you to explain what it is and how it undermines the opposing argument. You don't get to cite "vagueness" itself and just declare victory (and if you could, it would work against the Left as much as for it).
You should add, "a snappy, spurious remark" designed to not address the subject but to divert away from the subject. If you don't believe me just read any of comprof's or R T's snappy retorts.
If you want to debate, stick to the subject and debate with on subject facts, not BS.
“aCkShUalLy” always a straw man used my someone unable to support their point of view otherwise. Used to mischaracterize someone else’s opinion is a juvenile way.
Why not instead be honest about your opinions and let others have theirs? Easier to mock and hate people.
Yes but it isn’t their actual opinion. As I described, it is a dishonest argument where they suggest you’re stupid, and also probably a liar and secret racist, because you used a metaphor.
I’m not mocking people with different opinions. I’m mocking manipulative dishonest shysters.
“ At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
By the 1960s, Japanese-Americans were already successful in American society.
In World War II, Japanese-Americans were interned in various camps and typically lost everything. Yet, by the middle 1960s, they were more successful than whites in America. Back then, racism towards Japanese-Americans wasn’t hypothetical or limited to the internment camps. See “ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920)” (https://immigrationhistory.org/item/alien-land-laws-in-california-1913-1920/).
It should be noted that the Japanese-Americans in question were hardly elite. They were brought to America as farm laborers. However, even after the Word War II camps, they were highly successful. See “"Success Story, Japanese-American Style” (New York Times (1923-Current File); Jan 9, 1966)
I heard someone say that the demand for racism has outpaced the supply (wish I could remember who said it). So now we have to find it everywhere. I love the quote about how if we are colorblind racism will end - isn’t that the point? Not when it’s your bread and butter I suppose.
I believe Glenn Loury mentioned something akin to this in a discussion with John McWhorter. If I recall correctly, Glenn said the diversity officers at Brown University literally have to go hunting for racism to justify their jobs and departments.
I've heard it most often applied to the Jussie Smollett case. He had to hire two brothers from Nigeria to "assault" him. And there have been numerous other hoaxes perpetrated by black people to make themselves look like the victims of racism. I help keep track of them here: https://hatecrimehoaxes.quora.com/
Have you ever listened to Kevin Hart radio on Sirius/XM? He showcases comedians, mainly black ones. A fairly large percentage of it is race based humor directed at whites. Funny a lot of the time, but would be shut down immediately if white people were talking about black people like that.
The prevailing attitude is that only white people are racist. Anyone else is a minority and can say whatever they want - insult, derision, invective, hate, etc. Add enduring all that to virtue signaling whites seeking to identify with minorities, and it is no wonder there is so much frustration being vented in these comments. Yet, I find that as soon as some minority action works against their own goals, the virtue signalers recognize the prejudice against them and react as you would expect to that discrimination, i.e., with outrage.
In 2021 Rev Al showed up in our town cuz there was about elebenty bajillion Haitians camped out under the bridge from Mexico. He started up his huckster act and was promptly shouted down, left town almost immediately after.
In a town that’s prolly around 85% Hispanic
That’s a whole bunch of white supremacy right there
The "Reverend" Al? A race hustling, jive talking con artist who is paid handsomely by NBC News. In a sane nation, Sharpton would still be a fat slob in a track suit, laughed at and mocked.
There are other other angles to this. All of them bad. Pretending to be a woman (drag queens) is 'good'. Pretending to be black (Rachel Dolezal) is 'bad'.
Yep! This current era of secret racism kicked off with the election of Obama and the time magazine cover “the end of racism”. Like a day later activists were like “no it’s not! It’s worse than ever because it’s hidden!”
The first page of White Fragility said "whiteness doesn't exist, but denying its existence makes it more powerful" and that's when I put the book down and said "I can't."
What really got me in the book was when she started talking about people who were “white passing”. According to her, it doesn’t matter what your ethnicity is, but only what your skin color is. That sounds like bigotry, but I guess I haven’t “done the work” enough to understand it. I had a former coworker who got super woke, and she started posting all this anti-racist stuff on Facebook, one of which said, “If you are white, you have nothing to say about racism.” What I started wondering is if that is a continuum, or is it a hard cutoff? Like, do people with darker brown skin have more privilege than people with lighter brown skin? Are they allowed to say more about racism? Or, is there some shade of beige that if your skin is lighter than that, you have white privilege? What if you are mixed race and your skin color is ambiguous? Is there a Home-Depot-style color chart that tells you when you are allowed to have an opinion on race? The whole idea seems ridiculous to me.
As I explained it to a far-left man in my dance community, "unequal outcomes" do not prove racism. To believe such is a complete redefinition of the word, creating moral equivalence between genuine racist hatred and the inevitable "disproportionate outcomes" of every human society in history.
I explained it to him by preempting every argument I knew he would make, with such accuracy that he was stunned into silence. That's important because I'm tired of leftists telling me I just don't understand.
Leftists redefined racism, labelled everyone outside their ideology as a racist, and then glorified and instituted real systemic racism in the form of unequal laws and hiring practices. My company has explicitly said in all-staff meetings that they want to hire darker skin over lighter skin.
Societal and economic design built around "equitable" and "proportionate" outcomes are a racist human rights abuse.
They think I'm racist for not joining their cause, and I believe their cause is explicitly and willfully racist. It is an impasse and will remain such until people understand that Marxist "racial equity" is both stupid and unethical.
Unequal outcomes or disproportionate outcomes only prove racism when it's convenient to fit the narrative.
One example can be found (and is often discussed) in collegiate or professional athletics. Many on the left believe that it's racist that there are relatively few Black head football coaches. But, conversely, it's fine that there's a disproportionate number of Black football athletes.
Performance dance, like performance music, is a meritocracy and success comes from personal sacrifice and effort. Quotas of any kind diminish the value of that and discourage the pursuit of excellence. Both the art and the audiences suffer.
Around here, we instituted a blind musician audition policy, with the goal of reducing sexism, and to our delight several women made the cut! But before we could settle down to a celebration and back-patting fest, we interviewed the successful women and asked them what they thought of the process. They were delighted. But one said (paraphrased) 'You know, playing behind a curtain really helps me with my nerves. Playing in front of an audience in a large auditorium is very intimidating to me, and I do not perform at my best. But behind a curtain like that -- it's just like playing in my audition room.'
And then you sigh, and think 'what do we do now?' because, of course, we want to hire the musicians who will play best in front of an audience. These things are hard.
Laura...I believe in most (all?) major symphonies around the country, the part of the audition that is behind the curtain is just the start of the process. Those candidates that make it to the final round of auditions have to do a trial period with the orchestra. This includes playing live concerts as well as chamber music with members of the orchestra. That is where you will find out whether or not they can perform with colleagues and in front of an audience.
Several musicians I know who have nerves use propanolol, a beta blocker that treats the symptoms of anxiety without dulling their musical abilities the way a benzodiazepine would. Then again, maybe this woman just needs to get in front of an audience a few times and it will become second nature.
Usually after a few performances in front of a large audience, the severe nervousness fades. You may still be nervous but not enough throw you off your game. But I imagine some people will be terrified no matter how many times they perform.
Hiring/admitting someone because of a certain skin color means you’re not hiring/admitting someone because they don’t have that particular skin color. That is racism.
I read a LinkedIn post yesterday about a woman starting a program to encourage young black girls to train as pilots. It got lots of Likes, predictably - but just imagine her saying she'd started a program to encourage young white girls to do (insert any occupation). How long would her career last ? You can be racist, but only in one direction.
Seems to me if you have to have someone prodding you to pursue a career like that you really shouldn’t be doing it at all. You have to be obsessed and dogged to make it in that field, and that’s how it should be. Talking timid people into it, and smoothing the way for them, is going to cost lives. Black white or purple polka dotted, doesn’t matter at all.
My daughter has been singlemindedly pursuing a career as a pilot since she was a preschooler. I am not exaggerating. She can tell you every technical detail of every plane in the sky today. She’s been able to explain lift and how plane engines work and why they sometimes fail since she was in elementary school. She’s a senior in college in aeronautical engineering and she choose to work as a wheelchair pusher at the airport so she could spend all her non school time there watching airport ops and talking to everyone she can from pilots to ramp operators to baggage guys to logistics people. Because she is obsessed with every detail of aviation and consumed with getting everything right. This is the person you want flying your plane someday. Not someone who was pushed and prodded into being a trophy hire.
My role model for sure wish her every success in the aviation industry, and if I may add you sound like a great parent you have raised a great daughter enjoy her!
Color is not the only “blind” we should be. Sex discrimination should be done with as well. Once again, it has outlived its usefulness to the country. Our boys are now “on the spectrum” when they act like boys. Girls get lots of support, praise, advantages over boys and it is discouraging half of our population in favor of the other half. No great country can afford to waste half of its youth.
It has already resulted in young men going on shooting sprees.
When I was in high school, boys kept long guns in their trucks so they could go hunting before and after school. All those guns on the property and no one shooting other students.
The primary difference between boys of my generation (and older) and the boys who have decided that a massacre is the answer to their problems is that today's boys are taught incessantly from childhood that being male is bad.
