Oops - your Trump presidency discussion thread.

1156157159161162169

Comments

  • stetson wrote: »
    I can believe that there were sincere libertatians who were opposed to integration being forced upon private businesses as a matter of principle, free of any racial animosity. (Basically, to rework the old anti-censorship slogan: I disagree with how you run your lunch counter, but I'll defend to the death your right to run it that way.)

    Libertarianism has long meant liberty for the better-off and lack of liberty for the worse-off. It is the worship of the status quo.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    I can believe that there were sincere libertatians who were opposed to integration being forced upon private businesses as a matter of principle, free of any racial animosity. (Basically, to rework the old anti-censorship slogan: I disagree with how you run your lunch counter, but I'll defend to the death your right to run it that way.)

    Libertarianism has long meant liberty for the better-off and lack of liberty for the worse-off. It is the worship of the status quo.

    Well, it depends how you define "liberty". Under the most narrow definition(ie. the one used by libertarians), in the absence of a welfare-state, trade unions etc, the rich man and the poor man can still both have the same amount of liberty, in the sense of freedom from STATE control.

    However, under those circumstances, the poor man is going to have far fewer options as to how he exercices his liberty than does the rich man. To quote someone else's argument, "There is not much point in saying that everyone has the right to read what they want, if large numbers of people can't afford to buy books and there are no libraries".

    And yes, that does qualify as worshiping, and in fact exacerbating, the status quo.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Goldwater was essentially a Libertarian ... He also had an internalized moral compass ...

    As for what a libertarian with an internalized moral compass looked like in 1964 American conservatism, Goldwater's signature issue during his presidential campaign was opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    I feel that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being president of the United States so threatens the health, morality, and survival of our nation that I can not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represents.

    - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    It should be noted that most of the people deeply involved in opposing the Civil Rights Movement also couched their opposition to black equality in "libertarian" terms. It's entirely uncoincidental that the only states Goldwater carried in 1964 were his home state of Arizona, Georgia, and the four states carried by Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond in 1948.

    The "Libertarians" were/are essentially anti-Federals ... "Just let ME and MINE do whatever we want ..." .. Goldwater was NOT a malignant narcissist, a psychopath, however ...
  • The "Libertarians" were/are essentially anti-Federals ... "Just let ME and MINE do whatever we want ..."

    That's not so much anti-Federal as shopping for a jurisdictional level that "let(s) ME and MINE do whatever we want". Whichever level of jurisdiction will give you the answer you want to hear is the "right" one for whatever the problem is. If the federal government wants to racially integrate restrooms at any bus stop that handles inter-state traffic, then the state is the right level of government to address that question. If the federal government wants to build a bunch of interstate highways to aid inter-state traffic then by God and white Jesus that's the right level of government to handle infrastructure projects like that.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    The "Libertarians" were/are essentially anti-Federals ... "Just let ME and MINE do whatever we want ..."

    That's not so much anti-Federal as shopping for a jurisdictional level that "let(s) ME and MINE do whatever we want". Whichever level of jurisdiction will give you the answer you want to hear is the "right" one for whatever the problem is. If the federal government wants to racially integrate restrooms at any bus stop that handles inter-state traffic, then the state is the right level of government to address that question. If the federal government wants to build a bunch of interstate highways to aid inter-state traffic then by God and white Jesus that's the right level of government to handle infrastructure projects like that.

    These days many of the Libertarians -- often associated with gun-nut militia folks -- recognize the county as their preferred jurisdictional authority, with the popularly elected County Sheriff as the Guy in Charge ...
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Crœsos wrote: »
    The "Libertarians" were/are essentially anti-Federals ... "Just let ME and MINE do whatever we want ..."

    That's not so much anti-Federal as shopping for a jurisdictional level that "let(s) ME and MINE do whatever we want". Whichever level of jurisdiction will give you the answer you want to hear is the "right" one for whatever the problem is. If the federal government wants to racially integrate restrooms at any bus stop that handles inter-state traffic, then the state is the right level of government to address that question. If the federal government wants to build a bunch of interstate highways to aid inter-state traffic then by God and white Jesus that's the right level of government to handle infrastructure projects like that.

    These days many of the Libertarians -- often associated with gun-nut militia folks -- recognize the county as their preferred jurisdictional authority, with the popularly elected County Sheriff as the Guy in Charge ...

    Only because the militias think they can beat a posse of county deputies.
    ___

    Not sure if this got posted yet, but the New York Post which has long supported Trump and is his favorite go-to paper published an editorial yesterday saying it is time for Trump to Stop the Insanity I do not agree with many of its points, but I wonder if Trump can stop his insanity.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    The "Libertarians" were/are essentially anti-Federals ... "Just let ME and MINE do whatever we want ..."

