Don Lemon asked Morgan Freeman what he thought could be done to improve race relations in this country. Freeman said: "Stop talking about it. Stop calling me an you a black man. We are just a man."
Civil rights 2.0 was exactly this... that nothing matters at all except the content of a person's character, and their ability to be a productive member of society. We were supposed to advance to a color, race, gender, sexual-orientation blind meritocracy. However, the left would have none of it. Group conflict has powered the Democrat party and fed the immoral media... what would they do if all of that went away?
Americans need to understand that everything materially wrong with racial conflict today is because powerful people want it that way.
It is completely understandably and reasonably for “people of color” to demand not to live in a “white” world where it is perceived that whites have taken all the “power” and people of color have been given none; and yet it is completely irrational and, in fact racist, for whites to object to the idea of living in a “world of color” where people of color take all the power and whites are given none (because, as we’ve come to understand allowing whites to have any power at all will only serve to perpetuate a systemically racist system - a desire inherent in whiteness that whites are powerless to recognize, let alone change (BTW, that sounds a lot like the explanation of gayness and contrast how that is viewed)).
Do I have that right? Is this really the new “len”?
Let’s be honest. Racism is the center piece of power for the American political left. If WHITES ever started voting as a monolithic block, just like people of color do currently, the use of the race card (which is used to divide whites and hold people of color in place) would be counter-productive as a tool of progressive politics…. Then a different card would be needed. I don’t see that happening, but if it did, race would stop being a focus.
This all speaks to the real reason “race” is in such sharp focus today: it works politically.
The political “right” gets blamed for hyping racism, but it’s not the political right constantly reminding people of color that they’re different and need the political right for comfort and protection. In fact, the political left will go so far as to challenge the identity of a person of color (eg, Joe Biden) if they dare to question any part of their political dogma.
Racism is an effective political tool for the left. The Left simply can not win elections (I.e., power) without it. And it seems that racism is all the political left has left to retain political power and they are increasingly shrill as they see its effectiveness slipping away.
I hope Richard does not get attacked and cancelled for saying the “a” word, assimilation (a process I know he spent decades researching and writing about). As I understand it, in the new anti-racist orthodoxy processes of assimilation (the gradual evaporation of hard tribal boundaries) is merely another element of white supremacy and systemic racism, just like individualism and politeness. That is, racial essentialism is a crucial weapon (I guess part of a hammer in Richard’s metaphor) of the new orthodoxy, and threatening racial essentialism threatens the racist anti-racist project.
This is fighting fire with fire. Or perhaps more accurately it is like a British anthropologist going into West Africa to study the habits of not just one black tribe, but filling a dictionary with more tribes than the British world has ever known. It won't help any of the new reified tribes attain modern sensibilities or anything resembling national identity.
We went through this circus officially when the Census Bureau allowed people to self-identify with as many checkmarks as they desired. That didn't and will not change the obsession of black vs white. Nor has it changed the reporting of any substance. When have you last seen something published that describes the relationships between blacks in LA and Koreans in LA? The LA Riots, of course. Nothing else. How about between Japanese and Chinese in LA? How about between the various Asians in Houston?
It doesn't help the cause of individuality in the modern, non-tribal sense to explode a new racial intersectionality cluster bomb. It just gives names to more fragments that will accelerate tribal identification. This is a fundamental problem with the soft social sciences and will make reviews of single standards for all that much more complicated to adjudicate. Our actual real history shows that Multiculturalism was a failure, and it has devolved to the exact same black vs white framing of 100 years ago, with blacks being the canary in America's coalmine. Now we endure rants against 'cultural appropriation' of all sorts.
Americans will want to reduce it down to racism. But already we are entertaining questions like 'Is it racist for Japanese Americans to not like Mexican food?' and 'How come all biracial blacks don't look like Steph Curry?'
The problem with today's multiculturalism is that it is different than pluralism. Pluralism is the proper ethos for America, multiculturalism is not. The difference can be explained simply by assuming Americans can be divided into two tribes:
Ideological Tribe A
We believe that America is at its best when its mainstream is maintained without regard to race, creed, color, sexual preference, etc..
Ideological Tribe B
We believe that America is at its best when its mainstream is maintained with special regard to race, creed, color, sexual preference, etc.
It seems that academics will never get it thru their heads that the rest of us do not care to be lectured -- as happens in the main stream newspapers, NPR (National Public Racio) and sometimes on Persuasion -- that Americans really are racists/sexists/genderists. Most of us are sick of constant accusations of unwarranted**, systemic racism across America. Thanks for the gratuitous 'while it's not as bad as some might think' ("increasing ethnic and racial diversity" and "the social distance between many whites and nonwhites diminishes sharply"). But your insistence on pushing the 'racism' agenda that the "white-dominated mainstream, racial inequalities remain very prominent" makes me want to puke.
**for example, the approval of intermarriage has climbed continuously from near zero in the 1960s to 94% today? Do progressives keep up their accusations to re-educate the last 6% of racists? Or, perhaps the progressives are wrong? If so, they are doing a damned good job of instigating racial animosity. https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx
’Scuse me. I thought the idea of ‘systematic racism’ was precisely that it was NOT individual racism, that it was embedded in institutions given the way they developed over time, which perpetuates disadvantage. For example, banks are hesitant to lend in areas that have been degraded because of past redlining, etc. This is nobody’s fault. Everyone is acting rationally, and not being individually racist, but we’re caught in an evil net. And that’s being fixed though still a long way to go. And I speak as an academic, a standard lefty NPR-following academic.
Of course it's just a matter of bankers' being risk-averse. That's why it's STRUCTURAL racism. The bankers themselves aren't racists--they're behaving rationally and doing their job. The 'structural' issue is that because of past redlining, etc. minority neighborhoods are risky investments. I repeat: as I understand it 'structural' means that none of the individuals involved, bankers or whatever, are themselves racists.