Excellent article with some fresh, new points on a weary topic. One observation: Follow the money. Kendi and his ilk, the extreme example and worst of which is the BLM movement, has made a profitable industry of twisting the sincere desire of “color blindness”. The more they can fan the flames of division the more money they can make. The Racism Industry is is loud and has DC and woke media cowering.
Articles like this call out the confusion.......and the hypocrites.
Thank you, Coleman Hughes, for your articulate defense of common sense! I'm particularly fond of this paragraph, which in so many ways goes to the heart of the matter:
“Color-blind” is an expression like “warm-hearted”: it uses a physical metaphor to encapsulate an abstract idea. To describe a person as warm-hearted is not to say something about the temperature of that person’s heart, but about the kindness of his or her spirit. Similarly, to advocate for color-blindness is not to pretend you don’t notice color. It is to endorse a principle: we should strive to treat people without regard to race, in our public policy and our private lives.
This almost could be taken as comedy. Parody. Something from the old National Lampoon. If you treat everyone equally, you're a "racist." So colossally idiotic, it takes one's breath away.
But isn't that the way of the modern progressive? Up is down, right is left....
Even funnier is that UC Santa Barbara wastes time and money on an entire department devoted to "Black Studies."
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
The Homestead act was far more than 100 years ago. Right now Singapore is 'only' 34X richer than Haiti. Right now, Canada has the same black/white income disparities as the US with no history of slavery or the Homestead act. Must be 'systematic racism'.
I fear that too. When you demonize people due to an immutable characteristic, there will always be some who decide to fight back. Now that Democrats are labeling Republicans "White Supremacists," the term will become as meaningless as "racist" has, and the opprobrium associated with the term will fade. That's a bad thing.
There is a problem: African Americans, in particular, score significantly lower on standardized tests than Asian, Jewish and White Americans. This puts African Americans at a disadvantage getting into the best colleges that in turn will allow them opportunities to serve real leadership roles in American society. The problem has nothing to do with race blindness but actively repairing American Education to rectify the shoddy education Black Americans now receive. Poor kids in poor school districts receive sub-par education. Local funding of public schools dooms the poor, particularly Black Americans, to generation after generation of lousy education. The attempt to give Black Americans an advantage by ignoring ability is the ultimate Potemkin repair job, a false facade to cover America's real failure at equal education. We need to invest much much more in Public Education and that investment should be based on fair distribution, meaning the most of it goes to the most disadvantaged. No prizes for taking the test, the prize goes for acing it. Do you want a surgeon who knows surgery or one who was simply given the surgeon's credentials?
"We need to invest much much more in Public Education and that investment should be based on fair distribution, meaning the most of it goes to the most disadvantaged."
Bullshit.
New York City spends over $28,000 per student. Do you think maybe the problem lies in what is taught, how it's taught and by whom the kids are taught. Why is Harlem Academy so successful while 63.8% of all city public school students were proficient in reading, and 51.5% were proficient in math.
I hadn’t heard of Harlem Academy, so I looked it up. The difference seems to be that the families value education and want their kids to succeed academically--enough to pay at least some tuition. I suspect that this crucial difference in the home environment leads to a far more conducive learning environment in the school.
It is not care, it is resources and expectations. My daughter teaches high school math in a poor community. Some kids are homeless or have drug addicted parents. We need to support the children at that level. Hungry, homeless children have a hard time learning.
The single most important determiner of success in school is the attitude of the child's parents toward school.
I agree that we need to try to help children in bad circumstances to do as well as they can. But in too many cases, there is no way to overcome the problem of parental attitude.
Another problem is that these attitudes seep into whole communities. I have read too many essays by successful black people who were accused by their peers of "trying to be white" because they took school seriously. What are you going to do to overcome that?
If "we" have an obligation to support the kids, then "we" also have to stop coddling the parents and demand accountability. Otherwise we're just dupes.
Bruce, I’m not sure what you’re asking by “and?” Obviously there are plenty of black parents who care about their kids’ academic and ultimately, financial success. I’ve seen that as someone who attended private school and as someone who lives in a suburb where families of all races send their kids to our very good public schools. It’s a very different story in inner city environments, where kids are dealing with drug addiction, gang violence, extreme poverty, and antipathy/resentment towards models of success perceived as rewarding whites and oppressing blacks. Part of the downside of public education is that people tend to value less what they get “for free”--in this case, taxpayer funds not being directly visible.
I repeat......"and?" You say, "It’s a very different story in inner city environments, where kids are dealing with drug addiction, gang violence, extreme poverty, and antipathy/resentment towards models of success perceived as rewarding whites and oppressing blacks." Whose fault is that? You don't have to have a lot of money or education to care about your children's success. My parents were not college educated nor did we have much money. But my mother brought all seven of us to the library several times a week, read to us and took our schooling very seriously.
School choice seems to be the answer to this. But the teachers unions fight it. They then vote for democrats who defeat school choice. However, I think parents are rising up.
It doesn’t matter what school you’re in if parents don’t have the financial or emotional resources to parent. Get yourself educated before having a family.
Large cities in NYS (NYC, Yonkers, White Plains etc.) have school choice but it’s destroyed the value of building community around one’s neighborhood elementary school.
Smaller cities/towns with multiple elementary schools have had success diversifying via the Princeton Plan,
I agree on this. I watched the city I grew up in go from small, local schools to bigger schools. You could still walk, mostly, to the schools, but you were not as attached to the community. But, as a grandchild of immigrants, and someone who did not have a lot of money growing up, you can get a good education with a good work ethic and support from a loving family and community.
I have seen this waste myself, and consequently started a charter school in Allegheny County. But charter schools do not receive the same money per student as the other public schools; so for charter schools to remain afloat they pay their teachers even less than the public schools, and their educational outcomes scarcely surpass the other public schools. Money alone, as you accurately recognize, will not fix the problem. I also agree with many here that this is cultural problem: Asian and Jewish parents for example, are much more culturally equipped to promote their children's education than many other minorities. And that itself comes from our own cultural focus on the value of reading, mathematics and education in general. So what is to be done? The answer is expensive but entirely possible. Education in poor communities with awful academic performance cannot end at the school house. A real federal commitment to improving educational outcomes for poor, predominately Black communities, must include wrap around care for the entire family. That will take significant focused federal funding. The experts are already there and they know how to do it too. But we need to do it as a nation. First, without a doubt, eliminate leftist racist ideologies that promote the fundamentally destructive nonsense so clearly described in the above article. Make lying wrong again. Follow the real science and not the politically correct gibberish of Kendi and DiAngelo.
I have lived in both an urban community and a wealthy suburb in MA - I know it is not the same as NY, but I had to pay for so much more in the suburbs. We had excellent grant writers in the city and the programs got lots of money. The Boston teachers were paid better than the suburbs. But in every case, it's how the administration spends the money.
It’s difficult to succeed in an inner-city school if your classmates beat you up for “acting white” when you study hard and excel academically. Very hard to persevere under those circumstances.
I saw that first hand when my kids where in elementary school. My kids had friends with amazing parents and struggled when their son, who was smart, athletic and good looking, was making good grades. His friends told him to stop acting white.
It appears the problem is cultural as well as socio-economic. Of course noticing this issue gets you labeled a racist.
Ibram Kendi himself adopts many of these self-destructive values in his treatise on antiracism, calling such ideals as hard work and getting good grades in school white supremacist notions. Really, it seems he is making excuses for any perceived failures of black people by somehow labeling them as failures of white society.
There are millions of dirt poor Asians that came here, not knowing English and not getting the affirmative action grift, that have succeeded in those schools. It’s not easy and it requires hard work. The failures are systemic, Administration >curriculum >teachers >parents.
Recently, the most successful immigrant group is Nigerians with a population of over 60% of them having an advance degree. They are even more successful than "Asians" (how does a whole continent of people from countries as diverse as India and China count as one group...only in stats.) This total blows the idea that skin color is an insurmountable barrier.
Parents are at the top of the list. Parents are not bad, they just need to educate themselves first before having children. Raising kids requires financial and emotional resources…& some time.
I agree that parents are of foremost importance to the success of their kids but I don’t believe their personal education level is the driving force. Prioritizing your children’s education, sacrifice, and hard work are far more valuable traits that parents offer. I have seen several kids whose parents lacked even a complete high school education prioritize and champion a better education for their own children and succeed in doing so.
Investing more in public education is not the answer......The money by in large has no effect on the students. Expecting schools to fix what is wrong with the neighborhoods and the households that many of these kids are coming from is fools gold...
Look where the money invested in education is going. How little of it actually reaches the classroom or addresses the students needs and how much of it goes to "experts" who have never been in a classroom or taught that subject. There are true experts teaching in classrooms and know how to navigate the negatives to get positive results but they are overshadowed by "experts" that have seminars on white privileges.
States that spend more on education get higher outcomes, with the notable exception of Utah. Paying teachers more gets you better teachers. This is true on all other professions.
I’m sorry but don’t all of us have access to same materials for learning? How is it possible race determines your ability to take a test? You either know the answer or you don’t.