    That's not so much anti-Federal as shopping for a jurisdictional level that "let(s) ME and MINE do whatever we want". Whichever level of jurisdiction will give you the answer you want to hear is the "right" one for whatever the problem is. If the federal government wants to racially integrate restrooms at any bus stop that handles inter-state traffic, then the state is the right level of government to address that question. If the federal government wants to build a bunch of interstate highways to aid inter-state traffic then by God and white Jesus that's the right level of government to handle infrastructure projects like that.

    These days many of the Libertarians -- often associated with gun-nut militia folks -- recognize the county as their preferred jurisdictional authority, with the popularly elected County Sheriff as the Guy in Charge ...

    Only because the militias think they can beat a posse of county deputies.

    You assume they're two different groups of people.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    The "Libertarians" were/are essentially anti-Federals ... "Just let ME and MINE do whatever we want ..."

    That's not so much anti-Federal as shopping for a jurisdictional level that "let(s) ME and MINE do whatever we want". Whichever level of jurisdiction will give you the answer you want to hear is the "right" one for whatever the problem is. If the federal government wants to racially integrate restrooms at any bus stop that handles inter-state traffic, then the state is the right level of government to address that question. If the federal government wants to build a bunch of interstate highways to aid inter-state traffic then by God and white Jesus that's the right level of government to handle infrastructure projects like that.

    These days many of the Libertarians -- often associated with gun-nut militia folks -- recognize the county as their preferred jurisdictional authority, with the popularly elected County Sheriff as the Guy in Charge ...

    Only because the militias think they can beat a posse of county deputies.

    You assume they're two different groups of people.

    Around here, that is true.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    The "Libertarians" were/are essentially anti-Federals ... "Just let ME and MINE do whatever we want ..."

    That's not so much anti-Federal as shopping for a jurisdictional level that "let(s) ME and MINE do whatever we want". Whichever level of jurisdiction will give you the answer you want to hear is the "right" one for whatever the problem is. If the federal government wants to racially integrate restrooms at any bus stop that handles inter-state traffic, then the state is the right level of government to address that question. If the federal government wants to build a bunch of interstate highways to aid inter-state traffic then by God and white Jesus that's the right level of government to handle infrastructure projects like that.

    These days many of the Libertarians -- often associated with gun-nut militia folks -- recognize the county as their preferred jurisdictional authority, with the popularly elected County Sheriff as the Guy in Charge ...

    Only because the militias think they can beat a posse of county deputies.
    ___

    Not sure if this got posted yet, but the New York Post which has long supported Trump and is his favorite go-to paper published an editorial yesterday saying it is time for Trump to Stop the Insanity I do not agree with many of its points, but I wonder if Trump can stop his insanity.

    No, Trump has a major personality disorder, which by this time in his life is hard-wired into the physical structure of his brain ...
    He is incapable of stopping being a malignant narcissist ...
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    The "Libertarians" were/are essentially anti-Federals ... "Just let ME and MINE do whatever we want ..."

    That's not so much anti-Federal as shopping for a jurisdictional level that "let(s) ME and MINE do whatever we want". Whichever level of jurisdiction will give you the answer you want to hear is the "right" one for whatever the problem is. If the federal government wants to racially integrate restrooms at any bus stop that handles inter-state traffic, then the state is the right level of government to address that question. If the federal government wants to build a bunch of interstate highways to aid inter-state traffic then by God and white Jesus that's the right level of government to handle infrastructure projects like that.

    These days many of the Libertarians -- often associated with gun-nut militia folks -- recognize the county as their preferred jurisdictional authority, with the popularly elected County Sheriff as the Guy in Charge ...

    Only because the militias think they can beat a posse of county deputies.

    You assume they're two different groups of people.

    bingo
  • Pearlstein's thesis as I understand it so far is that the isolationist Republicans - the Taft folks - and the Dixiecrats got together in a marriage of political convenience. That says to me that the isolationist Republicans were prepared to countenance the situation in the South defended by the Dixiecrats. Doesn't that make them aiders and abettors of the Dixiecrats, at the very least? Goldwater courted both.

    As I type this, I am remembering Kamala Harris' attack on Joe Biden over bussing. Can someone please help me rescue Biden while retaining my criticism of Goldwater.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »

    As I type this, I am remembering Kamala Harris' attack on Joe Biden over bussing. Can someone please help me rescue Biden while retaining my criticism of Goldwater.

    If you support bussing, there is likely no defense of Biden's previous stance, back in his troglodyte days.

    Which doesn't mean you shouldn't support him today, now that he's changed his position. If you refused to vote for any politician because you don't like a viewpoint they had advocated decades earlier, that would likely limit your options considerably.

