by russell
My wife and I had dinner with a friend recently. She was talking about the conflicts she feels as a liberal living in the SF bay area.
One thing she discussed was the more or less unconscious bias she often experiences when she interacts with black and brown people. Especially black and brown people who don't appear to share her socio-economic position.
What is that?, she wondered. Where does it come from? She has no animus or malice toward black or brown people, very much the opposite. But still, the noticing of skin color, and the adjustment of how to interact with them.
I suggest that it is, quite simply, racism. If you respond to people differently because of their skin color, that is racism.
But I don't like to use that word, she says. It implies hatred.
And that, says I, is the problem. If we can't call it racism because that means we're some kind of Nazi or Klansman, then what do we call it? If we can't give it a proper name, how do we address it?
IMO racism isn't about hating people, although some folks will add that in for good measure. It's about making assumptions about people, responding to people, interacting with people differently based on the color of their skin.
Does it matter, if there isn't hatred involved. Yes, I think it does. Because people perceive how you perceive them. And being perceived as different in a way that needs special treatment – whether it's animus, or the kind of weird walking-on-eggs deference that Liberals Like Me often adopt, or whatever form it might take – it harmful to people.
Not harmful like the imminent threat of bodily harm kind of harmful. Harmful like undermining your sense of being a person harmful.
But wait, doesn't this make almost all of us racists at some level? Yes, I suspect it probably does. I can't imagine how anyone could grow up in the US and not imbibe at least some of our historical legacy with their own mother's milk. I don't know how you'd escape it.
So, if everyone or almost everyone is sorta-kinda racist, does it even matter? Yes, I think it does.
IMO we need to stop thinking about racism as being solely about nazis and Klan rallies. I.e., solely about hate. We need to recognize it as our legacy as Americans, and perhaps as humans. We need to see it in ourselves, when it's there, which it probably is. And we need to acknowledge it and stop trying to pretend it ain't there.
If we can get that far, maybe we can even get beyond it. But getting beyond it is not in the cards as long as we can't own it. And we can't own it if we can't acknowledge and talk about it.
And we won't be able to acknowledge and talk about it if it automatically carries the stigma of hate.
It's not that hate isn't part of it, and it's certainly not that hate doesn't deserve it's own measure of approbrium. But hate surely is not the whole of it, nor is hate the only source of harm in it.
Maybe more later, this is a big topic. First thoughts:
— Sneetches.
— When does a difference in degree become a difference that requires a different word?
— Words do evolve. Decades ago I was accused of “abusing” a long-time friend after an argument in which — by my perception — we both gave as good as we got and ended with mutual “Damn you”s. This was at a time when “abuse” was mostly used, at least in my experience, with a much narrower meaning, and I was flummoxed by the over-the-topness of the accusation. (If I had accepted the usage, I certainly would have alleged that the abuse had been mutual.)
But the usage has expanded since then. Now, every micro-aggression is “abusive.” Well, in a sense it is. But I think it’s counterproductive to mush together daily ubiquitous meanness and one-upsmanship with rape by using the same word for both of them. Still, maybe “racism” will evolve similarly. I’m not in charge of word usage, much as I would like to be. 😉
— What’s wrong with “bias”? Why use a loaded word that people are going to resist like crazy, and get sidetracked into making it about the word instead of about the actual phenomena and behaviors? I prefer to tell a story about one of my own “Aha!” moments. I might then call myself a racist, but I don’t see much percentage in calling someone else one.
Maybe more later, this is a big topic. First thoughts:
— Sneetches.
— When does a difference in degree become a difference that requires a different word?
— Words do evolve. Decades ago I was accused of “abusing” a long-time friend after an argument in which — by my perception — we both gave as good as we got and ended with mutual “Damn you”s. This was at a time when “abuse” was mostly used, at least in my experience, with a much narrower meaning, and I was flummoxed by the over-the-topness of the accusation. (If I had accepted the usage, I certainly would have alleged that the abuse had been mutual.)
But the usage has expanded since then. Now, every micro-aggression is “abusive.” Well, in a sense it is. But I think it’s counterproductive to mush together daily ubiquitous meanness and one-upsmanship with rape by using the same word for both of them. Still, maybe “racism” will evolve similarly. I’m not in charge of word usage, much as I would like to be. 😉
— What’s wrong with “bias”? Why use a loaded word that people are going to resist like crazy, and get sidetracked into making it about the word instead of about the actual phenomena and behaviors? I prefer to tell a story about one of my own “Aha!” moments. I might then call myself a racist, but I don’t see much percentage in calling someone else one.
I have my suspicions about whether or not “bias” is going to receive less pushback. Anything that forces people to confront the fact that they, too, might be party of the problem and that no amount of good intentions can insulate them from the sheer weight of culture we all absorb whether we mean to or not is going to be a hard sell. I’m not convinced that the specific choice of words matters all that much.
I have my suspicions about whether or not “bias” is going to receive less pushback. Anything that forces people to confront the fact that they, too, might be party of the problem and that no amount of good intentions can insulate them from the sheer weight of culture we all absorb whether we mean to or not is going to be a hard sell. I’m not convinced that the specific choice of words matters all that much.
stereotyping?
everything a brain encounters is first put into a group that the brain already knows about – a model. and then it takes work to learn about the individual object. a single individual, or even several, might not be enough to change your internal model. we learn these models early and they stick with us.
and in the US, a lot of people get taught, as i did, a lot of negative things about the ‘dark-skinned’ group. worse, if you grew up in a pure-white, small-town culture like i did, you won’t meet any dark-skinned individuals who can challenge that model. and then it sticks. it just sits there, being annoying, making you to work to override it every time it gets activated.
stereotyping?
everything a brain encounters is first put into a group that the brain already knows about – a model. and then it takes work to learn about the individual object. a single individual, or even several, might not be enough to change your internal model. we learn these models early and they stick with us.
and in the US, a lot of people get taught, as i did, a lot of negative things about the ‘dark-skinned’ group. worse, if you grew up in a pure-white, small-town culture like i did, you won’t meet any dark-skinned individuals who can challenge that model. and then it sticks. it just sits there, being annoying, making you to work to override it every time it gets activated.
I think there is a lot to be said for distinguishing racism and bias. Consider this scenario:
I’m in my 20s. My girl friend, like (almost) all of my previous girl friends, is of East Asian ancestry. (And I am not, just to be clear.) Ditto, into my 30s. Plus my wife now.
Does that indicate bias? Sure, no question. Is it racism? Sorry, I just can’t see it.
To my mind, racism has to indicate at least some negative view or behavior. Bias is the neutral term.
I think there is a lot to be said for distinguishing racism and bias. Consider this scenario:
I’m in my 20s. My girl friend, like (almost) all of my previous girl friends, is of East Asian ancestry. (And I am not, just to be clear.) Ditto, into my 30s. Plus my wife now.
Does that indicate bias? Sure, no question. Is it racism? Sorry, I just can’t see it.
To my mind, racism has to indicate at least some negative view or behavior. Bias is the neutral term.
I suspect we can have a less fraught, and more productive conversation if we think about groups other African Americans. Just to avoid the legacy involved there.
I suspect we can have a less fraught, and more productive conversation if we think about groups other African Americans. Just to avoid the legacy involved there.
per cleek’s comment, and I’m sure I’ve made this joke before, but it isn’t even totally a joke: I was in high school before I realized that there were Irish Catholics too.
per cleek’s comment, and I’m sure I’ve made this joke before, but it isn’t even totally a joke: I was in high school before I realized that there were Irish Catholics too.