The SAT/ACT are a snapshot of a student, but grades show the ability of the student to perform and "grind" through the demands of education year after year. This is why experts state that grades are the best tool for gauging whether a student is ready for the demands of college & why universities should rely heavily on the grades.
Education money is frequently supporting the "victim role" rather than promoting the ability to succeed. When a district in CA was concerned about STEM test scores in the minority population, they hired a white sociologist from Stanford who concluded that math standards needed to be lowered. The board failed to include any African Americans. Dr. Nelson, a professor of computer science and EE at UC Berkeley and an African American, strongly criticized the lowering of standards rather than implementing a better curriculum.
As for the surgeon, medical boards select from very highly qualified candidates and the weeding of candidates continues through their internship and residency so I trust that my surgeon is qualified whether wearing a kippah or pagri, or the color of the skin, etc.
I wouldn’t be as confident in newly-minted physicians and surgeons if I were you. Medical schools and now residencies have been infected with DEI, so accepted students are less qualified, get by with less education, and are passed with less proven expertise. I am a retired physician who is horrified by the priorities and goals now espoused by medical schools and specialty organizations. (Ignore the AMA, as only a small fraction of practicing physicians belong. Unfortunately, the insanity has metastasized to the working specialty organizations. It’s alarming.)
I don't know much about how doctors are educated, but at 75, I have watched the decline in quality of practicing doctors. And it's not just training but also attitude. In my lat visit to see my long time dermatologist, the doctor directed his attention to the pretty intern walking with him, instead of my problem. As a result, he failed to diagnose the aggressive cancer growing in me. The four months delay that occurred while I found a doctor who recognized the problem and acted on it almost killed me, and may still. I don't and didn't care what color my doctor was, but I am certainly not ready to leave my family prematurely because a doctor didn't care..
My experience is that the doctors training may or may not have the changed, but the healthcare system has definitely changed. It is rare to meet a physician who recognizes that you or your loved ones are human beings and not just a body part or an insurance payment.
You think so? Here are three articles found in a 1 second google search that describes the changing of standards to increase the amount of URM (Underrepresented minority students) and increase "anti-racist" practices in medicine. Once you get into specialties, there are even less URM students, and that type of racism can't be allowed. Again, standards must be changed.
Chicago Public Schools spent $20,486 per pupil in 2021. That's over half a million dollars for a class of 25. There's plenty of money. It just pays for the wrong things. Those elected, appointed and hired to run the schools seem to care less for the students and parents than for themselves since moms, dads and kids come and go while teachers, administrators and service personnel are permanent.
If you want to fix education for poor kids, give their parents a choice for where they attend. Give them a voice in choosing where those funds are spent. Some may just not be able to be saved but how could we do any worse than we are now?
I recently read that the origin of the term politically correct originates in Russia where someone objected to an argument with the comment it was not factually correct. The arguer responded that the argument may not be factually correct, but it was politically correct. The same so clearly applies to these 'color blind are racism in disguise' arguments. Thank you for putting the argument so cogently, and of course- factually correct !
Yes Mr. Ginensky, it was John Marshall Harlan, the Great Dissenter. The famous quote from his opinion in Plessy is,“Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
When it’s politically important to build sympathy for gay civil unions, the right to visit your partner in the hospital becomes the most important right in the world and countless stories and Hollywood movies are made about it… but a bit later, when it’s politically important to support lockdowns, of course nobody is allowed to visit their dying spouse in the hospital no matter what and to object is to be virulently anti-science….
When it’s politically important to believe all women, all women are believed, but a little bit later when it’s not, women are suddenly pathological liars…
When it’s politically important to be a hardcore pacifist, nothing on earth is worse than the horrors of war, but a little later when hitler betrays Stalin and new communist party talking points go out, it’s time to kill as many Nazis in the name of justice as possible…
I could go on, and on….
The above essay, like all good faith engagement with countless shameless left wing ideological reversals, is pointless. They’re not arguing in good faith, they are saying whatever they need to say to achieve todays goal and will argue the opposite just as vehemently tomorrow if needed. but thank you anyway for writing : )
Fabulous essay.
I will point you to the judgement in KIYOSHI HIRABAYASHI v. UNITED STATES (1943)
'Distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry are by their very nature odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality. For that reason, legislative classification or discrimination based on race alone has often been held to be a denial of equal protection. ' It has been cited in a number of civil rights cases.
Also I happen to like the formulation from Natalie Wales Latham Payne's Common Cause (1947) basic principles -- While people possess differing gifts and talents, they should be equal under the law and in the moral order.
Common Cause was a short lived moderate anti-Communism movement endorsed by Dorothy Thompson, and Albert Schlesinger Jr among others. Its principles still resonate today imho.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but the content of their character”.
Sorry Martin, but it turns out your dream has become a nightmare that must be destroyed by the Marxist left.
MLK's was a racist, by today's standards
At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
By the 1960s, Japanese-Americans were already successful in American society.
In World War II, Japanese-Americans were interned in various camps and typically lost everything. Yet, by the middle 1960s, they were more successful than whites in America. Back then, racism towards Japanese-Americans wasn’t hypothetical or limited to the internment camps. See “ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920)” (https://immigrationhistory.org/item/alien-land-laws-in-california-1913-1920/).
It should be noted that the Japanese-Americans in question were hardly elite. They were brought to America as farm laborers. However, even after the Word War II camps, they were highly successful. See “"Success Story, Japanese-American Style” (New York Times (1923-Current File); Jan 9, 1966)
The Japanese experience in the U.S. is no way analogous to the black experience in America. A brief period in internment in WW2, while horrible, is not African-American experience in America. Apples and oranges.
But, luckily for the Japanese, they never had to deal with government-codified segregation/Jim Crow. Makes things a lot easier.
Also, you might want to do a little more digging into the Asian "model minority" myth too while you're at it.
In the 20th century, Japanese-Americans faced far more discrimination than blacks (in California where almost all of the Japanese-Americans lived). Japanese-Americans were sent for years to internment camps. Nothing like that happened to blacks. There were laws forbidding Japanese-Americans from owning land. These laws did no apply to blacks.
Jim Crow didn't exist in California. However, Japanese-Americans in California were sent to camps.
By the way the 'model minority myth' is a myth. Asian-Americans are ahead in almost everything (arrest rates, crime rates, imprisonment rates, school discipline rates, years of education, SAT scores, college education, personal income, family income, etc.). Try facts before you post. You won't like them. But you won't be so trivially humiliated.
Fascinating....long before WW2....
At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
I was surprised that statement was not included in the article. It is often specifically picked out by leftists to be dismantled and derided, in the same category as "color blind."
The progressives' rhetoric that "color blindness" is racist is a black hole. Once you go down it you give these totalitarians everything they ask for in the future because you have abandoned logic and reason in favor of endless grievances enforced by BLM/antifa blackmail violence. The end will only come when white people are enslaved in a quid pro quo. (Yep, antifa whites are useful idiots.)
At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
I agree. And this statement comes from arguable one of the most important speeches to ever be delivered regarding the need to abolish institutional racism.
Too bad King was a supporter of Affirmative Action, UBI, etc.
Martin Luther King Jr. supported affirmative action. Did you know that?
“A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro."
He was a strong proponent of affirmative action in fact and spent the last few years of his life fighting for it and against the Vietnam War.
Sorry, but when MLK made his famous Lincoln Memorial speech ("I have a dream"), he was attacking AA,. Let me quote from his speech.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. "
The reality of life in America is intense discrimination against whites and Asians. Quote
“How much harder is it for an Asian-American applicant? Mr. Zhao and the complaint cite 2009 research by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade that found an Asian-American student must earn an SAT score 140 points higher than a white student, 270 points higher than a Hispanic and 450 points higher than an African-American, all else being equal. So if a white applicant scored 2160 on the SAT, lower than last year’s Harvard average, an Asian-American would need to hit 2300, well into the 99% percentile, to have an equal chance at getting in.” So racism is actually quite real in the U.S. Anti-Asian racism is pervasive and profound.
The Homestead act was more than 100 years ago. Let's try for something a little closer to present. Singapore is only 34X richer than Haiti. Must be because of 'structural racism'.
King was attacking AA....lol...
MLK was arguing for a color-blind America. That mean's no AA whether you like it or not.
You're against AA - fine. Don't try and claim MLK, Jr. was.
He wasn't. Whether you like it or not. So, just make your own claims and stop trying to revise history.
"Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs ... And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war." - MLK, 1965
"Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic." - MLK, 1964
"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro," - MLK, Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community.
Lol.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-08-18-op-35403-story.html
You are trying to educate someone who is deliberately twisting Martin Luther King’s legacy to suit his own political preferences. He does not care one whit what MLK stood for or what he said. He just thinks is a good rhetorical shot. Don’t waste your time.
MLK said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." You can't change that.
Not sure what Asians have to do with Martin Luther Kings stance on affirmative action but he was in favor of it. Here is another nice quote of his that I like.
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."
Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."
MLK said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." No matter how hard you try, you can't change what he actually said.
MLK supported affirmative action.
Those were different times no? Affirmative action may have been a band aid back in the 60s but it does not belong in current times where, I feel, there are no constraints on anyone to succeed.