    (And yes, this would also have applied to Goldwater, had he moved as far to the left as Biden has, and especially if he was running against the absolute worst president since I-don't-know-when.)

  • stetson wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    As I type this, I am remembering Kamala Harris' attack on Joe Biden over bussing. Can someone please help me rescue Biden while retaining my criticism of Goldwater.

    If you support bussing, there is likely no defense of Biden's previous stance, back in his troglodyte days.

    Which doesn't mean you shouldn't support him today, now that he's changed his position. If you refused to vote for any politician because you don't like a viewpoint they had advocated decades earlier, that would likely limit your options considerably.

    (And yes, this would also have applied to Goldwater, had he moved as far to the left as Biden has, and especially if he was running against the absolute worst president since I-don't-know-when.)

    The concerns about bussing, however, were genuine and not always race motivated ...

    I was very fortunate to grow up in an excellent school district (which was ca. 95% "white") ...
    Grade 3-6 I walked to my school (through waist deep snow, uphill both ways -- Minnesota, you see) ... and later I walked to my Middle School also (even longer trek, same conditions) ... In High School I had the option of riding the bus, but I mostly preferred to *hoof*it* ...

    Point is, I went to the same school as my neighbor kids ... Some of our teachers were nearby neighbors ...
    A legitimate concern was -- still is -- "neighborhood" schools ... The desire of many (including a large percentage of parents) was to improve the schools rather than shuffle the children ...
  • The concerns about bussing, however, were genuine and not always race motivated ...

    Because nothing is ever motivated by race in America. It's always "property values", or "cultural similarity", or "crime", or . . .
    I was very fortunate to grow up in an excellent school district (which was ca. 95% "white") ...

    <snip>

    Point is, I went to the same school as my neighbor kids ... Some of our teachers were nearby neighbors ...
    A legitimate concern was -- still is -- "neighborhood" schools ... The desire of many (including a large percentage of parents) was to improve the schools rather than shuffle the children ...

    As for the question of why certain neighborhoods were "ca. 95% white", that's often pitched as a pure coincidence rather than a concerted political effort to drive out / keep out non-whites from predominantly white neighborhoods.

    I'll also note that the concern white folks living in redlined neighborhoods felt to improve neighborhood schools in non-white neighborhoods was largely contingent on the likelihood that their own kids might have to attend those schools.
  • Minnesota has hills? Come out my way, and I will show you hills.
  • FWIW, in Edmonton Canada, my elementary and junior high(aka middle) schools could have accurately been described as "neighbourhood" schools, as far as the student-body went. I believe some of the teachers might have lived in the area, but I don't think most of us had a lot of social interaction with them. (These were Catholic schools, but I never saw any of the teachers at mass in the nearby churches, for example, and I was a weekly attendee.)

    My high school's jurisdiction, so to speak, was a bunch of mostly continguous areas, but also included students from across the river who often commuted in by bus. The other side of the river was pretty much considered a separate part of the city.

    Some of the teachers lived within walking or at least cycling distance of the school, but with one or two exceptions, I never knew exactly where their houses were.

    (My high-school also had a Ukrainian bilingual progam, whose students came from all over the city.)
  • Oh, not that it's really important, but just for the sake of accurate recollection...

    One of my high-school teachers was a priest, and he sometimes said mass at a church I attended. My family was a bit closer to him than to most of my other teachers(he baptized my father). But I never knew where he lived, much less visited him, when he was my teacher.

    And is it really a good idea for a teacher to be pals around the neighbourhood with students' families anyway? I think they have to maintain a certain objectivity in regards to their students, which might be kinda difficult if they're shooting pool at the local pub with kids' parents.
  • stetson wrote: »

    And is it really a good idea for a teacher to be pals around the neighbourhood with students' families anyway? I think they have to maintain a certain objectivity in regards to their students, which might be kinda difficult if they're shooting pool at the local pub with kids' parents.

    It's... really not that hard. Kids are kids and if they're great, they're great and if not, well, who their parents are matters not a jot.
  • I always went to neighborhood schools but we were blessed with a lot of international students as well. Staff children from nearby embassies in Wash. D.C. . Not only did we know the teachers, some of whom had taught our parents, but we also knew the neighborhood policeman who walked our beat, and came to school events. I think there is something to be said for children going to school in their own area. That said if your neighborhood was not integrated I think parents of children should have been allowed to send their children to different school districts. This was especially true where schools were covered by local real estate tax, thereby making money available for schools different depending on where you lived. I think things are better now, but there are still students who are not getting a good education because of where they live. The problem of unequal education offered to children has not gone away.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    The concerns about bussing, however, were genuine and not always race motivated ...