'Systematic racism' is just nonsense for those unwilling to embrace reality. Is 'systematic racism' why Singapore has a per-capita GDP that is 34X Haiti? Or could it be some other factor? Did 'systematic racism' prevent Japanese-Americans from surpassing whites in California, just 20 years after WWII (and internment which makes red-lining seem like sort-of a joke). NYC spends a veritable fortune on attempting to educate kids. Harvard still gives (has to give) huge racial preferences.
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.”
The structure involved is that bankers don't like to make risky loans. That involves blacks and whites both. My recollection is that 80 or 90% of those redlined were white.
'Systematic racism' is just nonsense for those unwilling to embrace reality. Is 'systematic racism' why Singapore has a per-capita GDP that is 34X Haiti? Or could it be some other factor? Did 'systematic racism' prevent Japanese-Americans from surpassing whites in California, just 20 years after WWII (and internment which makes red-lining seem like sort-of a joke). NYC spends a veritable fortune on attempting to educate kids. Harvard still gives (has to give) huge racial preferences.
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.”
'Systematic racism' is just nonsense for those unwilling to embrace reality. Is 'systematic racism' why Singapore has a per-capita GDP that is 34X Haiti? Or could it be some other factor? Did 'systematic racism' prevent Japanese-Americans from surpassing whites in California, just 20 years after WWII (and internment which makes red-lining seem like sort-of a joke). NYC spends a veritable fortune on attempting to educate kids. Harvard still gives (has to give) huge racial preferences.
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.”
2. One clue is to look at societies where ‘racism’ (the white kind) hasn’t existed for a very long time. The Haitian Revolution was 217 years ago. If ‘white racism’ was really such a powerful force, then Haiti should be highly successful. That does not seem to be the case.
3. The per-capita GDP of Singapore is only 34X of Haiti. The US/white role in each country has been quite small. Both countries are removed from the USA and yet show disparities even larger than found in the USA.
4. 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)
5. It turns out that all of the most successful ethnic groups in America are non-white. Some are wildly more successful than white. Some statistics. Median Household income for Indian Americans ($107,390), Jews ($97,500), Taiwanese ($85,566), all Asians ($74,245) is greater than Whites ($59,698). As can you see, non-white ethnic groups are at the top and Jews earn (far) more than non-Jewish whites.
These numbers are real, but have two major problems. First, Asian households tend to be larger than non-Asian households. Using personal income provides a better measure than household income. Asian personal income is also higher than non-Asian personal income. However, the positive gap is not as large as the household income gap. The second problem is the nature of the 1965 Immigration Act. The 1965 Act favored (rightfully so) highly educated immigrants over less educated immigrants. The cliché Indian-American immigrant to the US is a doctor. Of course, that is a cliché. However, it is a cliché because it has some element of truth to it.
6. It turns out the school funding is not equal across the United Sates. New York state spends the most (over $24K per-student, per-year) and Utah spends the least (around $7K per-student, per-year). However, the results almost exactly the opposite of what ‘white racism’ theory predicts. Utah has higher test scores that New York state. Of course, ‘white racism’ theory would predict the Utah would spend more than New York state. That isn’t even remotely true.
7. Police fatalities are not equally distributed by race. In 2019, just 17 Asians were killed by the police. For whites the number was 406, and blacks 259. ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain the amazingly low number of Asians shot by police. For a typical factoid, in one year, two Japanese-Americans were arrested for murder. Not 200, or 200,000. Just two.
8. The Asian incarceration rate is 74.5% lower than the white incarceration rate and 95% below the black incarceration rate. ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain these astounding differences.
9. It turns out that schools discipline rates are tracked by race. See Figure 15.3 of “Indicator 15: Retention, Suspension, and Expulsion” (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rda.asp). ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain these astounding differences.
10. That statistics for SAT scores, college enrollment/completion, arrests, etc. are all readily available by race. You can even find COVID-19 vaccination statistics by race. Invariably, you will find racial disparities and invariably Asians will be on top. So much for the mythology of ‘white racism’.
11. It turns out that other groups are almost as unsuccessful in American life as blacks. Of course, these groups have no history of slavery, Red-Lining, Jim Crow, etc. Why are these groups almost as unsuccessful as blacks? The traditional excuses don’t come close to explaining the disparities. For example, according to Pew median family income for the Hmong (in 2015) was just $48,000 vs. $71,300 for white (Pew, 2014). The rather large differences in family income amount Asians are used to claim that the “model minority” status is a “myth”. Its not a myth, but what people sometimes call a fact. Pew (2014) found that average household for Asians was $77,900.
12. The Jussie Smollett case provides yet another proof that ‘systematic racism’ doesn’t exist (at least in the US). If ‘systematic racism’ was real, criminals such as Jussie Smollett wouldn’t need to go around inventing hate crimes, because they would have plenty of actual material to use. The fact that people like Jussie Smollett invent hate crimes is one indication of how rare such things are. Of course, some types of hate crimes do occur. No one talks about them because they aren’t PC.
The best comment I have seen regarding race comes from the new coach of the Miami Dolphins, Mike McDaniel who is mixed Black and White, that he identifies himself a human being.
With tools such as ancestry.com and 23andme on the genetic side and computer aided analysis of linguistics and cultural strands, it seems long overdue to throw out the 1920s era pseudo-science of "race". However, all too often, the government will make a disaster of things (as it has with race) and then create another disaster in the name of "fixing" its first disaster. Sinister policy failures like segregation and red-lining and restrictive covenants will never be fixed by hauling out the old useless categories and trying over-compensate decades if not centuries after the fact. Students of history can find for example that restrictive covenants often excluded not only blacks (negroids) but Jews and Mongloids (whatever those are). These redress efforts invariably devolve into highly political and cynical efforts to buy votes with a victim Olympics competition.
Something that most of the commenters here are forgetting is that racial disparities *do* exist, and they are still fairly stark on the whole. For those of us who sit at a remove from these realities, it is easy to comfort ourselves with smug assurances that this is merely the legacy of past racism and not the result of a racist miasma that floats in the air like a poisonous gas - a perspective with which I largely agree and often vociferously defend.