Also, nothing I write is meant to minimize or dismiss the centrality of racism as such in a nation founded on slavery and the 3/5 rule. It’s just that I don’t believe there is any magic formula for changing hearts. Vec is right that it’s hard to look inside oneself and see what’s hiding in the dark corners. But different people come to it in different ways, and even the best intentions about bringing people closer instead of pushing them away often misfire.
I say this in part as a gay person who has watched and participated in eight or nine (I lost count eventually) statewide referenda on my worthiness as a citizen and a human being, and heard and read every kind of vile description of who I am supposed to be by people who actually have no clue about who I am.
Some of them eventually changed their minds.
Some didn’t.
The pathways vary.
Also, nothing I write is meant to minimize or dismiss the centrality of racism as such in a nation founded on slavery and the 3/5 rule. It’s just that I don’t believe there is any magic formula for changing hearts. Vec is right that it’s hard to look inside oneself and see what’s hiding in the dark corners. But different people come to it in different ways, and even the best intentions about bringing people closer instead of pushing them away often misfire.
I say this in part as a gay person who has watched and participated in eight or nine (I lost count eventually) statewide referenda on my worthiness as a citizen and a human being, and heard and read every kind of vile description of who I am supposed to be by people who actually have no clue about who I am.
Some of them eventually changed their minds.
Some didn’t.
The pathways vary.
…in a nation founded on slavery and the 3/5 rule.
I don’t understand the 3/5 rule. The slaveholders wanted to count slaves equally with free persons. The other side didn’t want to count them at all. Aside from the slaveholders being defacto morally wrong, who were the villains here?
…in a nation founded on slavery and the 3/5 rule.
I don’t understand the 3/5 rule. The slaveholders wanted to count slaves equally with free persons. The other side didn’t want to count them at all. Aside from the slaveholders being defacto morally wrong, who were the villains here?
CharlesWT, I find it hard to believe that you don’t know this, and therefore that you aren’t just dangling a hook for the fun of it. But the 3/5 rule was used to determine representation in Congress. Thus slaveholding states got more representation — while slaves themselves got none. I.e. it gave slaveholders more say in making the laws of the country, in proportion to how many slaves they could afford to own. Really, do you seriously not see anything wrong with counting slaves equally with free persons while giving their owners the weight of their numbers?
CharlesWT, I find it hard to believe that you don’t know this, and therefore that you aren’t just dangling a hook for the fun of it. But the 3/5 rule was used to determine representation in Congress. Thus slaveholding states got more representation — while slaves themselves got none. I.e. it gave slaveholders more say in making the laws of the country, in proportion to how many slaves they could afford to own. Really, do you seriously not see anything wrong with counting slaves equally with free persons while giving their owners the weight of their numbers?
I understand determining representation in Congress, etc.
But I’ve seen arguments about the evil of counting a slave as three-fifths of a person when it would have been better not to count them at all since it would have reduced the political power of the slaveholders.
I understand determining representation in Congress, etc.
But I’ve seen arguments about the evil of counting a slave as three-fifths of a person when it would have been better not to count them at all since it would have reduced the political power of the slaveholders.
Racism, like capitalism, sexism, or heteronormativity, intersecting with all three, is an ideology. It’s partly unconscious, and, partly naturalized. We Marxists call capitalism the dynamic totality of social relationships. Lot of work been done on ideologies since Althusser.
Does my neighbour deserve her SUV, while I drive an old Ford? Why? Why don’t I take her SUV, why don’t I think about it? This submission to the economic norms is capitalism. This acceptance of capitalist reality has a lot of implications, the deference to workers (cause work time is valuable, and doesn’t belong to you), professionals, and the rich is constant and unthought.
Do I hate her cause she has property?
Why is ok to vote for a millionaire but not a Klansman?
Ok, but my point, at least for me, is that I try to, since it is immanently connected, try to think racism with capitalism (etc). Not that everything reduces to the economic, but the formal relations are homologous.
Racism, like capitalism, sexism, or heteronormativity, intersecting with all three, is an ideology. It’s partly unconscious, and, partly naturalized. We Marxists call capitalism the dynamic totality of social relationships. Lot of work been done on ideologies since Althusser.
Does my neighbour deserve her SUV, while I drive an old Ford? Why? Why don’t I take her SUV, why don’t I think about it? This submission to the economic norms is capitalism. This acceptance of capitalist reality has a lot of implications, the deference to workers (cause work time is valuable, and doesn’t belong to you), professionals, and the rich is constant and unthought.
Do I hate her cause she has property?
Why is ok to vote for a millionaire but not a Klansman?
Ok, but my point, at least for me, is that I try to, since it is immanently connected, try to think racism with capitalism (etc). Not that everything reduces to the economic, but the formal relations are homologous.
Not that everything reduces to the economic
You could have fooled me.
Not that everything reduces to the economic
You could have fooled me.
when it would have been better not to count them at all
that’s probably true.
but what happened was both politically cynical (counting people who aren’t actually being represented) and ultimately degrading (calling them 60% of a person).
when it would have been better not to count them at all
that’s probably true.
but what happened was both politically cynical (counting people who aren’t actually being represented) and ultimately degrading (calling them 60% of a person).
Once you add the “-ism” suffix, “racism” goes into the basket of deplorable “-ism”s, which includes fascism, nationalism, capitalism, communism, anarchism, terrorism…and rationalism.
They all rhyme, I guess.
Once you add the “-ism” suffix, “racism” goes into the basket of deplorable “-ism”s, which includes fascism, nationalism, capitalism, communism, anarchism, terrorism…and rationalism.
They all rhyme, I guess.
but what happened was both politically cynical (counting people who aren’t actually being represented)
It was an attempt to count people who aren’t actually being represented in order to preserve the system whereby they were disenfranchised and dehumanized. Quite a trick!
but what happened was both politically cynical (counting people who aren’t actually being represented)
It was an attempt to count people who aren’t actually being represented in order to preserve the system whereby they were disenfranchised and dehumanized. Quite a trick!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_(philosophy)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other_(philosophy)
Not that everything reduces to the economic
You could have fooled me.
We need sarcasm tags.
Current reading 1) Enzo Traverso, Understanding the Nazi Genocide: Marxism after Auschwitz Like a 2 x 4 between the mule’s eyes, no, everything doesn’t reduce to the economic and class struggle.
In a similar project, David Roediger has an impressive CV, studied with Rawick and CLR James, founder of whiteness studies, active in 50-60s labor and social movements. His newest is Class, Race, and Marxism 2017 kinda a survey of the fields. David Harvey, settler colonialism, Bernie, etc. Full of citations of most excellent colleagues to search out.
And of course, Du Bois.
Not that everything reduces to the economic
You could have fooled me.
We need sarcasm tags.
Current reading 1) Enzo Traverso, Understanding the Nazi Genocide: Marxism after Auschwitz Like a 2 x 4 between the mule’s eyes, no, everything doesn’t reduce to the economic and class struggle.
In a similar project, David Roediger has an impressive CV, studied with Rawick and CLR James, founder of whiteness studies, active in 50-60s labor and social movements. His newest is Class, Race, and Marxism 2017 kinda a survey of the fields. David Harvey, settler colonialism, Bernie, etc. Full of citations of most excellent colleagues to search out.
And of course, Du Bois.
I say this in part as a gay person who has watched and participated in eight or nine (I lost count eventually) statewide referenda on my worthiness as a citizen and a human being, and heard and read every kind of vile description of who I am supposed to be by people who actually have no clue about who I am.