So what? What King sought was assistance for the effects that lingered from slavery. That is not applicable to other "people of color". Get it yet?
Sure. Do you think Black people should get special assistance today?
Not unless it benefits you to continue to create generations of an underclass, a pre-defined group of people who are taught from cradle to grave that they are weak and unable to compete as equals. Convince them that they need ... oh, shock... the exact people who are oppressing them with the tyranny of low expectations.
Martin Luther King is the racist here, not you?
Interesting point of view.
What famous racist said this?
“ At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
He was a strong supported of affirmative action because in his day it was needed. As the example of California's experience in abandoning affirmative action, and the lack of harm to minorities, it is no longer needed.
It had a big negative impact on Black incomes and social mobility. I am curious what your evidence is that it did not:
https://cshe.berkeley.edu/publications/affirmative-action-mismatch-and-economic-mobility-after-california%E2%80%99s-proposition-209
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/21/upshot/00up-affirmative-action-california-study.html
It is cited in the main body of the essay.
" Because of Proposition 209, students of color in the study earned 5 percent less on average every year, an effect that persisted into their mid-30s, when the study period ended. The impact on wages was concentrated among Hispanic students, who were also significantly less likely to earn more than $100,000 per year."
"In other words, the measure in California seems to have set back a generation of Black and Hispanic students, pushing them down and out of the University of California system and helping to widen the racial wealth gap, with seemingly little offsetting benefits for other students."
How much do we really care about the "content of their character" these days if we vote for people like Trump?
Great question! The Trump admin took firm steps to end racially-driven policies (unlike the Obama and Biden admins, who actively sought them) and the results showed for all races in economic success, decreased murder rate, lower taxes, etc. Actions, not words, matter. Meanwhile, minority Americans are being murdered in numbers we've not seen for decades.
He also restored funding to traditionally Black colleges, which had been cut by Obama, and has since been cut by Biden. I can't stand the man personally, but I don't let that prevent me from seeing the policies he put in place were effective.
Trump did a lot off good things but that does not justify his behavior or his character.
As I and many others here have often repeated - I elected him to accomplish specific executive functions. He delivered very well, despite fevered leftist opposition.
I didn’t elect him to be my wise uncle, my spiritual guide, nor my moral compass. If you expect that from politicians…well, good luck.
I see your point but the actions of a president have consequences. You may not be one of them but there are too many impressionable people that are influenced. The civility among us has gone down many notches since he normalized bad behavior.
Bi-det gets a pass though ? Most politicans are cut from the same cloth , lying sacks o shit
Weak mind there Shri?
Well, sure, you vote against the orthodoxy and you are by definition racist.
What a fool you show your self to be.
I hear the gripe against the woke ideology and I disagree with it however not all of us think in a way you are portraying me. Did calling me a fool really help the conversation? Certainly was easier for half the nation to be rude just because the the ex-president had no problem being of lesser character.
Biden’s character is pretty lackluster too. He promotes the gender virus that’s sterilizing young people in ridiculous numbers for very sinister reasons. Trump’s vulgar delivery on Twitter is no match for that-- a lot less visibly harmful.
Biden had to drop out of the 1988 US general election due to plagiarism and lies. He showered with his daughter when she was ~12. He constantly tells lies now as US President about things he never did, places he never was. However, as I said about Trump, I don't need politicians to guide me morally. The fact that he uses is scumbag son as a bag man to collect money in exchange for influence to Sen Biden, VP Biden and now President Biden needs to be investigated though as those are crimes.
I assume it says a lot about what those voters thought of Hillary Clinton’s character. But regardless, this seems off-topic.
Yes they got it wrong so they didn't repeat that mistake in 2020.
He sure is a character 🫣
The partial, out of context "Content of character" quote. Everyone's favorite.
At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
By the 1960s, Japanese-Americans were already successful in American society.
In World War II, Japanese-Americans were interned in various camps and typically lost everything. Yet, by the middle 1960s, they were more successful than whites in America. Back then, racism towards Japanese-Americans wasn’t hypothetical or limited to the internment camps. See “ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920)” (https://immigrationhistory.org/item/alien-land-laws-in-california-1913-1920/).
It should be noted that the Japanese-Americans in question were hardly elite. They were brought to America as farm laborers. However, even after the Word War II camps, they were highly successful. See “"Success Story, Japanese-American Style” (New York Times (1923-Current File); Jan 9, 1966)
It has been heartbreaking to me to see the setbacks in race relations over the past several years. This essay brings up some very good points and mirrors thoughts, I myself, have had. I have severe reservations about establishing certain groups as perma-victims and others as perma-villain's. For those who buy into this, it creates an inescapable and negative destiny. I think this country is more intelligent and socially conscientious than that.
Which famous racist said this?
“ At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
The Homestead act was more than 100 years ago. Let's try for something a little closer to present. Singapore is only 34X richer than Haiti. Must be because of 'structural racism'.
“Once considered a progressive attitude, color-blindness is now seen as backwards—a cheap surrender in the face of racism, at best; or a cover for deeply held racist beliefs, at worst.”
——————————————————
By far the most obnoxious part of the “color-blindness” discussion is when leftists, quite dishonestly, pretend the concept is illegitimate because you aren’t aCkShUalLy color blind.
Obviously, unless you are a leftist trying to manipulate and confuse people in order to gain a position of dominance, it just means you do, in fact, see color but your job is to not care about it.
I’m sure there’s some evolutionary mechanism, which is probably greatly dissipated at this point, where everyone is naturally drawn to people who somewhat look like them because there were tribes competing for resources or whatever and you could more safely approach people from your particular tribal region.
But we never get to that part of the discussion because we get bogged down by leftists lobbing grenades at you about how you aren’t *literally* color blind so now you’re being a liar and trying to hide your racism.
The point is that it’s really easy to not care about skin color so everyone should just focus on that and get back to work and stop trying to parlay this insignificant factor into another chance to try communism.
Democrats continue to be the worst.
Regarding people naturally being drawn to other people who look like them, there was a featurette I saw about the making of the original Planet of The Apes movie. One of the funniest and most memorable parts of it was someone talking about how everyone would go to lunch in their makeup, dressed as apes. Some of the actors knew each other from other projects, and some of them had only met, but regardless, within a very short time, previous relationships ceased to matter. Very quickly without realizing it was happening and regardless of who already knew each other, the actors sorted themselves by what kind of ape they were. Gorillas ate with gorillas, orangutans ate with orangutans, and chimpanzees ate with chimpanzees. It could have been just that actors dressed the same all acted in the same scenes, but the person who pointed this out was pretty sure that the reason was human nature. I’m not sure how meaningful it is, but I thought the story was interesting.
Humans are naturally tribal. It's baked into our brains to affiliate with people that are the most similar to us. For some people, that's race. But it doesn't have to be this way: we can form tribes based on political views, sports fandoms, etc. I hope one day humans can move past race (while still acknowledging history), and form friendships based on the people that make us happy.
I think many of us never focused on skin pigment - particularly since humans come in all shades of brown basically everywhere in this country and even in many immediate blood families. Like all mammals, humans have a distinct binary of sex. Ova or Gonads and the binary secondary sex characteristics that go along with one or the other. However, humans aren’t like orcas - we don’t have distinct races / sub species. There are no secondary racial characteristics (despite the comedians insistence). There is no way biologically to segregate modern humans into distinct races biologically.
I was born in 1982 and shared experiences form bonds for me, not shared looks or beliefs. I can see, but I didn’t even know my now husband was of Cuban decent until we’d been dating 6 months. It never occurred to me to ask. We were in undergrad. We were mostly focused on having fun. I have blonde hair and blue eyes so the attraction is not likeness of looks - I just didn’t/ don’t think about it unless it comes up as part of a unique human story (which I find fascinating most of the time). Until recently I thought I was like most people in this approached life that really didn’t put much thought into skin tone aspects of appearance.
I fear all this focus on race is going to result in a return to racists approaches to life that feel grossly wrong to me. Twenty years ago I thought it impossible that would happen in this country. Clearly I was wrong. Hopefully we turn back from this dark path of judging others based on skin pigment. It’s not healthy for any human soul.
Also, Jesus was color-blind. Jesus taught all humans are of one body.
A lot of us have...
They've done multiple experiments that prove this is inherent in human nature. One involved having young children in a classroom setting consistently wear one of two colors of t-shirts; although supposedly nothing was said by the adults, the children themselves favored those wearing the same color of shirt.
And who can forget Dr. Suess's Sneetches, with their constant attempts to gain or remove a belly star in order to gain access to the "more desirable" group (which ended up constantly changing). Mr. Geisel was very good at capturing the realities of human nature.
I am delighted by this thread here because it's critical to understand how inescapable and baked into the animal brain this is because it CC conferred evolutionary advantage to favor in-group and reject outgroup. Now apply this to the commentariat here assembled, which is no different from the leftist in-groups I used to be part of. We make ourselves and each other feel good by dumping on the benighted. It would, for instance, be interesting to see how many people here understand that legacy admissions are as unjust as racial preference admissions. John Roberts would fight getting rid of those tooth and nail, I'm sure, although I agree with his stance on race. Please don't lecture me on the legal and constitutional difference because I understand that. This is here only a question of what's fair. We can't help herding, and so beliefs come in packages. Nothing you can do except try to bias control yourself as best you can.