But now imagine that you grow up with the reality of those disparities in your face *every day*. Imagine being black and raised in a place like modern-day Baltimore. All your life you're exposed to poverty, crime, drugs, and urban deterioration, in a place where almost everyone is black. The people in power - politicians, cops, wealthy Americans, are overwhelmingly white. When you see white folks who aren't policemen, it's mostly in the downtown touristy areas. And you know all about your country's shameful past on race.
You think you wouldn't be susceptible to being told that your station in life is *because* you're black? You think you wouldn't perhaps come to that conclusion on your own, and maintain it as an "obvious" lifelong belief? You think you'd be amenable to people like us asking you to appreciate the nuances of the distinction between the legacy of historical racism vs. persistent and active racism?
Maybe you would, but you'd be going against basic human nature. Especially since many of "us", let's be honest, are reacting mostly to our own white guilt fatigue. I often argue that people waging "woke" culture war are largely doing the same, but whatever their motivations, they're at least giving lip service to the idea that they actually care about the people they claim to benefit. As opposed to the impression that "we" often give (not always, but often enough) - that we simply wish they'd go away and stop bothering us.
The principles of individualism are precious, valuable, and worth fighting for. But thinking that we can resolve the cultural friction induced by racial disparities by simply arguing away identitarianism is unrealistic. It will be just as effective as trying to tell poor whites that their real problems aren't the coastal "elites" who look down on them, but the right-wing culture warriors who exploited them by convincing them to vote against their economic interests in exchange for promises to criminalize abortion, get prayer back in schools, and deregulate gun ownership.
If you want America to start acting like a united people with a strong sense of national identity, where the black/white divide doesn't so strongly resonate for many, it's going to require us to work to resolve socioeconomic disparities along racial lines. To not just give lip service to the promise of opportunity, but recognize that there is a fine line between opportunity and insecurity, and there is too much of the latter in the world's wealthiest nation. Left-wing culture warriors won't be defeated by taking up arms with right-wing culture warriors - they can only be defeated together, by cutting off their supply lines of outrage and lessening the realities which fuel their conflict.
E73, Racial disparities are real and they are not going away. They are not a consequence of racism (past, present, or future). They are a consequence of reality. Singapore has a per-capita GDP that is only 34X that of Haiti. Neither country has a significant white population. Racism (of any kind) is not the problem. Racism is a good excuse however.
I don't think anyone here could deny that there are today individuals and organizations that are racist, and they are not necessarily all White. But let's take your example of Baltimore-The mayor and Police Commissioner are Black. The Police force is 40% AA and 12% Latino. So, community leaders and many of the Police are Black, much like the communities themselves. How is that racist?
Most of the large cities in our country have been run by the Democrat Party for decades, the party that claims to be champions of the minority community, yet little has changed for many of these cities and most are getting worse.
Read studies on the poverty, poor health, illiteracy and drug abuse in Appalachia, which is predominately White. Can't blame racism there.
My own community is a small semi-rural area in a Red state. There is a mixture of races in the middle class neighborhood behind my house. There is no crime, drugs or major police presence there. The mixed neighbor's kids play with each other and people interact as neighbors should. If anyone harbors racist thoughts, they certainly don't act on them.
As a White male, I have no vested interest in "oppressing" anyone, and I don't know of anyone personally of conservative or liberal ideology that does. The issues I have with the current "race" climate are these:
White people should not feel guilt for the sins of their fathers, nor should they be labelled as inherently racist.
You don't elevate a group of people by lowering standards. You don't tell your more scholarly child to get poorer grades to make the less scholarly sibling feel better or look better.
Constantly railing about the "white supremacy" of math, science, professionalism, timeliness, or personal responsibility is lunacy. How does that get us Mae Jemison, Neil D. Tyson or Ben Carson?
It is a terrible mistake to ascribe all the ills of the inner city Black communities to racism, especially "structural" racism. How do you fix that? By telling all these people that HE Baber says above are not really racist individuals, that they are racist and should atone for their sins at the altar of CRT?
No, we look at the problems of these marginalized communities, inner cities, Appalachia, poor rural areas, and figure out how to improve the lives of these people and elevate them, not just talk about how oppressed they are.
I agree with pretty much everything you're saying here. This represents the general viewpoint of those who created this forum. In fact, you're missing my point entirely if you think I'm arguing that we should pin the blame on "racism". But go to an inner city and stand on a soapbox and see if what you're saying is going to make anyone feel better about racial inequalities in America.
You should be saying everything you're saying to policy makers and the chattering classes of people who do the job of framing our national debate. But not everyone is participating in a high-level debate. Many are just living their lives and reacting to what they see. And for those people, concepts like "structural racism" are going to have a lot of appeal so long as such stark racial disparities exist. We can talk until we're blue in the face about how race doesn't really matter and it's going to ring hollow to a lot of people.
We have to do something about the fact that blacks in this country are disproportionately poor, and in particular that black children are disproportionately raised in poverty. That's got nothing to do with CRT or telling anyone that they're racist. In fact it can be addressed through entirely race neutral policies (poverty bonds are one promising solution few are talking about). But the problem has to be taken seriously, because it's going to be continuously measured and monitored until it gets better. We aren't losing the black/white distinction fast enough to pin our hopes entirely on the elimination of race as a concept.
Yes, Ok, we seem to be on the same page in general. In actuality, you could say that the Non-White poverty rate is disproportionately high compared to Whites. That includes Native populations, Black, Hispanic and Asian. And yes, it needs to be addressed, and in fact is likely a factor in many of the other ills affecting mostly non-White populations. What I have a problem with is ( not you) but others making race the issue rather than the poverty and its accompanying consequences-drug use, illiteracy, violence, etc. Why are police present in Black communities more than White ones? Because that's where a large majority of crime occurs. Why is that? Because Blacks are poorer? Here is an interesting look at the relationship between poverty and crime:
Taking that further, if police presence is higher in Black communities, if more crime is there, more criminals are likely to evade police, and more criminals will have violent interactions with police. Does this make the police racist? Yes, there may be some racist cops, but on the whole, you can't say just because those interactions occur, cops are racist. Which is the narrative BLM wants us to believe.