I’s pretty clear that we need a generic description/tag which allows us to include both racism and other forms of bigotry taken to seriously toxic lengths. (I considered “homosexualityism”, but recoiled in horror. 😉 Seriously, what an ugly excuse for a word!) Still, a way to label that kind of “racism-absent-actual-race” would be handy.
I say this in part as a gay person who has watched and participated in eight or nine (I lost count eventually) statewide referenda on my worthiness as a citizen and a human being, and heard and read every kind of vile description of who I am supposed to be by people who actually have no clue about who I am.
I’s pretty clear that we need a generic description/tag which allows us to include both racism and other forms of bigotry taken to seriously toxic lengths. (I considered “homosexualityism”, but recoiled in horror. 😉 Seriously, what an ugly excuse for a word!) Still, a way to label that kind of “racism-absent-actual-race” would be handy.
Ya know, I think we need stories more than we need labels.
Ya know, I think we need stories more than we need labels.
Racism operates at the level of culture/society/policy.
On an individual level we are talking about “Implicit Bias” or “Implicit Social Cognition.”
See Project Implicit for more.
Racism operates at the level of culture/society/policy.
On an individual level we are talking about “Implicit Bias” or “Implicit Social Cognition.”
See Project Implicit for more.
Last summer I read “Just Mercy” by Bryan Stevenson – it’s a shocking account of institutionalized racism and a perverted justice system.
Last summer I read “Just Mercy” by Bryan Stevenson – it’s a shocking account of institutionalized racism and a perverted justice system.
I would say that the generic term for the “isms” is prejudice.
“Implicit bias” or just “bias” or whatever term seems more suitable than “racism” are all fine. Except I’m not they are helpful other than by providing a comfort level for folks who are not comfortable with racism as a term.
If I participate in a prejudice or implicit bias with no ill intent, am I not still prejudiced?
If I participate in a prejudice that is based on race, is it somehow no longer racist if I call it something else?
Does racism have to be an ideology? Or is it sufficient to consider and interact with people differently because of the color of their skin?
If I participate in an ideology unconsciously, or without embracing it, is it no longer an ideology that is at work?
One reason I’m thinking of all of this is my sense that the discussion of how people of different races – whether the difference is real or just a “social construction” – relate to each other here has gotten wedged. Again.
Black people (or brown, or insert any marker you like) say “we are not being treated the same as others”.
Not-black (or -brown, or whatever) people say that can’t be, because they personally are not racists. And, quit saying what you’re saying, because you’re calling us racists, and we’re not.
Black people say “black lives matter”.
Non-black people say “All lives matter!”.
And the black people say “Yes, that’s our point. All lives matter, and ours are not treated as though they do”.
So, nobody hears anybody else.
What occurred to me in my conversation with my friend is: if the charged quality of the word “racism” is making it impossible to talk about racism, maybe de-escalate the charge around the word.
We could, as an alternative, use a different word. But I’m not sure what that word would be.
“Implicit bias” doesn’t seem to get it for me. It’s not just not charged, it’s utterly devoid of valence of any kind. Treating people differently because of something like the color of their skin actually kind of a charged thing – it hurts people. Does it help to wave that away?
I’m just looking to recognize the harm, without demonizing the people involved. Like my friend, or myself for that matter, or most folks I know.
I’m looking for a way to respond to folks who say they are the butt of racism, without pretending what they’re saying isn’t so, and also without letting anyone off the hook (including well-meaning people), and without judging and pointing fingers.
If labels – names for things – seems like an ill-advised approach, and stories seem better, that’s fine with me.
But I’m not sure we’re all hearing each other’s stories, either.
I would say that the generic term for the “isms” is prejudice.
“Implicit bias” or just “bias” or whatever term seems more suitable than “racism” are all fine. Except I’m not they are helpful other than by providing a comfort level for folks who are not comfortable with racism as a term.
If I participate in a prejudice or implicit bias with no ill intent, am I not still prejudiced?
If I participate in a prejudice that is based on race, is it somehow no longer racist if I call it something else?
Does racism have to be an ideology? Or is it sufficient to consider and interact with people differently because of the color of their skin?
If I participate in an ideology unconsciously, or without embracing it, is it no longer an ideology that is at work?
One reason I’m thinking of all of this is my sense that the discussion of how people of different races – whether the difference is real or just a “social construction” – relate to each other here has gotten wedged. Again.
Black people (or brown, or insert any marker you like) say “we are not being treated the same as others”.
Not-black (or -brown, or whatever) people say that can’t be, because they personally are not racists. And, quit saying what you’re saying, because you’re calling us racists, and we’re not.
Black people say “black lives matter”.
Non-black people say “All lives matter!”.
And the black people say “Yes, that’s our point. All lives matter, and ours are not treated as though they do”.
So, nobody hears anybody else.
What occurred to me in my conversation with my friend is: if the charged quality of the word “racism” is making it impossible to talk about racism, maybe de-escalate the charge around the word.
We could, as an alternative, use a different word. But I’m not sure what that word would be.
“Implicit bias” doesn’t seem to get it for me. It’s not just not charged, it’s utterly devoid of valence of any kind. Treating people differently because of something like the color of their skin actually kind of a charged thing – it hurts people. Does it help to wave that away?
I’m just looking to recognize the harm, without demonizing the people involved. Like my friend, or myself for that matter, or most folks I know.
I’m looking for a way to respond to folks who say they are the butt of racism, without pretending what they’re saying isn’t so, and also without letting anyone off the hook (including well-meaning people), and without judging and pointing fingers.
If labels – names for things – seems like an ill-advised approach, and stories seem better, that’s fine with me.
But I’m not sure we’re all hearing each other’s stories, either.
I think the useful feature of a term like implicit bias is not that it decreases discomfort, but rather that by using it and racism in this way it draws attention to what needs to change. Your friend does not necessarily need a change of heart, but she (and we) certainly need a change of policy, and a recognition of the ways in which our societal structures implicitly disadvantage social groups.
“We need to change this racist policy.”
Implicit bias, meanwhile, is something that an individual can work to reduce without the immediate, counterproductive defensiveness that usually happens whenever one is accused of being a racist. Not a change of heart, but a change of experience. The answer to implicit bias is diversity. I’ve taken most of those Harvard tests a few times over the years and my implicit bias has reduced over time as my classroom has become more diverse. That wasn’t a result of a personal reduction in hatred; I never bore any personal or group animus towards any groups against which I had implicit bias. But I did gain a wider perspective that allowed my empathy to work more often for a wider range of people.
I think the useful feature of a term like implicit bias is not that it decreases discomfort, but rather that by using it and racism in this way it draws attention to what needs to change. Your friend does not necessarily need a change of heart, but she (and we) certainly need a change of policy, and a recognition of the ways in which our societal structures implicitly disadvantage social groups.
“We need to change this racist policy.”
Implicit bias, meanwhile, is something that an individual can work to reduce without the immediate, counterproductive defensiveness that usually happens whenever one is accused of being a racist. Not a change of heart, but a change of experience. The answer to implicit bias is diversity. I’ve taken most of those Harvard tests a few times over the years and my implicit bias has reduced over time as my classroom has become more diverse. That wasn’t a result of a personal reduction in hatred; I never bore any personal or group animus towards any groups against which I had implicit bias. But I did gain a wider perspective that allowed my empathy to work more often for a wider range of people.
The answer to implicit bias is diversity.
Yes. Otherwise known as “integration.” In fact, although I have been predisposed to try to examine my own racism, working in a diverse environment during my 20’s made “nonracism” easier.
The Obama presidency made me celebrate diversity rather than try so hard to work on accepting “others”. It really is a matter of knowing people, and having role models.