    Because nothing is ever motivated by race in America. It's always "property values", or "cultural similarity", or "crime", or . . .
    I was very fortunate to grow up in an excellent school district (which was ca. 95% "white") ...

    <snip>

    Point is, I went to the same school as my neighbor kids ... Some of our teachers were nearby neighbors ...
    A legitimate concern was -- still is -- "neighborhood" schools ... The desire of many (including a large percentage of parents) was to improve the schools rather than shuffle the children ...

    As for the question of why certain neighborhoods were "ca. 95% white", that's often pitched as a pure coincidence rather than a concerted political effort to drive out / keep out non-whites from predominantly white neighborhoods.

    I'll also note that the concern white folks living in redlined neighborhoods felt to improve neighborhood schools in non-white neighborhoods was largely contingent on the likelihood that their own kids might have to attend those schools.

    "Bussing" students across town to *other* schools didn't stop -- wasn't meant to stop -- "redlining" ...
  • "Bussing" students across town to *other* schools didn't stop -- wasn't meant to stop -- "redlining" ...

    No, just counteract (some of) the effects redlining had on education, like @Graven Image's observation about the connection between property values and school budgets.
  • It's... really not that hard. Kids are kids and if they're great, they're great and if not, well, who their parents are matters not a jot.

    ...and in a small community, it's inevitable. Everyone knows everyone - whether you're the teacher, or the police officer, or the guy getting drunk and throwing up on the pool table. We're a fairly normal suburb, and lots of kids round here routinely see their teachers in the supermarket. I'm sure there are people that attend church with their teachers, or live next to a teacher, or whose dad is fishing buddies with their teacher, or whatever else.

    Years ago in the UK, I used to regularly encounter my GP at the bridge table.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    "Bussing" students across town to *other* schools didn't stop -- wasn't meant to stop -- "redlining" ...

    No, just counteract (some of) the effects redlining had on education, like @Graven Image's observation about the connection between property values and school budgets.

    Hence the sensible suggestion by many,
    (1) that the BUDGET and general supports should be increased for public schools
    (2) even as our society tries to even out vexing social-economic-political injustices and inequities across communities ...
    I remember the times and the debates ...
    Many parents -- irrespective of the *race* of the child or parents -- were not keen on having THEIR kids spending an additional two hours every day on a bus ...
    That is my point ...
  • Ah, the old separate but equal.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Ah, the old separate but equal.

    Indeed. Going back to Kamala Harris you'll note the paternalism of worrying about students riding a bus for 20 minutes twice every school day is turned into a backhanded criticism of parents like the Harrises who would subject their kids to such an atrocity to attend a better school.
  • Fr TeilhardFr Teilhard Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    mousethief wrote: »
    Ah, the old separate but equal.

    No ...
    As per the SCOTUS, "separate is inherently unequal" ...
    And, no ...
    In Brown v. Board of Education, the SCOTUS did not order "bussing" as the remedy ..
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Ah, the old separate but equal.

    Indeed. Going back to Kamala Harris you'll note the paternalism of worrying about students riding a bus for 20 minutes twice every school day is turned into a backhanded criticism of parents like the Harrises who would subject their kids to such an atrocity to attend a better school.

    It wasn't only "white" parents who weren't thrilled with 'bussing" ...

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    "Bussing" students across town to *other* schools didn't stop -- wasn't meant to stop -- "redlining" ...

    No, just counteract (some of) the effects redlining had on education, like @Graven Image's observation about the connection between property values and school budgets.

    Hence the sensible suggestion by many,
    (1) that the BUDGET and general supports should be increased for public schools
    (2) even as our society tries to even out vexing social-economic-political injustices and inequities across communities ...
    I remember the times and the debates ...
    Many parents -- irrespective of the *race* of the child or parents -- were not keen on having THEIR kids spending an additional two hours every day on a bus ...
    That is my point ...
    Oh, bullshit. White parents opposed to bussing never advocated for more money for the schools that minority students attended - if they did, how the hell could they have gotten so poor in the first place?
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    "Bussing" students across town to *other* schools didn't stop -- wasn't meant to stop -- "redlining" ...

    No, just counteract (some of) the effects redlining had on education, like @Graven Image's observation about the connection between property values and school budgets.

    Hence the sensible suggestion by many,
    (1) that the BUDGET and general supports should be increased for public schools
    (2) even as our society tries to even out vexing social-economic-political injustices and inequities across communities ...
    I remember the times and the debates ...
    Many parents -- irrespective of the *race* of the child or parents -- were not keen on having THEIR kids spending an additional two hours every day on a bus ...
    That is my point ...
    Oh, bullshit. White parents opposed to bussing never advocated for more money for the schools that minority students attended - if they did, how the hell could they have gotten so poor in the first place?