My point is that I agree with you that we as a country should do all we can to help alleviate poverty as a whole, because of the misery it causes to our fellow humans (of all races), and the terrible consequences it places on society as a whole.
But we need to address the real issues, not "structural racism".
"And for those people, concepts like 'structural racism' are going to have a lot of appeal so long as such stark racial disparities exist."
They have appeal, because *You* think they are real, right?
When You talk about blacks being disproportionally poor, You're talking about percentages. When I talk about *anyone* poor, I'm talking about a person's condition. And how one improves it. You think You're gonna improve it by continuously measuring and monitoring it. I think that's a big part of the problem.
The reason we aren't losing the black/white distinction is because You and people like You won't do away with it. You're not helping the problem, but contributing to it.
And as long as You pursue this racist idea of helping blacks, as opposed to the poor, You're gonna keep getting pushback. You hurt Your own cause.
Thank You. I won't say You're *entirely* wrong, but that You're pretty far (left) from correct. So what You "say" would all be well and good except for one FACT. You wrote:
"If you want America to start acting like a united people with a strong sense of national identity, where the black/white divide doesn't so strongly resonate for many, it's going to require us to work to resolve socioeconomic disparities along racial lines."
You're being racist.
Replace the last two words with "class lines" and I'd agree. Why should poor blacks be helped and not poor whites? There are all too many similarities. That's *one* reason why reparations are the stupidest idea that was ever invented. One of many.
You're misunderstanding. I didn't say not to help poor whites, nor did I call for reparations. I'm saying we need to do something about the fact that blacks are disproportionately poor. Otherwise, these harmful perceptions will persist.
I don't think I'm misunderstanding so much. (But I admit that about the reparations was just thrown in there, as an example of poor thinking. Not that You thought it.)
There are a lotta reasons Blacks and Whites are poor, AFAIK. "Disproportionally poor" is meaningless. Poor is poor. Why favor one over the other?
"Harmful perceptions" of *who?* As far as I can tell, You mean the harmful perceptions that liberals see? Or what?
"Disproportionately poor" means that the percentage of blacks that qualify as poor is greater than that for other racial/ethnic categories. That means that we don't have to explicity favor blacks - any policy which targets the poor and does so fairly and uniformly will implicitly favor blacks.
But many of the people invested in the types of arguments we make regarding race act as if the problems can simply be talked away. And Progressives, sadly, seem to more or less think the same thing (albeit talking more loudly and aggressively). Progressives need to rediscover their old principled selves and start fighting for policies that help the economically disadvantaged. Get rid of the identitarian preening that mostly just serves to assuage people's consciences.
That being said, it is unreasonable, especially given our history, to expect that people are going to simply stop paying attention to racial disparity so long as it persists near its current level.
"That means that we don't have to explicity favor blacks - any policy which targets the poor and does so fairly and uniformly will implicitly favor blacks."
I guess I thought this was implied by what I was "saying."
"Progressives need to rediscover their old principled selves..."
Funny that. You answered (accurately) with the following. These *are* there principles: "the identitarian preening that mostly just serves to assuage people's consciences."
"That being said, it is unreasonable, especially given our history, to expect that people are going to simply stop paying attention to racial disparity so long as it persists near its current level."
This is logical. This explains why *You* pay a lotta attention. Me? I pay attention to the *multiple* causes of racial and non-racial disparities. A lotta that, unknown to most, is based on the cultures where these disparities exist. As long as You ignore that, You won't see much progress, no matter how badly You wanna think You will.
Not to mention, You'll get pushback, as long as You do.
Many of the people who call themselves "Progressives" today have lost their way. The term has a long history that predates the modern identitarian / CRT crowd. I refuse to surrender it.
As for culture, I think most of that is downstream from class realities. Poverty induces a culture of hopelessness and despair. In some sense it makes for a vicious cycle, but I disagree that fixing the culture should be the principal goal. Culture is more reactive than determinative. It will fix itself as the economic realities improve. You've had plenty of black public figures talk about "no more excuses", and we'll no doubt continue to. But that only goes so far.
Isn't it ironic that in an increasingly digital (binary) world we are compelled to recognize that so many factors in humanity - and nature - are far more diverse and nuanced than simplistic binary thinking permits. Race, ethnicity, sexual identity, marriage, religion, politics, even justice and morality - all of these and more we were taught to consider as inherently binary. People who identify as "conservative" tend to hold onto those very dualities, and, in fact, distinguish themselves from liberals by their unwillingness to part with those beliefs. But we live in an ever-broadening world where "being on the right side of history" means recognizing, accepting, accommodating, and striving to thrive with those non-binary realities. Fortunately, our binary digital technologies are capable of infinitely expansive and granular nuance as long as we are prudent enough to use them intelligently.
I just learned an interesting historical incidence which appears to have contributed to the state of race relations in this country in its early beginnings as a colony.
In the aftermath of Bacon's Rebellion in which, along with some wealth Virginia planters, large numbers of White Indentures and Black slaves participated, laws and codes were developed to segregate Black and White servants and slaves, and elevate the Whites above the Blacks. This clearly set the stage for race relations leading up to, and after the Civil War.
The use of race as a marker of status and privilege is a purely social construct that has had tremendous consequences. It is encouraging to get some indication that the construct is evolving through the behavior of real people. Many decades ago there were people preaching fear of the "mongrelization of the races". Somehow they never viewed that from the standpoint of individual freedom of choice.
Don Lemon asked Morgan Freeman what he thought could be done to improve race relations in this country. Freeman said: "Stop talking about it. Stop calling me an you a black man. We are just a man."
Civil rights 2.0 was exactly this... that nothing matters at all except the content of a person's character, and their ability to be a productive member of society. We were supposed to advance to a color, race, gender, sexual-orientation blind meritocracy. However, the left would have none of it. Group conflict has powered the Democrat party and fed the immoral media... what would they do if all of that went away?
Americans need to understand that everything materially wrong with racial conflict today is because powerful people want it that way.