As to what we call it, “racism” is a term that everyone understands. “Implicit bias” seems like a sociology class. I’m fine with spreading the word, but “racism” has an immediate meaning, and I’m with russell: it’s not necessarily about hate; it’s about inherited attitude.
The answer to implicit bias is diversity.
Yes. Otherwise known as “integration.” In fact, although I have been predisposed to try to examine my own racism, working in a diverse environment during my 20’s made “nonracism” easier.
The Obama presidency made me celebrate diversity rather than try so hard to work on accepting “others”. It really is a matter of knowing people, and having role models.
As to what we call it, “racism” is a term that everyone understands. “Implicit bias” seems like a sociology class. I’m fine with spreading the word, but “racism” has an immediate meaning, and I’m with russell: it’s not necessarily about hate; it’s about inherited attitude.
But I’m not sure we’re all hearing each other’s stories, either.
No, of course we’re not. It’s hard to hear either labels or stories that suggest that you’re a bad person. And though you (the specific you, russell) may be doing your best not to be blaming or accusatory, it’s hard — outside deliberately created safe spaces that are few and far between — to ensure that the other person will hear you that way.
When I say stories I mean not just stories from disadvantaged groups, but stories like this, which again I have probably told here before:
Some years ago I was in my home town for my annualish visit, and I took my five-year-old great-niece to the mall, the first outing we had ever had together, all the more precious because she had just come through a couple of years of cancer treatment and was now doing fine. (She’s still doing fine at fourteen.)
Rounding a corner in the mall, we came upon a short line of people waiting at an ATM. At the back of the line were three or four adult women and a little boy. My great-niece and the little boy took one look at each other and fell into a well of enchantment. They gazed into each other’s eyes in a sort of daze, and then she touched his cheek. All of us adults looked at each other and just laughed, because it was so sudden and tender.
Then we all nodded and smiled and my niece and I went about our business and that was the end of that.
Except — the little boy and the women he was with were Hispanic, a group that had not been amongst the ethnicities there when I was growing up. There had been ethnic rivalries aplenty, plus the usual racial divisions, and of course some religious fault lines. But no Hispanics, or at least not enough to rise to visibility in the context of all the other groupings.
As we walked away I felt this little thread of a thought/feeling go through my system: “What are those people doing in my town?” (Which had not in fact been my town for forty years!)
I don’t feel that way when I’m in Boston, so the origins of the feeling were no doubt complex. But it’s a story about my own recognition of, and dismay at, the implicit bias in my own heart. I know from experience both that it’s there, and also that, as nous says, it can change over time.
This isn’t a story about my experience of bias as a gay person, it’s a story about a little slice of my own tendency to make other groups the object of my bias. I would like to think the two kinds of stories have different effects, with the latter maybe not so readily triggering the fortifications to go up.
On the one hand, disadvantaged groups get sick of waiting. I know the feeling, believe me. By the ninth statewide referendum I just wanted to shove the homophobes (for lack of a better word) off a cliff. On the other hand, personal change is hard, as I also know from painful experience. That’s a fact, and anyone who wants to change people’s hearts will have to reckon with it sooner or later to be truly effective. (I don’t mean you, russell…..I think you know this as well as anyone.)
But I’m not sure we’re all hearing each other’s stories, either.
No, of course we’re not. It’s hard to hear either labels or stories that suggest that you’re a bad person. And though you (the specific you, russell) may be doing your best not to be blaming or accusatory, it’s hard — outside deliberately created safe spaces that are few and far between — to ensure that the other person will hear you that way.
When I say stories I mean not just stories from disadvantaged groups, but stories like this, which again I have probably told here before:
Some years ago I was in my home town for my annualish visit, and I took my five-year-old great-niece to the mall, the first outing we had ever had together, all the more precious because she had just come through a couple of years of cancer treatment and was now doing fine. (She’s still doing fine at fourteen.)
Rounding a corner in the mall, we came upon a short line of people waiting at an ATM. At the back of the line were three or four adult women and a little boy. My great-niece and the little boy took one look at each other and fell into a well of enchantment. They gazed into each other’s eyes in a sort of daze, and then she touched his cheek. All of us adults looked at each other and just laughed, because it was so sudden and tender.
Then we all nodded and smiled and my niece and I went about our business and that was the end of that.
Except — the little boy and the women he was with were Hispanic, a group that had not been amongst the ethnicities there when I was growing up. There had been ethnic rivalries aplenty, plus the usual racial divisions, and of course some religious fault lines. But no Hispanics, or at least not enough to rise to visibility in the context of all the other groupings.
As we walked away I felt this little thread of a thought/feeling go through my system: “What are those people doing in my town?” (Which had not in fact been my town for forty years!)
I don’t feel that way when I’m in Boston, so the origins of the feeling were no doubt complex. But it’s a story about my own recognition of, and dismay at, the implicit bias in my own heart. I know from experience both that it’s there, and also that, as nous says, it can change over time.
This isn’t a story about my experience of bias as a gay person, it’s a story about a little slice of my own tendency to make other groups the object of my bias. I would like to think the two kinds of stories have different effects, with the latter maybe not so readily triggering the fortifications to go up.
On the one hand, disadvantaged groups get sick of waiting. I know the feeling, believe me. By the ninth statewide referendum I just wanted to shove the homophobes (for lack of a better word) off a cliff. On the other hand, personal change is hard, as I also know from painful experience. That’s a fact, and anyone who wants to change people’s hearts will have to reckon with it sooner or later to be truly effective. (I don’t mean you, russell…..I think you know this as well as anyone.)
Sure, agreed. I don’t think that it’s a matter of not talking about racism in general conversation, but rather using ‘implicit bias” as a way of clarifying what you mean when you are talking to someone who has a defensive reaction to the term. You can clarify what you are talking about and continue the deeper discussion.
I do this all the time in my classes when we are dealing with one or another fraught “-ism” conversations. It’s a chance to introduce a useful distinction and work through the implications on both a personal and a policy level.
Sure, agreed. I don’t think that it’s a matter of not talking about racism in general conversation, but rather using ‘implicit bias” as a way of clarifying what you mean when you are talking to someone who has a defensive reaction to the term. You can clarify what you are talking about and continue the deeper discussion.
I do this all the time in my classes when we are dealing with one or another fraught “-ism” conversations. It’s a chance to introduce a useful distinction and work through the implications on both a personal and a policy level.
Nous, you’re the best. Unfortunately, I just had a conversation with one of the few people I know who is an avid Trumpist, based on his own racism, who truly thinks he’s totally justified in his views.
It was a phone conversation. I hung up on him. I can’t talk these people down. I don’t have the skill set. I’m extremely conscious of the fact that I have implicit bias, and try to confront it. There are people who, I don’t know, I just don’t get it – they are just infuriatingly racist. These are people who are not so white themselves as to be beyond being targeted if push came to shove.
AAAARGGGHHHHHH!!!!
Nous, you’re the best. Unfortunately, I just had a conversation with one of the few people I know who is an avid Trumpist, based on his own racism, who truly thinks he’s totally justified in his views.
It was a phone conversation. I hung up on him. I can’t talk these people down. I don’t have the skill set. I’m extremely conscious of the fact that I have implicit bias, and try to confront it. There are people who, I don’t know, I just don’t get it – they are just infuriatingly racist. These are people who are not so white themselves as to be beyond being targeted if push came to shove.
AAAARGGGHHHHHH!!!!
“We need to change this racist policy.”