    Huh ...
    "We know what ALL 'WHITE' parents are like ..." ... ???
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    "Bussing" students across town to *other* schools didn't stop -- wasn't meant to stop -- "redlining" ...

    No, just counteract (some of) the effects redlining had on education, like @Graven Image's observation about the connection between property values and school budgets.

    Hence the sensible suggestion by many,
    (1) that the BUDGET and general supports should be increased for public schools
    (2) even as our society tries to even out vexing social-economic-political injustices and inequities across communities ...
    I remember the times and the debates ...
    Many parents -- irrespective of the *race* of the child or parents -- were not keen on having THEIR kids spending an additional two hours every day on a bus ...
    That is my point ...
    Oh, bullshit. White parents opposed to bussing never advocated for more money for the schools that minority students attended - if they did, how the hell could they have gotten so poor in the first place?

    Huh ...
    "We know what ALL 'WHITE' parents are like ..." ... ???
    Since we live in America - why yes, we do know what racism is, and we know who had control over budgets, and what they chose to spend money on. And we don't need to pretend that there were large numbers of white parents who were advocating increased spending on schools for minority students as an alternative to school integration.
  • Dave W wrote: »
    And we don't need to pretend that there were large numbers of white parents who were advocating increased spending on schools for minority students as an alternative to school integration.
    Or who were advocating for integrated neighborhoods as a means of achieving integration without bussing.

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    And we don't need to pretend that there were large numbers of white parents who were advocating increased spending on schools for minority students as an alternative to school integration.
    Or who were advocating for integrated neighborhoods as a means of achieving integration without bussing.

    bingo

  • Dave W wrote: »
    Dave W wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    "Bussing" students across town to *other* schools didn't stop -- wasn't meant to stop -- "redlining" ...

    No, just counteract (some of) the effects redlining had on education, like @Graven Image's observation about the connection between property values and school budgets.

    Hence the sensible suggestion by many,
    (1) that the BUDGET and general supports should be increased for public schools
    (2) even as our society tries to even out vexing social-economic-political injustices and inequities across communities ...
    I remember the times and the debates ...
    Many parents -- irrespective of the *race* of the child or parents -- were not keen on having THEIR kids spending an additional two hours every day on a bus ...
    That is my point ...
    Oh, bullshit. White parents opposed to bussing never advocated for more money for the schools that minority students attended - if they did, how the hell could they have gotten so poor in the first place?

    Huh ...
    "We know what ALL 'WHITE' parents are like ..." ... ???
    Since we live in America - why yes, we do know what racism is, and we know who had control over budgets, and what they chose to spend money on. And we don't need to pretend that there were large numbers of white parents who were advocating increased spending on schools for minority students as an alternative to school integration.

    Huh ...
    Just ... Huh ...
  • In Brown v. Board of Education, the SCOTUS did not order "bussing" as the remedy ..

    For those unfamiliar with the facts of the case this bit of shameless mendacity may have passed unnoticed. Allow me to elucidate.

    The school board of Topeka, Kansas maintained racially segregated schools, but not many of them. This meant that black students, like Linda Brown, had to be bused to distant facilities rather than attending their (Whites Only) neighborhood schools a few blocks away. Apparently the solicitude of white folks about the indignity of long bus rides doesn't cross the color line. It's okay as long as it's used to maintain "an excellent school district", which is a euphemism for a "ca. 95% white" student body. Apparently Oliver Brown should have been more reasonable and waited for society to "even out vexing social-economic-political injustices and inequities across communities" and then sent his daughter to elementary school. (Linda Brown died in 2018, and I get the feeling she'd still be waiting for that elementary school education if she waited for all those "vexing social-economic-political injustices and inequities" to be eliminated.)
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    In Brown v. Board of Education, the SCOTUS did not order "bussing" as the remedy ..

    For those unfamiliar with the facts of the case this bit of shameless mendacity may have passed unnoticed. Allow me to elucidate.

    The school board of Topeka, Kansas maintained racially segregated schools, but not many of them. This meant that black students, like Linda Brown, had to be bused to distant facilities rather than attending their (Whites Only) neighborhood schools a few blocks away. Apparently the solicitude of white folks about the indignity of long bus rides doesn't cross the color line. It's okay as long as it's used to maintain "an excellent school district", which is a euphemism for a "ca. 95% white" student body. Apparently Oliver Brown should have been more reasonable and waited for society to "even out vexing social-economic-political injustices and inequities across communities" and then sent his daughter to elementary school. (Linda Brown died in 2018, and I get the feeling she'd still be waiting for that elementary school education if she waited for all those "vexing social-economic-political injustices and inequities" to be eliminated.)

    My goodness, you are a (self) righteous -- even god-like??? -- person, fit to project your own prejudices onto others, able to read their minds, and so on ...