So let me get this straight…
It is completely understandably and reasonably for “people of color” to demand not to live in a “white” world where it is perceived that whites have taken all the “power” and people of color have been given none; and yet it is completely irrational and, in fact racist, for whites to object to the idea of living in a “world of color” where people of color take all the power and whites are given none (because, as we’ve come to understand allowing whites to have any power at all will only serve to perpetuate a systemically racist system - a desire inherent in whiteness that whites are powerless to recognize, let alone change (BTW, that sounds a lot like the explanation of gayness and contrast how that is viewed)).
Do I have that right? Is this really the new “len”?
Let’s be honest. Racism is the center piece of power for the American political left. If WHITES ever started voting as a monolithic block, just like people of color do currently, the use of the race card (which is used to divide whites and hold people of color in place) would be counter-productive as a tool of progressive politics…. Then a different card would be needed. I don’t see that happening, but if it did, race would stop being a focus.
This all speaks to the real reason “race” is in such sharp focus today: it works politically.
The political “right” gets blamed for hyping racism, but it’s not the political right constantly reminding people of color that they’re different and need the political right for comfort and protection. In fact, the political left will go so far as to challenge the identity of a person of color (eg, Joe Biden) if they dare to question any part of their political dogma.
Racism is an effective political tool for the left. The Left simply can not win elections (I.e., power) without it. And it seems that racism is all the political left has left to retain political power and they are increasingly shrill as they see its effectiveness slipping away.
Joe Biden-" If you don't vote for me, you ain't Black".
I hope Richard does not get attacked and cancelled for saying the “a” word, assimilation (a process I know he spent decades researching and writing about). As I understand it, in the new anti-racist orthodoxy processes of assimilation (the gradual evaporation of hard tribal boundaries) is merely another element of white supremacy and systemic racism, just like individualism and politeness. That is, racial essentialism is a crucial weapon (I guess part of a hammer in Richard’s metaphor) of the new orthodoxy, and threatening racial essentialism threatens the racist anti-racist project.
This is fighting fire with fire. Or perhaps more accurately it is like a British anthropologist going into West Africa to study the habits of not just one black tribe, but filling a dictionary with more tribes than the British world has ever known. It won't help any of the new reified tribes attain modern sensibilities or anything resembling national identity.
We went through this circus officially when the Census Bureau allowed people to self-identify with as many checkmarks as they desired. That didn't and will not change the obsession of black vs white. Nor has it changed the reporting of any substance. When have you last seen something published that describes the relationships between blacks in LA and Koreans in LA? The LA Riots, of course. Nothing else. How about between Japanese and Chinese in LA? How about between the various Asians in Houston?
It doesn't help the cause of individuality in the modern, non-tribal sense to explode a new racial intersectionality cluster bomb. It just gives names to more fragments that will accelerate tribal identification. This is a fundamental problem with the soft social sciences and will make reviews of single standards for all that much more complicated to adjudicate. Our actual real history shows that Multiculturalism was a failure, and it has devolved to the exact same black vs white framing of 100 years ago, with blacks being the canary in America's coalmine. Now we endure rants against 'cultural appropriation' of all sorts.
Americans will want to reduce it down to racism. But already we are entertaining questions like 'Is it racist for Japanese Americans to not like Mexican food?' and 'How come all biracial blacks don't look like Steph Curry?'
The problem with today's multiculturalism is that it is different than pluralism. Pluralism is the proper ethos for America, multiculturalism is not. The difference can be explained simply by assuming Americans can be divided into two tribes:
Ideological Tribe A
We believe that America is at its best when its mainstream is maintained without regard to race, creed, color, sexual preference, etc..
Ideological Tribe B
We believe that America is at its best when its mainstream is maintained with special regard to race, creed, color, sexual preference, etc.
Don't give Tribe B more ammunition.
It seems that academics will never get it thru their heads that the rest of us do not care to be lectured -- as happens in the main stream newspapers, NPR (National Public Racio) and sometimes on Persuasion -- that Americans really are racists/sexists/genderists. Most of us are sick of constant accusations of unwarranted**, systemic racism across America. Thanks for the gratuitous 'while it's not as bad as some might think' ("increasing ethnic and racial diversity" and "the social distance between many whites and nonwhites diminishes sharply"). But your insistence on pushing the 'racism' agenda that the "white-dominated mainstream, racial inequalities remain very prominent" makes me want to puke.
**for example, the approval of intermarriage has climbed continuously from near zero in the 1960s to 94% today? Do progressives keep up their accusations to re-educate the last 6% of racists? Or, perhaps the progressives are wrong? If so, they are doing a damned good job of instigating racial animosity. https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx
’Scuse me. I thought the idea of ‘systematic racism’ was precisely that it was NOT individual racism, that it was embedded in institutions given the way they developed over time, which perpetuates disadvantage. For example, banks are hesitant to lend in areas that have been degraded because of past redlining, etc. This is nobody’s fault. Everyone is acting rationally, and not being individually racist, but we’re caught in an evil net. And that’s being fixed though still a long way to go. And I speak as an academic, a standard lefty NPR-following academic.
Are You sure that's systemic racism? Your bonafides indicate that may be a default stance.
It could possibly be a case of banker's just being risk-averse, right?
Of course it's just a matter of bankers' being risk-averse. That's why it's STRUCTURAL racism. The bankers themselves aren't racists--they're behaving rationally and doing their job. The 'structural' issue is that because of past redlining, etc. minority neighborhoods are risky investments. I repeat: as I understand it 'structural' means that none of the individuals involved, bankers or whatever, are themselves racists.
'Systematic racism' is just nonsense for those unwilling to embrace reality. Is 'systematic racism' why Singapore has a per-capita GDP that is 34X Haiti? Or could it be some other factor? Did 'systematic racism' prevent Japanese-Americans from surpassing whites in California, just 20 years after WWII (and internment which makes red-lining seem like sort-of a joke). NYC spends a veritable fortune on attempting to educate kids. Harvard still gives (has to give) huge racial preferences.
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.”
The structure involved is that bankers don't like to make risky loans. That involves blacks and whites both. My recollection is that 80 or 90% of those redlined were white.