Aye, this is the nub of it. I can see the difficulty of people getting all defensive about being called racist. The problem is, when you try to find some other approach, it usually ends up with them finding comfort in their own apparent “lack of racism”, and this in turn leads to not wanting to do much of anything (in the way of public policy) to correct a monstrous historical wrong. In this vein, I highly recommend Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law, especially the Q&A at the end of the book.
I might be undertaking a giant reach here, but what the hell.
Take Israel.
I would posit that our support for that nation is underlain by Western guilt….the recognition of the blood on all our hands due to our historic anti-semitism and the horror of the Holocaust (this is not to deny other factors-bear with me).
Thus our unquestioning support, a public policy that is still in force today, serves our commitment to right a historic wrong.
It is this kind of recognition that is missing in our efforts to right the historic wrong of American white racism. Sure, African Americans can vote now. They can sit in the movie theater with us now. But this does nothing to right the wrongs of repeatedly beating them down and using public policy to either deny them the means to build the kind of wealth we enjoy, or as happened repeatedly, simply destroy what wealth they have worked to painfully to acquire.
So sure, maybe there are a lot of white people who are not so racist as their forebearers, but we we who so blithly enjoy the wealth accumulated at their expense owe a debt.
It is a debt we should and can pay.
“We need to change this racist policy.”
Aye, this is the nub of it. I can see the difficulty of people getting all defensive about being called racist. The problem is, when you try to find some other approach, it usually ends up with them finding comfort in their own apparent “lack of racism”, and this in turn leads to not wanting to do much of anything (in the way of public policy) to correct a monstrous historical wrong. In this vein, I highly recommend Richard Rothstein’s The Color of Law, especially the Q&A at the end of the book.
I might be undertaking a giant reach here, but what the hell.
Take Israel.
I would posit that our support for that nation is underlain by Western guilt….the recognition of the blood on all our hands due to our historic anti-semitism and the horror of the Holocaust (this is not to deny other factors-bear with me).
Thus our unquestioning support, a public policy that is still in force today, serves our commitment to right a historic wrong.
It is this kind of recognition that is missing in our efforts to right the historic wrong of American white racism. Sure, African Americans can vote now. They can sit in the movie theater with us now. But this does nothing to right the wrongs of repeatedly beating them down and using public policy to either deny them the means to build the kind of wealth we enjoy, or as happened repeatedly, simply destroy what wealth they have worked to painfully to acquire.
So sure, maybe there are a lot of white people who are not so racist as their forebearers, but we we who so blithly enjoy the wealth accumulated at their expense owe a debt.
It is a debt we should and can pay.
Interesting stuff. I’ve quoted this before, so I’ll do it again, but Sartre said ‘Saying a Jew is smart is just as racist as say he’s anything else’. And while there is pushback about that consider something like. “Wow, you folks are so athletic!”
Every act of categorization carries with it the potential for bias, depending on how you define the group. It has become very odious to use racial categories, especially when one ignores systematic historic struggles that may make that group the way they are.
This article, via LGM, is well worth the read
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/04/black-in-america-3
Maybe it is too big an ask to classify those structural aspects of society as ‘racist’, since they are largely unattended and certainly could, perhaps in an alternate reality, be flipped so that the people on top would be on the bottom and vice versa. But seeing how it plays out, it is hard to think of it as anything other than racist. I resisted the way nous framed implicit bias initially, but I like the idea of using it to get at some of the more difficult, hidden away aspects.
Interesting stuff. I’ve quoted this before, so I’ll do it again, but Sartre said ‘Saying a Jew is smart is just as racist as say he’s anything else’. And while there is pushback about that consider something like. “Wow, you folks are so athletic!”
Every act of categorization carries with it the potential for bias, depending on how you define the group. It has become very odious to use racial categories, especially when one ignores systematic historic struggles that may make that group the way they are.
This article, via LGM, is well worth the read
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/04/black-in-america-3
Maybe it is too big an ask to classify those structural aspects of society as ‘racist’, since they are largely unattended and certainly could, perhaps in an alternate reality, be flipped so that the people on top would be on the bottom and vice versa. But seeing how it plays out, it is hard to think of it as anything other than racist. I resisted the way nous framed implicit bias initially, but I like the idea of using it to get at some of the more difficult, hidden away aspects.
I find this interesting so I will not add much except two things:
I agree that there is a problem talking about bias, all kinds. It is almost impossible to generally get people to even understand what is trying to be discussed because to most people racism implies animus, and is used that way in almost all political rhetoric. That makes it almost impossible to discuss it in other forums using a different definition.
98%? 95%? of people do not feel like they share in “the kind of wealth we enjoy,” when it’s talked about that way. Focusing on righting the wrongs of how the nation became wealthy because of those policies misses that most individuals simply aren’t wealthy. Having a focus on helping poor people do better, improving the lot of working poor, creating upward mobility for the lower middle class are all subjects that could be discussed much more easily that would address the same underlying issues without the rhetoric around race.
But generally that concept is viewed as racist.
So do we want to create an equal and opportunity filled society or do we want to create policy to right wrongs, can we at least separate those discussions? Which helps the victims more?
I find this interesting so I will not add much except two things:
I agree that there is a problem talking about bias, all kinds. It is almost impossible to generally get people to even understand what is trying to be discussed because to most people racism implies animus, and is used that way in almost all political rhetoric. That makes it almost impossible to discuss it in other forums using a different definition.
98%? 95%? of people do not feel like they share in “the kind of wealth we enjoy,” when it’s talked about that way. Focusing on righting the wrongs of how the nation became wealthy because of those policies misses that most individuals simply aren’t wealthy. Having a focus on helping poor people do better, improving the lot of working poor, creating upward mobility for the lower middle class are all subjects that could be discussed much more easily that would address the same underlying issues without the rhetoric around race.
But generally that concept is viewed as racist.
So do we want to create an equal and opportunity filled society or do we want to create policy to right wrongs, can we at least separate those discussions? Which helps the victims more?
https://prosperitynow.org/files/PDFs/road_to_zero_wealth.pdf
https://prosperitynow.org/files/PDFs/road_to_zero_wealth.pdf
Having a focus on helping poor people do better, improving the lot of working poor, creating upward mobility for the lower middle class are all subjects that could be discussed much more easily that would address the same underlying issues without the rhetoric around race.
That’s a really sweet sentiment, but doesn’t really work in real life. Was the incident in the Philly starbucks because “98%? 95%? of people do not feel like they share in “the kind of wealth we enjoy,” “? I don’t think so. So it looks to me like talking about this is viewed as racist because it really looks like a failure to address the systemic problems that people of color face in the US. This is not to claim that you are racist, but at a certain point, it becomes a question of changing the conversation. It is not a question of righting wrongs, (though there are wrongs to be righted) it is simply reaching a point where two black men of color to waiting for their friend at a Starbucks don’t prompt a call to the police.
Looking at this selected list taken from memory:
Freddie Gray
Alton Sterling
Eric Harris
Tamir Rice
Michael Brown
Stephon Clark
Eric Garner
It is hard for me to see that the underlying issue is not racism.
Having a focus on helping poor people do better, improving the lot of working poor, creating upward mobility for the lower middle class are all subjects that could be discussed much more easily that would address the same underlying issues without the rhetoric around race.
That’s a really sweet sentiment, but doesn’t really work in real life. Was the incident in the Philly starbucks because “98%? 95%? of people do not feel like they share in “the kind of wealth we enjoy,” “? I don’t think so. So it looks to me like talking about this is viewed as racist because it really looks like a failure to address the systemic problems that people of color face in the US. This is not to claim that you are racist, but at a certain point, it becomes a question of changing the conversation. It is not a question of righting wrongs, (though there are wrongs to be righted) it is simply reaching a point where two black men of color to waiting for their friend at a Starbucks don’t prompt a call to the police.