    But ... You have no idea where or how I grew up, K-12 or later, yet because I am "white" you assume and assert that I am a racist ...

    (As I indicated -- above -- while I had the option of riding the bus to high school, I almost always preferred to walk ... Why was that ... ???)
  • OhherOhher Shipmate

    My goodness, you are a (self) righteous -- even god-like??? -- person, fit to project your own prejudices onto others, able to read their minds, and so on ...

    But ... You have no idea where or how I grew up, K-12 or later, yet because I am "white" you assume and assert that I am a racist ...

    (As I indicated -- above -- while I had the option of riding the bus to high school, I almost always preferred to walk ... Why was that ... ???)

    Ah, the old "Yes-racism-is-rampant-all-around-me-but-I-know-better-and-don't-share-that-belief-so-I'm-not-a-racist" argument. Been there, done that, and, sadly, still doing it.

    Of course, at one level this is right, @Fr Teilhard. It is, at least, some sort of starting point. Until/unless we explain in detail, we none of us have much grasp of what any of our personal anti-racism efforts consist of.

    Sharing this sort of thing -- "Here's what I do to combat racism at my school / at my job / in my family / in my church / in myself" -- might seem a little self-congratulatory. Maintaining radio silence on the subject only perpetuates the huge general cultural resistance to acknowledging its persistent, pernicious, pervasive, and corrosive presence in our society. And nearly every discussion I've ever been drawn into about this issue (among so-called "whites," anyway) . . always seems to boil down to "Well, I'm not a racists, but let me tell you about the horrible thing some work-make / group-member / acquaintance said or did that I found totally unjustified and deeply offensive and which drove an insurmountable wedge between us forever."

    All of which leaves me scratching my head. With so many well-meaning, apparently sincere and committed non-racists around, how do we manage to maintain a society in which income, education, occupation, health, and life expectancy outcomes across the board remain so stubbornly challenging for people of color? One might almost begin to suspect that all those good intentions and wishes allegedly harbored by so many white folks like me were somehow Not Quite Enough.

    So confession time: here's how I contributed today to fostering equality for people of color in my society: zzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzz
  • Fr TeilhardFr Teilhard Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Ohher wrote: »

    My goodness, you are a (self) righteous -- even god-like??? -- person, fit to project your own prejudices onto others, able to read their minds, and so on ...

    But ... You have no idea where or how I grew up, K-12 or later, yet because I am "white" you assume and assert that I am a racist ...

    (As I indicated -- above -- while I had the option of riding the bus to high school, I almost always preferred to walk ... Why was that ... ???)

    Ah, the old "Yes-racism-is-rampant-all-around-me-but-I-know-better-and-don't-share-that-belief-so-I'm-not-a-racist" argument. Been there, done that, and, sadly, still doing it.

    Of course, at one level this is right, @Fr Teilhard. It is, at least, some sort of starting point. Until/unless we explain in detail, we none of us have much grasp of what any of our personal anti-racism efforts consist of.

    Sharing this sort of thing -- "Here's what I do to combat racism at my school / at my job / in my family / in my church / in myself" -- might seem a little self-congratulatory. Maintaining radio silence on the subject only perpetuates the huge general cultural resistance to acknowledging its persistent, pernicious, pervasive, and corrosive presence in our society. And nearly every discussion I've ever been drawn into about this issue (among so-called "whites," anyway) . . always seems to boil down to "Well, I'm not a racists, but let me tell you about the horrible thing some work-make / group-member / acquaintance said or did that I found totally unjustified and deeply offensive and which drove an insurmountable wedge between us forever."

    All of which leaves me scratching my head. With so many well-meaning, apparently sincere and committed non-racists around, how do we manage to maintain a society in which income, education, occupation, health, and life expectancy outcomes across the board remain so stubbornly challenging for people of color? One might almost begin to suspect that all those good intentions and wishes allegedly harbored by so many white folks like me were somehow Not Quite Enough.

    So confession time: here's how I contributed today to fostering equality for people of color in my society: zzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzz

    The point of the original question was about Joe Biden's long ago opposition to bussing and the reason(s) for it ...

    I've never met Joe in person, had a conversation with him, been able to "size him up" one on one ... and unlike (apparently) quite a few other including you, I don't have the ability to read his mind at a distance ...

    What I do KNOW -- having been politically aware and active since the 60s -- is that SOME objections to "bussing" had nothing at all to do with "racism" at any level ...

    But, okay, I'll continue to *bite* ... (since you seem to love "trolling") ...