'Systematic racism' is just nonsense for those unwilling to embrace reality. Is 'systematic racism' why Singapore has a per-capita GDP that is 34X Haiti? Or could it be some other factor? Did 'systematic racism' prevent Japanese-Americans from surpassing whites in California, just 20 years after WWII (and internment which makes red-lining seem like sort-of a joke). NYC spends a veritable fortune on attempting to educate kids. Harvard still gives (has to give) huge racial preferences.
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.”
'Systematic racism' is just nonsense for those unwilling to embrace reality. Is 'systematic racism' why Singapore has a per-capita GDP that is 34X Haiti? Or could it be some other factor? Did 'systematic racism' prevent Japanese-Americans from surpassing whites in California, just 20 years after WWII (and internment which makes red-lining seem like sort-of a joke). NYC spends a veritable fortune on attempting to educate kids. Harvard still gives (has to give) huge racial preferences.
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.”
Welcome and wholesome corrective!
Contemporary lunacy would insist race is binary and sex is not…
Is America (the United States) systematically racist? There are a number of ways of looking at this, but they all yield the same answer. No.
1. The US and Canada have very different racial histories. However, the black/white income gap is remarkably similar. See “Black Canadians and Black Americans: Racial income inequality in comparative perspective” (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233008532_Black_Canadians_and_Black_Americans_Racial_income_inequality_in_comparative_perspective).
2. One clue is to look at societies where ‘racism’ (the white kind) hasn’t existed for a very long time. The Haitian Revolution was 217 years ago. If ‘white racism’ was really such a powerful force, then Haiti should be highly successful. That does not seem to be the case.
3. The per-capita GDP of Singapore is only 34X of Haiti. The US/white role in each country has been quite small. Both countries are removed from the USA and yet show disparities even larger than found in the USA.
4. 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)
5. It turns out that all of the most successful ethnic groups in America are non-white. Some are wildly more successful than white. Some statistics. Median Household income for Indian Americans ($107,390), Jews ($97,500), Taiwanese ($85,566), all Asians ($74,245) is greater than Whites ($59,698). As can you see, non-white ethnic groups are at the top and Jews earn (far) more than non-Jewish whites.
These numbers are real, but have two major problems. First, Asian households tend to be larger than non-Asian households. Using personal income provides a better measure than household income. Asian personal income is also higher than non-Asian personal income. However, the positive gap is not as large as the household income gap. The second problem is the nature of the 1965 Immigration Act. The 1965 Act favored (rightfully so) highly educated immigrants over less educated immigrants. The cliché Indian-American immigrant to the US is a doctor. Of course, that is a cliché. However, it is a cliché because it has some element of truth to it.
6. It turns out the school funding is not equal across the United Sates. New York state spends the most (over $24K per-student, per-year) and Utah spends the least (around $7K per-student, per-year). However, the results almost exactly the opposite of what ‘white racism’ theory predicts. Utah has higher test scores that New York state. Of course, ‘white racism’ theory would predict the Utah would spend more than New York state. That isn’t even remotely true.
7. Police fatalities are not equally distributed by race. In 2019, just 17 Asians were killed by the police. For whites the number was 406, and blacks 259. ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain the amazingly low number of Asians shot by police. For a typical factoid, in one year, two Japanese-Americans were arrested for murder. Not 200, or 200,000. Just two.
8. The Asian incarceration rate is 74.5% lower than the white incarceration rate and 95% below the black incarceration rate. ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain these astounding differences.
9. It turns out that schools discipline rates are tracked by race. See Figure 15.3 of “Indicator 15: Retention, Suspension, and Expulsion” (https://nces.ed.gov/programs/raceindicators/indicator_rda.asp). ‘White racism’ can not possibly explain these astounding differences.
10. That statistics for SAT scores, college enrollment/completion, arrests, etc. are all readily available by race. You can even find COVID-19 vaccination statistics by race. Invariably, you will find racial disparities and invariably Asians will be on top. So much for the mythology of ‘white racism’.
11. It turns out that other groups are almost as unsuccessful in American life as blacks. Of course, these groups have no history of slavery, Red-Lining, Jim Crow, etc. Why are these groups almost as unsuccessful as blacks? The traditional excuses don’t come close to explaining the disparities. For example, according to Pew median family income for the Hmong (in 2015) was just $48,000 vs. $71,300 for white (Pew, 2014). The rather large differences in family income amount Asians are used to claim that the “model minority” status is a “myth”. Its not a myth, but what people sometimes call a fact. Pew (2014) found that average household for Asians was $77,900.
12. The Jussie Smollett case provides yet another proof that ‘systematic racism’ doesn’t exist (at least in the US). If ‘systematic racism’ was real, criminals such as Jussie Smollett wouldn’t need to go around inventing hate crimes, because they would have plenty of actual material to use. The fact that people like Jussie Smollett invent hate crimes is one indication of how rare such things are. Of course, some types of hate crimes do occur. No one talks about them because they aren’t PC.
The best comment I have seen regarding race comes from the new coach of the Miami Dolphins, Mike McDaniel who is mixed Black and White, that he identifies himself a human being.
With tools such as ancestry.com and 23andme on the genetic side and computer aided analysis of linguistics and cultural strands, it seems long overdue to throw out the 1920s era pseudo-science of "race". However, all too often, the government will make a disaster of things (as it has with race) and then create another disaster in the name of "fixing" its first disaster. Sinister policy failures like segregation and red-lining and restrictive covenants will never be fixed by hauling out the old useless categories and trying over-compensate decades if not centuries after the fact. Students of history can find for example that restrictive covenants often excluded not only blacks (negroids) but Jews and Mongloids (whatever those are). These redress efforts invariably devolve into highly political and cynical efforts to buy votes with a victim Olympics competition.
Something that most of the commenters here are forgetting is that racial disparities *do* exist, and they are still fairly stark on the whole. For those of us who sit at a remove from these realities, it is easy to comfort ourselves with smug assurances that this is merely the legacy of past racism and not the result of a racist miasma that floats in the air like a poisonous gas - a perspective with which I largely agree and often vociferously defend.