Legacy admissions are absolutely unjust. They are the "old boys' club" in action.
I think the only people who would object to getting rid of legacy admissions are those who benefit from the pride and prestige associated with multiple generations attending the same school.
Correct, so you have W Bush with an average IQ getting a degree from Yale. Nevertheless, we have a centrist position here and most on the Right would find a way to justify it.
Why? Why would people on the Right want to justify it if they don't personally benefit from it? That's the same kind of biased statement as accusing all Republicans of being "White Supremacists."
I don't know where legacy admissions stand but it appears to me that these days you get into Harvard and Yale by writing the most "Woke" admissions essays - or by being "Jazz Jennings" (abused as a boy), etc. And, the Obama children & Chelsea Clinton went to Harvard and Standford - probably not based on brains.
wrong I'm on the right and no way would I justify that . Get by on your grades or out the door you go
So do those on the Left. I give you Stanford, Yale, and Columbia.
Uwe, I have looked into this in some detail. W. Bush apparently was not a 'Legacy Admit'. He was pretty typical for Yale in the year he was admitted. Later (decades after Harvard) Yale switched to a more merit based system (which would have excluded W. Bush). However, he was admitted under the old system. See http://archives.yalealumnimagazine.com/issues/99_12/admissions.html for some details.
If it’s a real thing, and I was speculating wildly, then it would not give evolutionary advantage to “favored in-groups”. It would have given a marginal survival advantage to *all* humans thousands of years ago when humans lived in small tribes.
And leftists are the out-group here, generally speaking, which is totally fine because it is not based on immutable characteristics. It is based on leftists having creepy ideas.
QED. Every group, Left or Right, has people who drag the conversation to a level at which they know how to operate. In this instance, start with "explaining" what everyone knows, like evolution works on everybody. Then follow that up with a slur.
I only explained evolution because you just said that it favored in-groups.
Saying that leftists have creepy *ideas* is not a slur.
Both sides of everything have flaws so that’s just a weird thing to say, unless you are trying to position yourself as separate and above the groups with flaws.
I did enjoy the old internet cliche where you claim that something that totally didn’t prove your point “proves my point”.
I think you are selling yourself and others short.
Very kind! We wish, we try...
Geisel was great. The t-shirt experiment you report reflects what I observe - people meeting each other seem to sort out less by skin tone and more by things like who has full body tattoos, who has purple hair, who looks "clean cut", who has hip facial hair, who looks country, who looks urban - OK I am making up the categories but you get the idea. I think it also has much to do with who you grow up around. Wasn't there a study done on ducks and the little ducks grew up to hang out with whatever kind of duck they were put with as ducklings?
Wow....seems like you just argued people are naturally racist.
If they were, we wouldn't be seeing all the interracial harmony that exists and has to be ignored and argued away by the woke mob. What people are, though, is naturally inclined to stereotype by conspicuous characteristics and race is one of those. This goes in both favorable and unfavorable directions. Beyond that is something I actually did argue, which is that we also naturally sort ourselves and make boundaries of trust and mistrust. This does affect race relations, too, among other things. Humans have many problematic characteristics. We also get the flu but we don't make a political program out of that the way we do with identity. I like to remind people of the fact that what facilitated Hitler's success was identity politics....
It takes an Enlightenment to overcome this tendency. We regress into forms of tribalism at our mutual peril.
That is an interesting story and I don't doubt it is true. I have often wondered if being tribal and this part of our human nature is not rooted, at least somewhat, in insecurity. People seem to feel more comfortable with their thoughts and ideas when they are validated by others. As well people seem emboldened to act and speak out when they feel the tribe is behind them. The tribe also often hesitates to disagree with one of their members.
This entire phenomenon seems out of control right now. I think a return to open-mindedness, respectful debate and independent thinking is sorely needed.
Wow....seems that argues that people are naturally racist.
I never said they aren't. Children are born barbarians. We have to civilize them to not be. Took us the last 10,000 years to work on that and only really made any progress in the last 300.
aCkShUalLy
Brilliant. The first marker of progressive stupidity. Usually the beginning of "snappy retort."
I also particularly love the arguments that begin "So you're saying that..." which completely twist what you plainly said
Leftists love to debate things that no one said, because they know what you really mean. See, it's all "dog whistles" and "coded language." That alleviates all need to make any logical points.
Master of the "dog whistle."
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
No because they aren’t trying to manipulate and dominate you they are just introducing nuance and context so as to have a robust dialogue.
🤡🤡🤡🤡
This is the first time I disagree with you. Give me one example where a leftist on this BBS has, "they are just introducing nuance and context so as to have a robust dialogue."
I have not seen one instance where a leftist on this BBS wanted a robust debate. Far from it, if you give a logical historically accurate statement that is irrefutable, they respond with some grade school playground, rather stupid response designed to divert from your point.
An example of this is comprof's standard retort, "That happened a long time ago." as if history is irrelevant. He won't discuss the racist Democrats presidents of the 20th century or the racism of the Obamas' but the hypocrite will bring up Barry Goldwater which was 50 years ago, "along time ago".
The left cannot defend their ideas or policies, therefore irrelevant snappy responses. They cannot defend the disgusting PC or Woke movement so once again "snappy responses".
A snappy response is not robust debate.
*insert sarcasm sign*
A progressive’s idea of robust dialogue is slandering the republican party while hoping you forget the question asked. “Look—something shiny.”
Oh..., so now the past (history) is NOT irrelevant? Interesting, because that's never been your position before. Yes, "That happened a long time ago" is always your answer to everything. Now you have a problem with it?
So, let me ask you this since you suddenly have such a sudden, newfound appreciation for the power of past history and how it effects the present. What year did the U.S. become a legitimate democracy?
Don't blame me/get all emotional about the GOP running on an anti-civil rights/pro-segregation platform with Barry Goldwater who voted against/called the 1964 Civil Rights Act "unconstitutional."
And please elaborate on the racism of the Obamas'
Obama publicly lied about the death of the thug Michael Brown and the innocence of Darren Wilson. Pure racism. Obama had Al Sharpton (the 'hero' of the Tawana Brawley case) over to the White House dozens of times. Pure racism.
Is this the one?
"The death of Michael Brown is heartbreaking, and Michelle and I send our deepest condolences to his family and his community at this very difficult time. As Attorney General Holder has indicated, the Department of Justice is investigating the situation along with local officials, and they will continue to direct resources to the case as needed. I know the events of the past few days have prompted strong passions, but as details unfold, I urge everyone in Ferguson, Missouri, and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding. We should comfort each other and talk with one another in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. Along with our prayers, that’s what Michael and his family, and our broader American community, deserve."
Leftists cite the concept of nuance itself as an argument in their favor. "Your argument is too black-and-white; reality has shades of grey!" It's their get-out-of-jail-free card when losing an argument.
It's hogwash. If there's actually a nuance that's missing from the argument against you, the onus is on you to explain what it is and how it undermines the opposing argument. You don't get to cite "vagueness" itself and just declare victory (and if you could, it would work against the Left as much as for it).
Wow. You believe that?
Ha no. Sarcasm is Kevin’s native language.
Sarcasm confirmed.
It is hard sometimes to convey sarcasm with the written word. There is no vocal facial expression or body language nuance.
Uh that’s what the clown faces were about….
Watch for the clown emoticons.
He did use some emoticons.
You should add, "a snappy, spurious remark" designed to not address the subject but to divert away from the subject. If you don't believe me just read any of comprof's or R T's snappy retorts.
If you want to debate, stick to the subject and debate with on subject facts, not BS.
I know I was joking hence the clown emojis. Their goal is generally to cloud the issue with emotional manipulation.
Logic, like mathematics must be racist.
“aCkShUalLy” always a straw man used my someone unable to support their point of view otherwise. Used to mischaracterize someone else’s opinion is a juvenile way.
Why not instead be honest about your opinions and let others have theirs? Easier to mock and hate people.
Yes but it isn’t their actual opinion. As I described, it is a dishonest argument where they suggest you’re stupid, and also probably a liar and secret racist, because you used a metaphor.
I’m not mocking people with different opinions. I’m mocking manipulative dishonest shysters.
Martin Luther King was the worst.
“ At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
By the 1960s, Japanese-Americans were already successful in American society.
In World War II, Japanese-Americans were interned in various camps and typically lost everything. Yet, by the middle 1960s, they were more successful than whites in America. Back then, racism towards Japanese-Americans wasn’t hypothetical or limited to the internment camps. See “ALIEN LAND LAWS IN CALIFORNIA (1913 & 1920)” (https://immigrationhistory.org/item/alien-land-laws-in-california-1913-1920/).
It should be noted that the Japanese-Americans in question were hardly elite. They were brought to America as farm laborers. However, even after the Word War II camps, they were highly successful. See “"Success Story, Japanese-American Style” (New York Times (1923-Current File); Jan 9, 1966)
So the Japanese did not waste the reparation money given to them. Why is it that you believe that Black people will? Do you think Japanese are better?