    Please tell me ... My affirmation of the need for "affirmative action" is an indication of my pernicious "soft racism," i.e., the gross idea that People of Color are inherently incapable of making it on their own, without "white" intervention ... ??? ... Is that it ... ???
  • I have just begun to read The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein (New York: The Liveright Publishing Corp 2017). Rothstein argues that since 1866, when the 13th Amendment was passed up until 1968 the United States had been using laws to segregate urban neighborhoods from African Americans. For instance, after WWII, when the Veterans Administration Home Loan program came out, black returning veterans were not able to apply for the loans which forced them to live in the inner city while their white (former) brothers in arms were allowed to move out into the new suburban areas. Consequently, black wealth severely lagged because they could not build up equity in their houses. In 1950 a house that would have cost around $7,000 then would have been worth around $47,000 in 1980 when those veterans would have been retiring. That same house today would be worth $119,000 depending on where it is built--in California it could be ten times as much.
  • Ohher wrote: »

    My goodness, you are a (self) righteous -- even god-like??? -- person, fit to project your own prejudices onto others, able to read their minds, and so on ...

    But ... You have no idea where or how I grew up, K-12 or later, yet because I am "white" you assume and assert that I am a racist ...

    (As I indicated -- above -- while I had the option of riding the bus to high school, I almost always preferred to walk ... Why was that ... ???)

    Ah, the old "Yes-racism-is-rampant-all-around-me-but-I-know-better-and-don't-share-that-belief-so-I'm-not-a-racist" argument. Been there, done that, and, sadly, still doing it.

    Of course, at one level this is right, @Fr Teilhard. It is, at least, some sort of starting point. Until/unless we explain in detail, we none of us have much grasp of what any of our personal anti-racism efforts consist of.

    Sharing this sort of thing -- "Here's what I do to combat racism at my school / at my job / in my family / in my church / in myself" -- might seem a little self-congratulatory. Maintaining radio silence on the subject only perpetuates the huge general cultural resistance to acknowledging its persistent, pernicious, pervasive, and corrosive presence in our society. And nearly every discussion I've ever been drawn into about this issue (among so-called "whites," anyway) . . always seems to boil down to "Well, I'm not a racists, but let me tell you about the horrible thing some work-make / group-member / acquaintance said or did that I found totally unjustified and deeply offensive and which drove an insurmountable wedge between us forever."

    All of which leaves me scratching my head. With so many well-meaning, apparently sincere and committed non-racists around, how do we manage to maintain a society in which income, education, occupation, health, and life expectancy outcomes across the board remain so stubbornly challenging for people of color? One might almost begin to suspect that all those good intentions and wishes allegedly harbored by so many white folks like me were somehow Not Quite Enough.

    So confession time: here's how I contributed today to fostering equality for people of color in my society: zzzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzz

    Ohher, do you teach at a community college, or am I confusing you with someone else? Is that contributing to fostering equality for people of colour? If your classes include people of colour, surely you are contributing. Plus, I'm pretty sure you were present for MLK's I have a Dream speech, and that you were not holding a truncheon.

    Australia shares the dishonour of being in the big league of structural racism, right up there with the Apartheid regime. Even living here is to participate in enjoying the fruits of genocide and an immigration policy that ensured most of us can trace our ancestry back to the British Isles or Europe. I think there is great value in identifying the racist underpinnings of society, and the racist modes of thinking that I was taught simply by being around and listening to adult conversation in the 1970's, let alone the balderised history that was the 1970's curriculum.

    Given all that, how can I not be racist to some degree? Surely my primary task is to identify and try to stop myself saying or doing things that are racist. Perhaps my next self-imposed obligation is to prioritise change in structurally racist Australia when working out who to vote for. If I do that, I think I am making a sufficient contribution to prevent tearing strips off myself. What can I do? At least I can do that, as a bare minimum.

    There are other things that can be done short of being a full time activist and doing stuff like guarding sacred trees so road crews don't destroy them (happening now). But personal acknowledgement that I say and do racist things from time to time and doing the work to try and lessen those times is the most important and immediate work for me.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Ohher, do you teach at a community college, or am I confusing you with someone else?

    I've just wrapped up my final semester after 30 years of teaching.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Is that contributing to fostering equality for people of colour?

    I wish to God I knew. Given the struggles they've shared with me, there's not a lot of evidence of marked improvement.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    If your classes include people of colour, surely you are contributing.

    Contributing what, though? I suspect I'm just another in a long line of well-meaning but clueless white ladies who tries hard but will never really Get It.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Plus, I'm pretty sure you were present for MLK's I have a Dream speech
    I was.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    and that you were not holding a truncheon.
    True.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Australia shares the dishonour of being in the big league of structural racism, right up there with the Apartheid regime. Even living here is to participate in enjoying the fruits of genocide and an immigration policy that ensured most of us can trace our ancestry back to the British Isles or Europe. I think there is great value in identifying the racist underpinnings of society, and the racist modes of thinking that I was taught simply by being around and listening to adult conversation in the 1970's, let alone the balderised history that was the 1970's curriculum.