Looking at this selected list taken from memory:
Freddie Gray
Alton Sterling
Eric Harris
Tamir Rice
Michael Brown
Stephon Clark
Eric Garner
It is hard for me to see that the underlying issue is not racism.
Some David Roediger, op cit. 1st internal quote is anonymous planter.
““that man is as much duty bound to improve and cultivate his fellow-men as … to cultivate and improve the ground.”10 When management of labor was broached, experts tended to discuss black workers in conjunction with managing and improving land and animals. Within the longer and wider view of US history, such placing of alleged white managerial genius vis-à-vis slaves alongside a general ability to husband and develop nature sets proslavery arguments within the context of settler colonialism’s dispossession of indigenous people. The antebellum South, and especially the Southwest, was not only the site of slavery but also of brutal dispossession, dislocation, and decimation of Indians.”
“…that man is as much duty bound to improve and cultivate…”
Here’s some intersectionality. Capitalist Reason includes Calvinist stewardship, the moral duty to improve and cultivate available resources for maximum productivity and efficiency, and distribute those resources in such a way so that control and management is given to the most skilled and capable.
Like white (or Japanese) colonists. Or entrepreneurs. Or bureaucrats, lawyers, and technicians.
I am very wary of arguments from efficiency, “tax cuts don’t generate growth” for instance. Or “equal societies develop faster and further.” Productivity, growth, development, efficiency ain’t my problem, and ain’t justice.
Some David Roediger, op cit. 1st internal quote is anonymous planter.
““that man is as much duty bound to improve and cultivate his fellow-men as … to cultivate and improve the ground.”10 When management of labor was broached, experts tended to discuss black workers in conjunction with managing and improving land and animals. Within the longer and wider view of US history, such placing of alleged white managerial genius vis-à-vis slaves alongside a general ability to husband and develop nature sets proslavery arguments within the context of settler colonialism’s dispossession of indigenous people. The antebellum South, and especially the Southwest, was not only the site of slavery but also of brutal dispossession, dislocation, and decimation of Indians.”
“…that man is as much duty bound to improve and cultivate…”
Here’s some intersectionality. Capitalist Reason includes Calvinist stewardship, the moral duty to improve and cultivate available resources for maximum productivity and efficiency, and distribute those resources in such a way so that control and management is given to the most skilled and capable.
Like white (or Japanese) colonists. Or entrepreneurs. Or bureaucrats, lawyers, and technicians.
I am very wary of arguments from efficiency, “tax cuts don’t generate growth” for instance. Or “equal societies develop faster and further.” Productivity, growth, development, efficiency ain’t my problem, and ain’t justice.
Forgot.
Part of Capitalist Reason involves classifying and categorizing everything from grammar to nebulae. Instrumental reason divides the environment according to utility and ease of extraction and so determines what level and kind of management is needed for maximum production and reproduction of each resource. PR and advertising, social media, politics
Racism determines a people who can be brutally managed for high efficiency, and a class who are competent managers. The Nazis segmented their labor force according to different criteria.
But…2×4. Auschwitz was not rational.
Forgot.
Part of Capitalist Reason involves classifying and categorizing everything from grammar to nebulae. Instrumental reason divides the environment according to utility and ease of extraction and so determines what level and kind of management is needed for maximum production and reproduction of each resource. PR and advertising, social media, politics
Racism determines a people who can be brutally managed for high efficiency, and a class who are competent managers. The Nazis segmented their labor force according to different criteria.
But…2×4. Auschwitz was not rational.
do we want to create an equal and opportunity filled society or…
these seem like different issues, to me. not completely unrelated, but distinct.
do we want to create an equal and opportunity filled society or…
these seem like different issues, to me. not completely unrelated, but distinct.
I think if we want to provide “the means to build the kind of wealth we enjoy” that requires both equality and opportunity.
Otherwise we are discussing providing opportunity unequally in a population most of whom arent wealthy or providing equal lack of opportunity.
Neither of these provides a good starting point to resolve the effects of historical racist policies.
I think if we want to provide “the means to build the kind of wealth we enjoy” that requires both equality and opportunity.
Otherwise we are discussing providing opportunity unequally in a population most of whom arent wealthy or providing equal lack of opportunity.
Neither of these provides a good starting point to resolve the effects of historical racist policies.
policies and society are two different things.
you can write neutral policy, but society often finds ways of using colorblind policy to discriminate. good old cake baking, for example. IMO, that means the policy isn’t adequate.
policies and society are two different things.
you can write neutral policy, but society often finds ways of using colorblind policy to discriminate. good old cake baking, for example. IMO, that means the policy isn’t adequate.
And it’s hard to write colorblind policy to address a problem that isn’t colorblind. Of course, when you write policy that isn’t colorblind, even though you’re doing so to address a problem that isn’t colorblind, you become the real racist.
The same sometimes holds true when simply discussing a non-colorblind problem. Don’t mention race, or you’re the real racist!
Then again, I am racist, at least in the sense that russell discusses here. (Maybe I am the real racist, after all!)
And it’s hard to write colorblind policy to address a problem that isn’t colorblind. Of course, when you write policy that isn’t colorblind, even though you’re doing so to address a problem that isn’t colorblind, you become the real racist.
The same sometimes holds true when simply discussing a non-colorblind problem. Don’t mention race, or you’re the real racist!
Then again, I am racist, at least in the sense that russell discusses here. (Maybe I am the real racist, after all!)
will the Real Racist please stand up?
will the Real Racist please stand up?
Auschwitz was not rational.
I’m curious why you say that. Richard Rubenstein, in The Cunning of History says
One of the least helpful ways of understanding the Holocaust is to regard the destruction process as the work of a small group of irresponsible criminals who were atypical of normal statesmen and who somehow gained control of the German people, forcing them by terror and the deliberate stimulation of religious and ethnic hatred to pursue a barbaric and retrograde policy that was thoroughly at odds with the great traditions of Western civilization. On the contrary, we are more likely to understand the Holocaust if we regard it as the expression of some of the most profound tendencies of Western civilization in the twentieth century.
which I thought would have been right up your alley. Adorno and Horkheimer argue something similar, so I’m wondering why you say Auschwitz wasn’t rational as it was a pure expression of Capitalist Reason.
I’m also wondering who you are thinking about when you say “Like white (or Japanese) colonists.” Who are you thinking about?
Auschwitz was not rational.
I’m curious why you say that. Richard Rubenstein, in The Cunning of History says
One of the least helpful ways of understanding the Holocaust is to regard the destruction process as the work of a small group of irresponsible criminals who were atypical of normal statesmen and who somehow gained control of the German people, forcing them by terror and the deliberate stimulation of religious and ethnic hatred to pursue a barbaric and retrograde policy that was thoroughly at odds with the great traditions of Western civilization. On the contrary, we are more likely to understand the Holocaust if we regard it as the expression of some of the most profound tendencies of Western civilization in the twentieth century.
which I thought would have been right up your alley. Adorno and Horkheimer argue something similar, so I’m wondering why you say Auschwitz wasn’t rational as it was a pure expression of Capitalist Reason.
I’m also wondering who you are thinking about when you say “Like white (or Japanese) colonists.” Who are you thinking about?
lj, 10:30: Wow, that’s a lot of Rubinstein paragraph to get from my little line and I am not sure it is all implied there.