I never commented on the reparations paid to Japanese-Americans one way or the other. You are confusing me with someone else.
Sorry then I confused you with someone else.
Why would you suppose that mechanism is dissipated?
It’s me I swear!!
Then why is there a question mark next to your name? Seems you're unsure.
Okay fine it’s not me. Or it’s not him. Or he is not it. I am me. Not him. Hope that clarifies.
😂😂
I thought so. This explains everything..
If race scammers didn’t keep moving the goalposts they lose their income stream. Have to get a real job.
I heard someone say that the demand for racism has outpaced the supply (wish I could remember who said it). So now we have to find it everywhere. I love the quote about how if we are colorblind racism will end - isn’t that the point? Not when it’s your bread and butter I suppose.
I believe Glenn Loury mentioned something akin to this in a discussion with John McWhorter. If I recall correctly, Glenn said the diversity officers at Brown University literally have to go hunting for racism to justify their jobs and departments.
I've heard it most often applied to the Jussie Smollett case. He had to hire two brothers from Nigeria to "assault" him. And there have been numerous other hoaxes perpetrated by black people to make themselves look like the victims of racism. I help keep track of them here: https://hatecrimehoaxes.quora.com/
I liked it too, maybe Glenn Loury?
It's a common saying, and not a new one.
That's a brilliant insight.
Exhibit 1: Al Sharpton in the Tawana Brawley case.
Have you ever listened to Kevin Hart radio on Sirius/XM? He showcases comedians, mainly black ones. A fairly large percentage of it is race based humor directed at whites. Funny a lot of the time, but would be shut down immediately if white people were talking about black people like that.
The prevailing attitude is that only white people are racist. Anyone else is a minority and can say whatever they want - insult, derision, invective, hate, etc. Add enduring all that to virtue signaling whites seeking to identify with minorities, and it is no wonder there is so much frustration being vented in these comments. Yet, I find that as soon as some minority action works against their own goals, the virtue signalers recognize the prejudice against them and react as you would expect to that discrimination, i.e., with outrage.
Except, curiously, the Asians. It suggests that it's not so much a racist phenomenon as a revolt against merit .
You nailed it, Jeff. It is those without merit attacking the meritorious. It’s the politics of envy by those who have much to be envious about.
Atlas Shrugged in real life.
It’s cuz Asians are considered “white adjacent”
"White Adjacent"! Wow! We need a whole new vocabulary to express the racist logic of the Woke.
Exactly - imagine if the term ¨Karen¨ was used for anyone but a white woman? This is racism pure and simple, but permitted.
Karen is both racist and ageist. It applies pretty exclusively to middle aged white women.
Not just Brawley, everything that racist huckster touches. Remember the Duke lacross team?
In 2021 Rev Al showed up in our town cuz there was about elebenty bajillion Haitians camped out under the bridge from Mexico. He started up his huckster act and was promptly shouted down, left town almost immediately after.
In a town that’s prolly around 85% Hispanic
That’s a whole bunch of white supremacy right there
The "Reverend" Al? A race hustling, jive talking con artist who is paid handsomely by NBC News. In a sane nation, Sharpton would still be a fat slob in a track suit, laughed at and mocked.
There are other other angles to this. All of them bad. Pretending to be a woman (drag queens) is 'good'. Pretending to be black (Rachel Dolezal) is 'bad'.
Yep! This current era of secret racism kicked off with the election of Obama and the time magazine cover “the end of racism”. Like a day later activists were like “no it’s not! It’s worse than ever because it’s hidden!”
Comprof?
I'm sorry Bruce. I shouldn't have brought that disgusting huckster up. I'll try to refrain in the future.
Lol. Thought I was a "Communist."
Sorry. Just don't buy into the rose-colored glasses mythology. Do it for free.
Always snarky, never factual. Reality is unkind to Comprof.
Am quite factual. Just not MAGA, so that doesn't align with your "reality."
But please feel free to try again. So everyone can watch.
You appear to be a hit around here..people are talking about you..
This is amusing: they are trolling for the troll. Don't think I've ever seen that before.
It is strange.
I think they secretly like him..
I've pretty much said my peace.
Now, I'll just sit back and watch MAGA discuss race and black race-baiters.
I know, right.....
This seems like a joke but it is 100% accurate.
The first page of White Fragility said "whiteness doesn't exist, but denying its existence makes it more powerful" and that's when I put the book down and said "I can't."
What really got me in the book was when she started talking about people who were “white passing”. According to her, it doesn’t matter what your ethnicity is, but only what your skin color is. That sounds like bigotry, but I guess I haven’t “done the work” enough to understand it. I had a former coworker who got super woke, and she started posting all this anti-racist stuff on Facebook, one of which said, “If you are white, you have nothing to say about racism.” What I started wondering is if that is a continuum, or is it a hard cutoff? Like, do people with darker brown skin have more privilege than people with lighter brown skin? Are they allowed to say more about racism? Or, is there some shade of beige that if your skin is lighter than that, you have white privilege? What if you are mixed race and your skin color is ambiguous? Is there a Home-Depot-style color chart that tells you when you are allowed to have an opinion on race? The whole idea seems ridiculous to me.
Not just ridiculous but absolutely racist and evil to the core.
It's the brown paper bag test, readopted by the Left. Interesting how Progressive's racism looks so much like Democrats' historical racism.
It is ludicrous.
Yes, they call it “colorism” ...
What you did is what all rational, sentient, sane people need to do.
Give "the back of the hand" to this progressive idiocy and dismiss it immediately as the trash it is.
I can’t Anthony I couldn’t even pick the book up!
This calls to mind Mark Twain's reported quip about the latest Henry James novel: "It's one of those books that once you put down you can't pick up."
It really says that? Wtf...
As I explained it to a far-left man in my dance community, "unequal outcomes" do not prove racism. To believe such is a complete redefinition of the word, creating moral equivalence between genuine racist hatred and the inevitable "disproportionate outcomes" of every human society in history.
I explained it to him by preempting every argument I knew he would make, with such accuracy that he was stunned into silence. That's important because I'm tired of leftists telling me I just don't understand.
Leftists redefined racism, labelled everyone outside their ideology as a racist, and then glorified and instituted real systemic racism in the form of unequal laws and hiring practices. My company has explicitly said in all-staff meetings that they want to hire darker skin over lighter skin.
Societal and economic design built around "equitable" and "proportionate" outcomes are a racist human rights abuse.
They think I'm racist for not joining their cause, and I believe their cause is explicitly and willfully racist. It is an impasse and will remain such until people understand that Marxist "racial equity" is both stupid and unethical.
It has been said anyone who wins an argument with a leftist is a racist.
Or sexist
Or misogynist
One of them “ists” for sure
Unequal outcomes or disproportionate outcomes only prove racism when it's convenient to fit the narrative.
One example can be found (and is often discussed) in collegiate or professional athletics. Many on the left believe that it's racist that there are relatively few Black head football coaches. But, conversely, it's fine that there's a disproportionate number of Black football athletes.
Performance dance, like performance music, is a meritocracy and success comes from personal sacrifice and effort. Quotas of any kind diminish the value of that and discourage the pursuit of excellence. Both the art and the audiences suffer.
Fifty shades of race.
Around here, we instituted a blind musician audition policy, with the goal of reducing sexism, and to our delight several women made the cut! But before we could settle down to a celebration and back-patting fest, we interviewed the successful women and asked them what they thought of the process. They were delighted. But one said (paraphrased) 'You know, playing behind a curtain really helps me with my nerves. Playing in front of an audience in a large auditorium is very intimidating to me, and I do not perform at my best. But behind a curtain like that -- it's just like playing in my audition room.'
And then you sigh, and think 'what do we do now?' because, of course, we want to hire the musicians who will play best in front of an audience. These things are hard.
Perhaps put the musicians in front of an audience. Put the judges behind the curtain.
Thank you, Mr. Hughes, for a well researched and enlightening essay. Dr. King would have been impressed.
Yeah it's really not that difficult
Assemble an audience for auditions? What happens when the audience responds?
Blind musician audition policy?
Reverse racism. Favoring Ray Charles.
Laura...I believe in most (all?) major symphonies around the country, the part of the audition that is behind the curtain is just the start of the process. Those candidates that make it to the final round of auditions have to do a trial period with the orchestra. This includes playing live concerts as well as chamber music with members of the orchestra. That is where you will find out whether or not they can perform with colleagues and in front of an audience.
Several musicians I know who have nerves use propanolol, a beta blocker that treats the symptoms of anxiety without dulling their musical abilities the way a benzodiazepine would. Then again, maybe this woman just needs to get in front of an audience a few times and it will become second nature.
Usually after a few performances in front of a large audience, the severe nervousness fades. You may still be nervous but not enough throw you off your game. But I imagine some people will be terrified no matter how many times they perform.
One could have the musicians perform behind a one-way mirror where they can see the audience but the audience can't see them.
As famed segregationist Joe Biden once said, colorblind kids are just as smart as white kids.