    Given all that, how can I not be racist to some degree?

    This is the question I wish more "whites" would ask themselves, and ask more often, and explore more deeply.
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Surely my primary task is to identify and try to stop myself saying or doing things that are racist. Perhaps my next self-imposed obligation is to prioritise change in structurally racist Australia when working out who to vote for. If I do that, I think I am making a sufficient contribution to prevent tearing strips off myself. What can I do? At least I can do that, as a bare minimum.

    There are other things that can be done short of being a full time activist and doing stuff like guarding sacred trees so road crews don't destroy them (happening now). But personal acknowledgement that I say and do racist things from time to time and doing the work to try and lessen those times is the most important and immediate work for me.

    Well said. I wish more of us would undertake similar tasks with similar commitment

  • Ohher--

    Whatever else, you spent 30 years giving people a chance at something better.

    I went to community college, before I went off to a four-year. One thing I like about them is that the students there either really want to be there, or they know they need to be there. And community colleges are much less expensive than other colleges.

    Plus the variety of programs available, and ways to attend: you can finish high school by getting your GED; get certification for a vocation; do a college transfer program; and take individual classes, as you like.

    Community college is an equalizer, a leveling of the playing field.

    And you helped. Well done!
  • Absolutely! Teaching is so important, for good or ill. In the United States, it seems to me that teaching a mixed race class is a political act.
  • Plus, who says you have to get it to be an agent for change? It's impossible for me to really know what its like to grow up in a dysfunctional family, or be hungry. I can read about it, talk to people, but I'll never get it properly. I can still contribute to change. I don't need to understand the experience of poverty.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    The bussing tangent has edged from time to time into Commandment 3 territory, folks. The main thread is of course on its last legs. I'll keep an eye on the value of a split. Meanwhile, watch the Commandment 3 boundaries.

    And a better New Year to you all

    Barnabas62
    Purgatory Host
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Absolutely! Teaching is so important, for good or ill. In the United States, it seems to me that teaching a mixed race class is a political act.

    Much -- VERY much -- to the consternation of the Trumpistas, The USA is ever more a "mixed race" society ... and that includes public schools ...
  • Not true. You're right to say that minorities make up a larger and larger share of the US population, but residential and school segregation are as bad today as they were in the 1950s, or worse. School integration peaked in about the late 80s or early 90s, and dropped off again when the feds looked away.
  • Not true. You're right to say that minorities make up a larger and larger share of the US population, but residential and school segregation are as bad today as they were in the 1950s, or worse. School integration peaked in about the late 80s or early 90s, and dropped off again when the feds looked away.

    "White anxiety" still plays a large role in American society ... but will gradually wither away ...
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Not true. You're right to say that minorities make up a larger and larger share of the US population, but residential and school segregation are as bad today as they were in the 1950s, or worse. School integration peaked in about the late 80s or early 90s, and dropped off again when the feds looked away.

    Was it the feds looking away? I think rather it was the whites moving away and/or signing their kids up for private and religious schools, plus political pressure on local school districts to fund the school choices being made by the anxious white parents.

    It all boils down to deep-rooted prejudice and fear of the other.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited January 2
    My public school in Lodi CA was incredibly diverse back in 1984, reflecting the community around it. It was also just MASSIVE, and had girls... of all shapes and sizes. For a lad from a small private Catholic school it was quite an eye-opener. My best mates were a skinny Indian kid who drove a light blue Pinto, a Pakistani kid whose Dad ran a local restaurant, where he worked, a Vietnamese man catching up on his education after half a life as a refugee, and a few other nerdy kids. He was on his way to Stanford. I was totally at sea with relating to the girls, mostly agog to be honest. Yet somehow, the person I am still in touch with is a woman whose house Mandy and I stayed at in 2016.

    California was much more diverse than Melbourne, the most diverse city in Australia, at least in the 1980's. For us that has changed now, for the better. Lots of East Asian, African and South Asian migrants, and some too from the ME and Afghanistan. "We are one and we are many." I find it interesting that I distinguish ethnic groups from Asia easily, but I don't think I can do that with African immigrants. I don't know enough.

    Sorry, got off track. I am not sure whether we have "white" schools, even by default. Maybe. But Catholic private schools are European plus others, and the same with state schools. I think wealth and poverty is the deciding factor in school attendance here, and that's not really racially defined.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    My son’s school was very diverse too. His best friends were Sikh, Hindu and Muslim. They regularly spent time in each other’s houses and for meals. All four decided to become Hindus when they grew up as Hindus have far more parties!
This discussion has been closed.