But now imagine that you grow up with the reality of those disparities in your face *every day*. Imagine being black and raised in a place like modern-day Baltimore. All your life you're exposed to poverty, crime, drugs, and urban deterioration, in a place where almost everyone is black. The people in power - politicians, cops, wealthy Americans, are overwhelmingly white. When you see white folks who aren't policemen, it's mostly in the downtown touristy areas. And you know all about your country's shameful past on race.
You think you wouldn't be susceptible to being told that your station in life is *because* you're black? You think you wouldn't perhaps come to that conclusion on your own, and maintain it as an "obvious" lifelong belief? You think you'd be amenable to people like us asking you to appreciate the nuances of the distinction between the legacy of historical racism vs. persistent and active racism?
Maybe you would, but you'd be going against basic human nature. Especially since many of "us", let's be honest, are reacting mostly to our own white guilt fatigue. I often argue that people waging "woke" culture war are largely doing the same, but whatever their motivations, they're at least giving lip service to the idea that they actually care about the people they claim to benefit. As opposed to the impression that "we" often give (not always, but often enough) - that we simply wish they'd go away and stop bothering us.
The principles of individualism are precious, valuable, and worth fighting for. But thinking that we can resolve the cultural friction induced by racial disparities by simply arguing away identitarianism is unrealistic. It will be just as effective as trying to tell poor whites that their real problems aren't the coastal "elites" who look down on them, but the right-wing culture warriors who exploited them by convincing them to vote against their economic interests in exchange for promises to criminalize abortion, get prayer back in schools, and deregulate gun ownership.
If you want America to start acting like a united people with a strong sense of national identity, where the black/white divide doesn't so strongly resonate for many, it's going to require us to work to resolve socioeconomic disparities along racial lines. To not just give lip service to the promise of opportunity, but recognize that there is a fine line between opportunity and insecurity, and there is too much of the latter in the world's wealthiest nation. Left-wing culture warriors won't be defeated by taking up arms with right-wing culture warriors - they can only be defeated together, by cutting off their supply lines of outrage and lessening the realities which fuel their conflict.
E73, Racial disparities are real and they are not going away. They are not a consequence of racism (past, present, or future). They are a consequence of reality. Singapore has a per-capita GDP that is only 34X that of Haiti. Neither country has a significant white population. Racism (of any kind) is not the problem. Racism is a good excuse however.
I don't think anyone here could deny that there are today individuals and organizations that are racist, and they are not necessarily all White. But let's take your example of Baltimore-The mayor and Police Commissioner are Black. The Police force is 40% AA and 12% Latino. So, community leaders and many of the Police are Black, much like the communities themselves. How is that racist?
Most of the large cities in our country have been run by the Democrat Party for decades, the party that claims to be champions of the minority community, yet little has changed for many of these cities and most are getting worse.
Read studies on the poverty, poor health, illiteracy and drug abuse in Appalachia, which is predominately White. Can't blame racism there.
My own community is a small semi-rural area in a Red state. There is a mixture of races in the middle class neighborhood behind my house. There is no crime, drugs or major police presence there. The mixed neighbor's kids play with each other and people interact as neighbors should. If anyone harbors racist thoughts, they certainly don't act on them.
As a White male, I have no vested interest in "oppressing" anyone, and I don't know of anyone personally of conservative or liberal ideology that does. The issues I have with the current "race" climate are these:
White people should not feel guilt for the sins of their fathers, nor should they be labelled as inherently racist.
You don't elevate a group of people by lowering standards. You don't tell your more scholarly child to get poorer grades to make the less scholarly sibling feel better or look better.
Constantly railing about the "white supremacy" of math, science, professionalism, timeliness, or personal responsibility is lunacy. How does that get us Mae Jemison, Neil D. Tyson or Ben Carson?
It is a terrible mistake to ascribe all the ills of the inner city Black communities to racism, especially "structural" racism. How do you fix that? By telling all these people that HE Baber says above are not really racist individuals, that they are racist and should atone for their sins at the altar of CRT?
No, we look at the problems of these marginalized communities, inner cities, Appalachia, poor rural areas, and figure out how to improve the lives of these people and elevate them, not just talk about how oppressed they are.
I agree with pretty much everything you're saying here. This represents the general viewpoint of those who created this forum. In fact, you're missing my point entirely if you think I'm arguing that we should pin the blame on "racism". But go to an inner city and stand on a soapbox and see if what you're saying is going to make anyone feel better about racial inequalities in America.
You should be saying everything you're saying to policy makers and the chattering classes of people who do the job of framing our national debate. But not everyone is participating in a high-level debate. Many are just living their lives and reacting to what they see. And for those people, concepts like "structural racism" are going to have a lot of appeal so long as such stark racial disparities exist. We can talk until we're blue in the face about how race doesn't really matter and it's going to ring hollow to a lot of people.
We have to do something about the fact that blacks in this country are disproportionately poor, and in particular that black children are disproportionately raised in poverty. That's got nothing to do with CRT or telling anyone that they're racist. In fact it can be addressed through entirely race neutral policies (poverty bonds are one promising solution few are talking about). But the problem has to be taken seriously, because it's going to be continuously measured and monitored until it gets better. We aren't losing the black/white distinction fast enough to pin our hopes entirely on the elimination of race as a concept.
Yes, Ok, we seem to be on the same page in general. In actuality, you could say that the Non-White poverty rate is disproportionately high compared to Whites. That includes Native populations, Black, Hispanic and Asian. And yes, it needs to be addressed, and in fact is likely a factor in many of the other ills affecting mostly non-White populations. What I have a problem with is ( not you) but others making race the issue rather than the poverty and its accompanying consequences-drug use, illiteracy, violence, etc. Why are police present in Black communities more than White ones? Because that's where a large majority of crime occurs. Why is that? Because Blacks are poorer? Here is an interesting look at the relationship between poverty and crime:
https://www.city-journal.org/poverty-and-violent-crime-dont-go-hand-in-hand
Taking that further, if police presence is higher in Black communities, if more crime is there, more criminals are likely to evade police, and more criminals will have violent interactions with police. Does this make the police racist? Yes, there may be some racist cops, but on the whole, you can't say just because those interactions occur, cops are racist. Which is the narrative BLM wants us to believe.