I thought they were just as blind as deaf kids.
Have just as many auditory processing issues as white kids?
Hiring/admitting someone because of a certain skin color means you’re not hiring/admitting someone because they don’t have that particular skin color. That is racism.
That's not how the left sees it. They view everything through the prism of race.
Good essay, thanks.
I read a LinkedIn post yesterday about a woman starting a program to encourage young black girls to train as pilots. It got lots of Likes, predictably - but just imagine her saying she'd started a program to encourage young white girls to do (insert any occupation). How long would her career last ? You can be racist, but only in one direction.
Seems to me if you have to have someone prodding you to pursue a career like that you really shouldn’t be doing it at all. You have to be obsessed and dogged to make it in that field, and that’s how it should be. Talking timid people into it, and smoothing the way for them, is going to cost lives. Black white or purple polka dotted, doesn’t matter at all.
My daughter has been singlemindedly pursuing a career as a pilot since she was a preschooler. I am not exaggerating. She can tell you every technical detail of every plane in the sky today. She’s been able to explain lift and how plane engines work and why they sometimes fail since she was in elementary school. She’s a senior in college in aeronautical engineering and she choose to work as a wheelchair pusher at the airport so she could spend all her non school time there watching airport ops and talking to everyone she can from pilots to ramp operators to baggage guys to logistics people. Because she is obsessed with every detail of aviation and consumed with getting everything right. This is the person you want flying your plane someday. Not someone who was pushed and prodded into being a trophy hire.
My role model for sure wish her every success in the aviation industry, and if I may add you sound like a great parent you have raised a great daughter enjoy her!
Color is not the only “blind” we should be. Sex discrimination should be done with as well. Once again, it has outlived its usefulness to the country. Our boys are now “on the spectrum” when they act like boys. Girls get lots of support, praise, advantages over boys and it is discouraging half of our population in favor of the other half. No great country can afford to waste half of its youth.
The cultural assault on males is going to lead nowhere good for our society.
It has already resulted in young men going on shooting sprees.
When I was in high school, boys kept long guns in their trucks so they could go hunting before and after school. All those guns on the property and no one shooting other students.
The primary difference between boys of my generation (and older) and the boys who have decided that a massacre is the answer to their problems is that today's boys are taught incessantly from childhood that being male is bad.
Bingo. They treat boys like damaged girls and wonder what could possibly go wrong.
My older sisters’ had a target shooting class in high school
Done got eliminated by the time I was in high school
She most likely would be fine, now young white boys would get her lynched
Spot on!
Amen
Excellent article with some fresh, new points on a weary topic. One observation: Follow the money. Kendi and his ilk, the extreme example and worst of which is the BLM movement, has made a profitable industry of twisting the sincere desire of “color blindness”. The more they can fan the flames of division the more money they can make. The Racism Industry is is loud and has DC and woke media cowering.
Articles like this call out the confusion.......and the hypocrites.
Division is such a nice word. These people need to be called what they are - racists.
The founders of BLM are so rich now they have dropped out of BLM and are now living high on the hog.
Thank you, Coleman Hughes, for your articulate defense of common sense! I'm particularly fond of this paragraph, which in so many ways goes to the heart of the matter:
“Color-blind” is an expression like “warm-hearted”: it uses a physical metaphor to encapsulate an abstract idea. To describe a person as warm-hearted is not to say something about the temperature of that person’s heart, but about the kindness of his or her spirit. Similarly, to advocate for color-blindness is not to pretend you don’t notice color. It is to endorse a principle: we should strive to treat people without regard to race, in our public policy and our private lives.
Ditto on that Melissa.
“Nothing is more unequal than the equal treatment of unequal people.”—Thomas Jefferson
This almost could be taken as comedy. Parody. Something from the old National Lampoon. If you treat everyone equally, you're a "racist." So colossally idiotic, it takes one's breath away.
But isn't that the way of the modern progressive? Up is down, right is left....
Even funnier is that UC Santa Barbara wastes time and money on an entire department devoted to "Black Studies."
What an idiocracy we have become.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Racist...apparently.
What racist said this?
At the very same time that America refused to give the Negro any land, through an act of Congress, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the West and the mid-West, which meant that it was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor.
“But not only did they give the land, they built land grant colleges with government money to teach them how to farm. Not only that, they provided county agents to further their expertise in farming. Not only that, they provided low interest rates in order that they could mechanize their farms. Not only that, today many of these people are receiving millions of dollars in federal subsidies not to farm.
“And they are the very people telling the black man that he ought to lift himself by his own bootstraps. And this is what we are faced with. Now this is the reality. Now when we come to Washington, in this campaign, we are coming to get our check.”
The Homestead act was far more than 100 years ago. Right now Singapore is 'only' 34X richer than Haiti. Right now, Canada has the same black/white income disparities as the US with no history of slavery or the Homestead act. Must be 'systematic racism'.
Ok, how about that G.I. Bill?
Daaayum! Slow down, El Monstro! They're not ready for all that.
They only know the one partial, out of context MLK "content of character" quote. That's their favorite one.
MLK was in favor of affirmative action and reparations. I guess that makes him racist to you, right?
Nope. Just makes him wrong.
And btw, he was not saint.
There it is!
And if you claim not to be racist, you are racist for thinking you're not racist.
Which is why one would be foolish even to play their stupid game.
But this jihad against whiteness will "succeed" only in making actual white nationalists where now only a vanishingly small number actually exist.
I fear that too. When you demonize people due to an immutable characteristic, there will always be some who decide to fight back. Now that Democrats are labeling Republicans "White Supremacists," the term will become as meaningless as "racist" has, and the opprobrium associated with the term will fade. That's a bad thing.
There is a problem: African Americans, in particular, score significantly lower on standardized tests than Asian, Jewish and White Americans. This puts African Americans at a disadvantage getting into the best colleges that in turn will allow them opportunities to serve real leadership roles in American society. The problem has nothing to do with race blindness but actively repairing American Education to rectify the shoddy education Black Americans now receive. Poor kids in poor school districts receive sub-par education. Local funding of public schools dooms the poor, particularly Black Americans, to generation after generation of lousy education. The attempt to give Black Americans an advantage by ignoring ability is the ultimate Potemkin repair job, a false facade to cover America's real failure at equal education. We need to invest much much more in Public Education and that investment should be based on fair distribution, meaning the most of it goes to the most disadvantaged. No prizes for taking the test, the prize goes for acing it. Do you want a surgeon who knows surgery or one who was simply given the surgeon's credentials?
"We need to invest much much more in Public Education and that investment should be based on fair distribution, meaning the most of it goes to the most disadvantaged."
Bullshit.
New York City spends over $28,000 per student. Do you think maybe the problem lies in what is taught, how it's taught and by whom the kids are taught. Why is Harlem Academy so successful while 63.8% of all city public school students were proficient in reading, and 51.5% were proficient in math.
I hadn’t heard of Harlem Academy, so I looked it up. The difference seems to be that the families value education and want their kids to succeed academically--enough to pay at least some tuition. I suspect that this crucial difference in the home environment leads to a far more conducive learning environment in the school.
And? Or do we say black parents can't care about their kids as much as "entitled" or "privileged" white parents? Where does the madness end?
It is not care, it is resources and expectations. My daughter teaches high school math in a poor community. Some kids are homeless or have drug addicted parents. We need to support the children at that level. Hungry, homeless children have a hard time learning.
The single most important determiner of success in school is the attitude of the child's parents toward school.
I agree that we need to try to help children in bad circumstances to do as well as they can. But in too many cases, there is no way to overcome the problem of parental attitude.
Another problem is that these attitudes seep into whole communities. I have read too many essays by successful black people who were accused by their peers of "trying to be white" because they took school seriously. What are you going to do to overcome that?
The single most important determiner of a child’s success in school is their parents wealth. Look it up!
What is frustrating is how much money is spent on the homeless, etc. and how little meets the "children at that level".
If "we" have an obligation to support the kids, then "we" also have to stop coddling the parents and demand accountability. Otherwise we're just dupes.
Bruce, I’m not sure what you’re asking by “and?” Obviously there are plenty of black parents who care about their kids’ academic and ultimately, financial success. I’ve seen that as someone who attended private school and as someone who lives in a suburb where families of all races send their kids to our very good public schools. It’s a very different story in inner city environments, where kids are dealing with drug addiction, gang violence, extreme poverty, and antipathy/resentment towards models of success perceived as rewarding whites and oppressing blacks. Part of the downside of public education is that people tend to value less what they get “for free”--in this case, taxpayer funds not being directly visible.
I repeat......"and?" You say, "It’s a very different story in inner city environments, where kids are dealing with drug addiction, gang violence, extreme poverty, and antipathy/resentment towards models of success perceived as rewarding whites and oppressing blacks." Whose fault is that? You don't have to have a lot of money or education to care about your children's success. My parents were not college educated nor did we have much money. But my mother brought all seven of us to the library several times a week, read to us and took our schooling very seriously.
It doesn’t end, it’s either milked or gaslighted until we all implode into this madness.
Is that what the previous administration called charter schools?