Oh, for instance I just finished Franz Neumann’s Behemoth 1943-44. He’s connected to the Frankfurt School, Marxian legal and political philosophy, and he says categorically that the Nazis won’t kill the Jews because they are useful as slave labor and because the Nazis needed an iconic enemy*. The extermination was not economically justifiable. I am not sure how you are using “rational.”
*See my comment above about segmenting labor as source of racism. Divide and conquer, it is easy to fall into class analysis.
The Japanese thing was a reference to imperial paternalism and assimilation policy in Taiwan and Korea, to make the point that the pathologies of settler colonialism is not limited to Northwest Europeans, although interestingly dominated by them.
lj, 10:30: Wow, that’s a lot of Rubinstein paragraph to get from my little line and I am not sure it is all implied there.
Oh, for instance I just finished Franz Neumann’s Behemoth 1943-44. He’s connected to the Frankfurt School, Marxian legal and political philosophy, and he says categorically that the Nazis won’t kill the Jews because they are useful as slave labor and because the Nazis needed an iconic enemy*. The extermination was not economically justifiable. I am not sure how you are using “rational.”
*See my comment above about segmenting labor as source of racism. Divide and conquer, it is easy to fall into class analysis.
The Japanese thing was a reference to imperial paternalism and assimilation policy in Taiwan and Korea, to make the point that the pathologies of settler colonialism is not limited to Northwest Europeans, although interestingly dominated by them.
I think if we want to provide “the means to build the kind of wealth we enjoy” that requires both equality and opportunity.
I guess what I’m getting at is that equally enjoying the wealth is not the whole of what folks mean when they talk about racism.
There are historical reasons for some groups of being poorer than others, and for people of color many of those reasons involve the fact that they are people of color. For other groups of people, maybe other reasons are in play.
All of those factors deserve attention, so that in fact everyone has an opportunity to achieve sufficient means to live their lives.
But the issue of race is broader than just economics.
Then again, I am racist
Yeah, me too, according to how I’m characterizing it here.
I guess what I’m trying to understand, or find, is a way to discuss it that recognizes it for what it is – which is prejudice based on skin color – without demonizing the people who are prone to it. Which is probably most of us, at least in some situations or contexts.
I think that, to the people who are on the receiving end of it, it certainly feels like racism. Even if they understand that it’s reflexive, and carries no specific ill will toward them. It is, still, harmful.
I’m on thin ice here, as throughout the whole thread, because I’m not black or Hispanic or even remotely brown, and I’m reluctant to speak for people who are. I’m just trying to make sense of *my* experience. And that of people like me.
It’s fine for me to say “I’m not a racist”, because I bear no particular ill will toward people of color, and in fact the opposite.
If I behave differently toward them because of their skin color, and I’m not a racist, what am I?
And where does that response come from, on my part? I have never had a negative experience of any significance with anyone of color. On the contrary. How did I learn to even register skin color as a matter of any significance? I don’t notice eye color, or hair color, or height, or any other incidental physical aspect in the same way.
I picked it up somewhere. And, I experience it. It’s *my* experience. And I’m an adult, I’m responsible for it at this point.
If black people, or people of color generally, want to tell me that they are subject to racism, do I get a pass, somehow? Because I mean well?
We’ve had this disease a long long time, I’m just trying to find a way for us all to get well.
I think if we want to provide “the means to build the kind of wealth we enjoy” that requires both equality and opportunity.
I guess what I’m getting at is that equally enjoying the wealth is not the whole of what folks mean when they talk about racism.
There are historical reasons for some groups of being poorer than others, and for people of color many of those reasons involve the fact that they are people of color. For other groups of people, maybe other reasons are in play.
All of those factors deserve attention, so that in fact everyone has an opportunity to achieve sufficient means to live their lives.
But the issue of race is broader than just economics.
Then again, I am racist
Yeah, me too, according to how I’m characterizing it here.
I guess what I’m trying to understand, or find, is a way to discuss it that recognizes it for what it is – which is prejudice based on skin color – without demonizing the people who are prone to it. Which is probably most of us, at least in some situations or contexts.
I think that, to the people who are on the receiving end of it, it certainly feels like racism. Even if they understand that it’s reflexive, and carries no specific ill will toward them. It is, still, harmful.
I’m on thin ice here, as throughout the whole thread, because I’m not black or Hispanic or even remotely brown, and I’m reluctant to speak for people who are. I’m just trying to make sense of *my* experience. And that of people like me.
It’s fine for me to say “I’m not a racist”, because I bear no particular ill will toward people of color, and in fact the opposite.
If I behave differently toward them because of their skin color, and I’m not a racist, what am I?
And where does that response come from, on my part? I have never had a negative experience of any significance with anyone of color. On the contrary. How did I learn to even register skin color as a matter of any significance? I don’t notice eye color, or hair color, or height, or any other incidental physical aspect in the same way.
I picked it up somewhere. And, I experience it. It’s *my* experience. And I’m an adult, I’m responsible for it at this point.
If black people, or people of color generally, want to tell me that they are subject to racism, do I get a pass, somehow? Because I mean well?
We’ve had this disease a long long time, I’m just trying to find a way for us all to get well.
What Marty said (at 10:30 PM yesterday).
lj: at’s a really sweet sentiment, but doesn’t really work in real life.
I depends on whether you insist on solving the entire problem. Or are willing to take solving part of it as a first step. What Marty is saying is a practical approach to how we can approach addressing the historic economic injustice. Which, no question, we should. This is how you go about leveling the economic playing field.
That doesn’t mean that the racism (or lesser bias) shouldn’t be addressed. Just that a) it’s going to be a bigger step, and b) it’s going to require a different approach. Sure, if we solved it first, it would be easy to address the historic economic injustice second. But that’s not a road that’s viable.
What Marty said (at 10:30 PM yesterday).
lj: at’s a really sweet sentiment, but doesn’t really work in real life.
I depends on whether you insist on solving the entire problem. Or are willing to take solving part of it as a first step. What Marty is saying is a practical approach to how we can approach addressing the historic economic injustice. Which, no question, we should. This is how you go about leveling the economic playing field.
That doesn’t mean that the racism (or lesser bias) shouldn’t be addressed. Just that a) it’s going to be a bigger step, and b) it’s going to require a different approach. Sure, if we solved it first, it would be easy to address the historic economic injustice second. But that’s not a road that’s viable.
If I behave differently toward them because of their skin color, and I’m not a racist, what am I?
I really think it seriously depends on how you behave differently. For example, I work for a company headed by a South Asian woman. We are currently engaged in a joint effort with a professional organization currently headed by a black man. When we were making a pitch to some potential customers, I suggested that I go along and give a part of the presentation.
It’s something I would not have done otherwise. But I was aware that, like it or not, having an old white man visibly involved was likely to help get some people on board. That was recognition of some potential level of bias (racism, if you prefer) on the part of the customers. But was it racism on my part? After all, I was behaving differently on account of my boss’s race….
If I behave differently toward them because of their skin color, and I’m not a racist, what am I?
I really think it seriously depends on how you behave differently. For example, I work for a company headed by a South Asian woman. We are currently engaged in a joint effort with a professional organization currently headed by a black man. When we were making a pitch to some potential customers, I suggested that I go along and give a part of the presentation.
It’s something I would not have done otherwise. But I was aware that, like it or not, having an old white man visibly involved was likely to help get some people on board. That was recognition of some potential level of bias (racism, if you prefer) on the part of the customers. But was it racism on my part? After all, I was behaving differently on account of my boss’s race….
What Marty is saying is a practical approach to how we can approach addressing the historic economic injustice.
In actuality, no, it is not. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that if you rob somebody, justice calls for righting that wrong?