My point is that I agree with you that we as a country should do all we can to help alleviate poverty as a whole, because of the misery it causes to our fellow humans (of all races), and the terrible consequences it places on society as a whole.
But we need to address the real issues, not "structural racism".
I
That was a long-winded way of saying You and Your fellow-aspirants should start taking *POVERTY* seriously. Why don't You try that?
"And for those people, concepts like 'structural racism' are going to have a lot of appeal so long as such stark racial disparities exist."
They have appeal, because *You* think they are real, right?
When You talk about blacks being disproportionally poor, You're talking about percentages. When I talk about *anyone* poor, I'm talking about a person's condition. And how one improves it. You think You're gonna improve it by continuously measuring and monitoring it. I think that's a big part of the problem.
The reason we aren't losing the black/white distinction is because You and people like You won't do away with it. You're not helping the problem, but contributing to it.
And as long as You pursue this racist idea of helping blacks, as opposed to the poor, You're gonna keep getting pushback. You hurt Your own cause.
Thank You, M. PSW. I know when I'm outclassed, and I'm glad You "said" what You did.
Nothing could be clearer. TYTY again.
Thank You. I won't say You're *entirely* wrong, but that You're pretty far (left) from correct. So what You "say" would all be well and good except for one FACT. You wrote:
"If you want America to start acting like a united people with a strong sense of national identity, where the black/white divide doesn't so strongly resonate for many, it's going to require us to work to resolve socioeconomic disparities along racial lines."
You're being racist.
Replace the last two words with "class lines" and I'd agree. Why should poor blacks be helped and not poor whites? There are all too many similarities. That's *one* reason why reparations are the stupidest idea that was ever invented. One of many.
You're misunderstanding. I didn't say not to help poor whites, nor did I call for reparations. I'm saying we need to do something about the fact that blacks are disproportionately poor. Otherwise, these harmful perceptions will persist.
I don't think I'm misunderstanding so much. (But I admit that about the reparations was just thrown in there, as an example of poor thinking. Not that You thought it.)
There are a lotta reasons Blacks and Whites are poor, AFAIK. "Disproportionally poor" is meaningless. Poor is poor. Why favor one over the other?
"Harmful perceptions" of *who?* As far as I can tell, You mean the harmful perceptions that liberals see? Or what?
"Disproportionately poor" means that the percentage of blacks that qualify as poor is greater than that for other racial/ethnic categories. That means that we don't have to explicity favor blacks - any policy which targets the poor and does so fairly and uniformly will implicitly favor blacks.
But many of the people invested in the types of arguments we make regarding race act as if the problems can simply be talked away. And Progressives, sadly, seem to more or less think the same thing (albeit talking more loudly and aggressively). Progressives need to rediscover their old principled selves and start fighting for policies that help the economically disadvantaged. Get rid of the identitarian preening that mostly just serves to assuage people's consciences.
That being said, it is unreasonable, especially given our history, to expect that people are going to simply stop paying attention to racial disparity so long as it persists near its current level.
"That means that we don't have to explicity favor blacks - any policy which targets the poor and does so fairly and uniformly will implicitly favor blacks."
I guess I thought this was implied by what I was "saying."
"Progressives need to rediscover their old principled selves..."
Funny that. You answered (accurately) with the following. These *are* there principles: "the identitarian preening that mostly just serves to assuage people's consciences."
"That being said, it is unreasonable, especially given our history, to expect that people are going to simply stop paying attention to racial disparity so long as it persists near its current level."
This is logical. This explains why *You* pay a lotta attention. Me? I pay attention to the *multiple* causes of racial and non-racial disparities. A lotta that, unknown to most, is based on the cultures where these disparities exist. As long as You ignore that, You won't see much progress, no matter how badly You wanna think You will.
Not to mention, You'll get pushback, as long as You do.
Many of the people who call themselves "Progressives" today have lost their way. The term has a long history that predates the modern identitarian / CRT crowd. I refuse to surrender it.
As for culture, I think most of that is downstream from class realities. Poverty induces a culture of hopelessness and despair. In some sense it makes for a vicious cycle, but I disagree that fixing the culture should be the principal goal. Culture is more reactive than determinative. It will fix itself as the economic realities improve. You've had plenty of black public figures talk about "no more excuses", and we'll no doubt continue to. But that only goes so far.
Isn't it ironic that in an increasingly digital (binary) world we are compelled to recognize that so many factors in humanity - and nature - are far more diverse and nuanced than simplistic binary thinking permits. Race, ethnicity, sexual identity, marriage, religion, politics, even justice and morality - all of these and more we were taught to consider as inherently binary. People who identify as "conservative" tend to hold onto those very dualities, and, in fact, distinguish themselves from liberals by their unwillingness to part with those beliefs. But we live in an ever-broadening world where "being on the right side of history" means recognizing, accepting, accommodating, and striving to thrive with those non-binary realities. Fortunately, our binary digital technologies are capable of infinitely expansive and granular nuance as long as we are prudent enough to use them intelligently.
Gimme a break.
Sure! Consider yourself broken.
ha, ha...
I just learned an interesting historical incidence which appears to have contributed to the state of race relations in this country in its early beginnings as a colony.
In the aftermath of Bacon's Rebellion in which, along with some wealth Virginia planters, large numbers of White Indentures and Black slaves participated, laws and codes were developed to segregate Black and White servants and slaves, and elevate the Whites above the Blacks. This clearly set the stage for race relations leading up to, and after the Civil War.
The use of race as a marker of status and privilege is a purely social construct that has had tremendous consequences. It is encouraging to get some indication that the construct is evolving through the behavior of real people. Many decades ago there were people preaching fear of the "mongrelization of the races". Somehow they never viewed that from the standpoint of individual freedom of choice.