School choice seems to be the answer to this. But the teachers unions fight it. They then vote for democrats who defeat school choice. However, I think parents are rising up.
It doesn’t matter what school you’re in if parents don’t have the financial or emotional resources to parent. Get yourself educated before having a family.
Large cities in NYS (NYC, Yonkers, White Plains etc.) have school choice but it’s destroyed the value of building community around one’s neighborhood elementary school.
Smaller cities/towns with multiple elementary schools have had success diversifying via the Princeton Plan,
I agree on this. I watched the city I grew up in go from small, local schools to bigger schools. You could still walk, mostly, to the schools, but you were not as attached to the community. But, as a grandchild of immigrants, and someone who did not have a lot of money growing up, you can get a good education with a good work ethic and support from a loving family and community.
I have seen this waste myself, and consequently started a charter school in Allegheny County. But charter schools do not receive the same money per student as the other public schools; so for charter schools to remain afloat they pay their teachers even less than the public schools, and their educational outcomes scarcely surpass the other public schools. Money alone, as you accurately recognize, will not fix the problem. I also agree with many here that this is cultural problem: Asian and Jewish parents for example, are much more culturally equipped to promote their children's education than many other minorities. And that itself comes from our own cultural focus on the value of reading, mathematics and education in general. So what is to be done? The answer is expensive but entirely possible. Education in poor communities with awful academic performance cannot end at the school house. A real federal commitment to improving educational outcomes for poor, predominately Black communities, must include wrap around care for the entire family. That will take significant focused federal funding. The experts are already there and they know how to do it too. But we need to do it as a nation. First, without a doubt, eliminate leftist racist ideologies that promote the fundamentally destructive nonsense so clearly described in the above article. Make lying wrong again. Follow the real science and not the politically correct gibberish of Kendi and DiAngelo.
Wealthy suburban schools get much more money per student than NYC. But you probably already knew that.
That is simply not true. NYC spends $28 K per student. Greenwich Ct spends the same. Westport $26 K and Stamford $21 K.
I have lived in both an urban community and a wealthy suburb in MA - I know it is not the same as NY, but I had to pay for so much more in the suburbs. We had excellent grant writers in the city and the programs got lots of money. The Boston teachers were paid better than the suburbs. But in every case, it's how the administration spends the money.
It’s difficult to succeed in an inner-city school if your classmates beat you up for “acting white” when you study hard and excel academically. Very hard to persevere under those circumstances.
I saw that first hand when my kids where in elementary school. My kids had friends with amazing parents and struggled when their son, who was smart, athletic and good looking, was making good grades. His friends told him to stop acting white.
“Stop acting white.”
It appears the problem is cultural as well as socio-economic. Of course noticing this issue gets you labeled a racist.
Ibram Kendi himself adopts many of these self-destructive values in his treatise on antiracism, calling such ideals as hard work and getting good grades in school white supremacist notions. Really, it seems he is making excuses for any perceived failures of black people by somehow labeling them as failures of white society.
"Stop acting white."
Do people say that to you a lot?
It’s unbelievable
There are millions of dirt poor Asians that came here, not knowing English and not getting the affirmative action grift, that have succeeded in those schools. It’s not easy and it requires hard work. The failures are systemic, Administration >curriculum >teachers >parents.
Recently, the most successful immigrant group is Nigerians with a population of over 60% of them having an advance degree. They are even more successful than "Asians" (how does a whole continent of people from countries as diverse as India and China count as one group...only in stats.) This total blows the idea that skin color is an insurmountable barrier.
Parents are at the top of the list. Parents are not bad, they just need to educate themselves first before having children. Raising kids requires financial and emotional resources…& some time.
I agree that parents are of foremost importance to the success of their kids but I don’t believe their personal education level is the driving force. Prioritizing your children’s education, sacrifice, and hard work are far more valuable traits that parents offer. I have seen several kids whose parents lacked even a complete high school education prioritize and champion a better education for their own children and succeed in doing so.
School choice/vouchers. Less administrative burden. Much higher expectations for teachers. We spend a great deal already, just poorly
Investing more in public education is not the answer......The money by in large has no effect on the students. Expecting schools to fix what is wrong with the neighborhoods and the households that many of these kids are coming from is fools gold...
Look where the money invested in education is going. How little of it actually reaches the classroom or addresses the students needs and how much of it goes to "experts" who have never been in a classroom or taught that subject. There are true experts teaching in classrooms and know how to navigate the negatives to get positive results but they are overshadowed by "experts" that have seminars on white privileges.
States that spend more on education get higher outcomes, with the notable exception of Utah. Paying teachers more gets you better teachers. This is true on all other professions.
I’m sorry but don’t all of us have access to same materials for learning? How is it possible race determines your ability to take a test? You either know the answer or you don’t.
The SAT/ACT are a snapshot of a student, but grades show the ability of the student to perform and "grind" through the demands of education year after year. This is why experts state that grades are the best tool for gauging whether a student is ready for the demands of college & why universities should rely heavily on the grades.
Education money is frequently supporting the "victim role" rather than promoting the ability to succeed. When a district in CA was concerned about STEM test scores in the minority population, they hired a white sociologist from Stanford who concluded that math standards needed to be lowered. The board failed to include any African Americans. Dr. Nelson, a professor of computer science and EE at UC Berkeley and an African American, strongly criticized the lowering of standards rather than implementing a better curriculum.
As for the surgeon, medical boards select from very highly qualified candidates and the weeding of candidates continues through their internship and residency so I trust that my surgeon is qualified whether wearing a kippah or pagri, or the color of the skin, etc.
I wouldn’t be as confident in newly-minted physicians and surgeons if I were you. Medical schools and now residencies have been infected with DEI, so accepted students are less qualified, get by with less education, and are passed with less proven expertise. I am a retired physician who is horrified by the priorities and goals now espoused by medical schools and specialty organizations. (Ignore the AMA, as only a small fraction of practicing physicians belong. Unfortunately, the insanity has metastasized to the working specialty organizations. It’s alarming.)
I don't know much about how doctors are educated, but at 75, I have watched the decline in quality of practicing doctors. And it's not just training but also attitude. In my lat visit to see my long time dermatologist, the doctor directed his attention to the pretty intern walking with him, instead of my problem. As a result, he failed to diagnose the aggressive cancer growing in me. The four months delay that occurred while I found a doctor who recognized the problem and acted on it almost killed me, and may still. I don't and didn't care what color my doctor was, but I am certainly not ready to leave my family prematurely because a doctor didn't care..
My experience is that the doctors training may or may not have the changed, but the healthcare system has definitely changed. It is rare to meet a physician who recognizes that you or your loved ones are human beings and not just a body part or an insurance payment.
You think so? Here are three articles found in a 1 second google search that describes the changing of standards to increase the amount of URM (Underrepresented minority students) and increase "anti-racist" practices in medicine. Once you get into specialties, there are even less URM students, and that type of racism can't be allowed. Again, standards must be changed.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7855342/
https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-eliminate-deficit-centered-mindset-about-medical-students-color/2021-12
https://www.mountsinai.org/about/newsroom/2022/medical-students-lead-nationwide-movement-to-excise-racism-from-nephrology-curricula
Chicago Public Schools spent $20,486 per pupil in 2021. That's over half a million dollars for a class of 25. There's plenty of money. It just pays for the wrong things. Those elected, appointed and hired to run the schools seem to care less for the students and parents than for themselves since moms, dads and kids come and go while teachers, administrators and service personnel are permanent.
If you want to fix education for poor kids, give their parents a choice for where they attend. Give them a voice in choosing where those funds are spent. Some may just not be able to be saved but how could we do any worse than we are now?
Well said.
John Marshall Harlan ?
I recently read that the origin of the term politically correct originates in Russia where someone objected to an argument with the comment it was not factually correct. The arguer responded that the argument may not be factually correct, but it was politically correct. The same so clearly applies to these 'color blind are racism in disguise' arguments. Thank you for putting the argument so cogently, and of course- factually correct !
It’s a product of the Frankfurt School. Very good explanation and backstory here:
https://youtu.be/q6c_dinY3fM
Thanks for the link- I'm listening.
Yes Mr. Ginensky, it was John Marshall Harlan, the Great Dissenter. The famous quote from his opinion in Plessy is,“Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
When it’s politically important to build sympathy for gay civil unions, the right to visit your partner in the hospital becomes the most important right in the world and countless stories and Hollywood movies are made about it… but a bit later, when it’s politically important to support lockdowns, of course nobody is allowed to visit their dying spouse in the hospital no matter what and to object is to be virulently anti-science….
When it’s politically important to believe all women, all women are believed, but a little bit later when it’s not, women are suddenly pathological liars…
When it’s politically important to be a hardcore pacifist, nothing on earth is worse than the horrors of war, but a little later when hitler betrays Stalin and new communist party talking points go out, it’s time to kill as many Nazis in the name of justice as possible…
I could go on, and on….
The above essay, like all good faith engagement with countless shameless left wing ideological reversals, is pointless. They’re not arguing in good faith, they are saying whatever they need to say to achieve todays goal and will argue the opposite just as vehemently tomorrow if needed. but thank you anyway for writing : )