What Marty is saying is a practical approach to how we can approach addressing the historic economic injustice.
In actuality, no, it is not. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that if you rob somebody, justice calls for righting that wrong?
Whether Auschwitz was rational or not depends on the Nazis’ goals. Their logic, not ours, applies.
If the Nazis were merely trying to rule Germany, and win a war of conquest, without the racist ideology, it would have been irrational. But since wiping out the Jews was a major objective, Auschwitz was a perfectly rational way to do it.
That they misjudged their resources does not make it any more irrational than invading Poland.
Whether Auschwitz was rational or not depends on the Nazis’ goals. Their logic, not ours, applies.
If the Nazis were merely trying to rule Germany, and win a war of conquest, without the racist ideology, it would have been irrational. But since wiping out the Jews was a major objective, Auschwitz was a perfectly rational way to do it.
That they misjudged their resources does not make it any more irrational than invading Poland.
After all, I was behaving differently on account of my boss’s race….
If you are reacting to someone else’s (perceived or expected or potential) racism, I don’t think so. This would fall under what I brought up at 10:20 AM.
Racism exists. Pretending it doesn’t would probably make you more of a racist than attempting to deal with it somehow.
If you wanted to give part of the presentation because you assumed your non-white colleagues were incapable, that would be another story.
After all, I was behaving differently on account of my boss’s race….
If you are reacting to someone else’s (perceived or expected or potential) racism, I don’t think so. This would fall under what I brought up at 10:20 AM.
Racism exists. Pretending it doesn’t would probably make you more of a racist than attempting to deal with it somehow.
If you wanted to give part of the presentation because you assumed your non-white colleagues were incapable, that would be another story.
In actuality, no, it is not. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that if you rob somebody, justice calls for righting that wrong?
First, IANAL but as far as I am aware restitution is often not a part of justice provided to the victim. Sure, if the particular object stolen is recovered, it can be returned. But if the perp has taken cash and spent it? The government doesn’t reimburse the victims as far as I am aware.
Second, on one side we are dealing with people who are several generations away from actual slaves. Many of whom also have ancestors who were the slave holders. And on the other, with a lot of people who neither have ancestors who were slave holders nor in a position to benefit from slavery. Not to mention those whose ancestors arrived well after slavery was abolished.
And if you are going to try to provide restitution for subsequent economic disadvantage, you are going to have an even worse horror show determining who is responsible and who is the victim — unless you are going with individuals currently alive who personally suffered. And it the amount that they have suffered economically.
And in that case, what do you propose to do about economic disadvantage going forward? How do you think it can be measured?
I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with a symbolic payment to those whose ancestors were slaves. With the explicit recognition that it is only a symbol and not remotely complete restitution. And with some care to filter out those who were not — e.g. someone like Barack Obama, who is definitely African American, but totally lacking in ancestors who were slaves.
In actuality, no, it is not. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that if you rob somebody, justice calls for righting that wrong?
First, IANAL but as far as I am aware restitution is often not a part of justice provided to the victim. Sure, if the particular object stolen is recovered, it can be returned. But if the perp has taken cash and spent it? The government doesn’t reimburse the victims as far as I am aware.
Second, on one side we are dealing with people who are several generations away from actual slaves. Many of whom also have ancestors who were the slave holders. And on the other, with a lot of people who neither have ancestors who were slave holders nor in a position to benefit from slavery. Not to mention those whose ancestors arrived well after slavery was abolished.
And if you are going to try to provide restitution for subsequent economic disadvantage, you are going to have an even worse horror show determining who is responsible and who is the victim — unless you are going with individuals currently alive who personally suffered. And it the amount that they have suffered economically.
And in that case, what do you propose to do about economic disadvantage going forward? How do you think it can be measured?
I wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with a symbolic payment to those whose ancestors were slaves. With the explicit recognition that it is only a symbol and not remotely complete restitution. And with some care to filter out those who were not — e.g. someone like Barack Obama, who is definitely African American, but totally lacking in ancestors who were slaves.
But was it racism on my part?
No. It’s a recognition on your part that racism exists and is a possible dynamic in your presentation.
IMO.
But was it racism on my part?
No. It’s a recognition on your part that racism exists and is a possible dynamic in your presentation.
IMO.
Remarking to no particular end, because I need to think it over a bit:
wj’s question and hsh’s answer made me start thinking about the composition of the commenting community here and elsewhere.
I read, or glance through, three blogs every day: here, Crooked Timber, and Balloon-Juice.
(Disclaimer before anyone else decides to jump on me about it: I do not read any right-wing blogs.)
(Disclaimer #2: of course we mostly don’t know who people are in blog commenting sections; we only know how they present themselves and how we read them.)
Here and at BJ there’s mix of genders — as far as one can tell from what people say about themselves, and from handles.
CT has almost no obviously female commenters at this point; there were never many, and even the ones who used to show up pretty frequently seem to have skedaddled. (Another disclaimer: I rarely read CT carefully anymore, and the moderation system means that I may be missing a lot, because I don’t systematically scan whole threads the way I used to.)
BJ is not very international, as far as I can tell.
CT is *very* international, and that’s one of the things I like about it.
ObWi also seems to be fairly international.
BJ has some very visible self-identified black commenters.
It’s hard to tell with CT.
What I’m leading around to saying is: it suddenly struck me that here we are talking about racism and none of us — as far as I know — are African-American.
That’s … sad.
P.S. Every time BJ has a meet-up and puts up photos, I find that it’s an older crowd than I was imagining. As an older folk myself, I carelessly imagine that people who haunt internet neighborhoods are much younger than I am.
Remarking to no particular end, because I need to think it over a bit:
wj’s question and hsh’s answer made me start thinking about the composition of the commenting community here and elsewhere.
I read, or glance through, three blogs every day: here, Crooked Timber, and Balloon-Juice.
(Disclaimer before anyone else decides to jump on me about it: I do not read any right-wing blogs.)
(Disclaimer #2: of course we mostly don’t know who people are in blog commenting sections; we only know how they present themselves and how we read them.)
Here and at BJ there’s mix of genders — as far as one can tell from what people say about themselves, and from handles.
CT has almost no obviously female commenters at this point; there were never many, and even the ones who used to show up pretty frequently seem to have skedaddled. (Another disclaimer: I rarely read CT carefully anymore, and the moderation system means that I may be missing a lot, because I don’t systematically scan whole threads the way I used to.)
BJ is not very international, as far as I can tell.
CT is *very* international, and that’s one of the things I like about it.
ObWi also seems to be fairly international.
BJ has some very visible self-identified black commenters.
It’s hard to tell with CT.
What I’m leading around to saying is: it suddenly struck me that here we are talking about racism and none of us — as far as I know — are African-American.
That’s … sad.
P.S. Every time BJ has a meet-up and puts up photos, I find that it’s an older crowd than I was imagining. As an older folk myself, I carelessly imagine that people who haunt internet neighborhoods are much younger than I am.
“I guess what I’m getting at is that equally enjoying the wealth is not the whole of what folks mean when they talk about racism.
I understand this, I prefaced my comments that I was only adding two thoughts, the first was on the notion we can talk about racism without the presumption of animus, the second was specifically about the enjoying the wealth that was created that bobbyp mentioned.
I had/have no intention of trying to address the broader nature of the discussion.
“I guess what I’m getting at is that equally enjoying the wealth is not the whole of what folks mean when they talk about racism.
I understand this, I prefaced my comments that I was only adding two thoughts, the first was on the notion we can talk about racism without the presumption of animus, the second was specifically about the enjoying the wealth that was created that bobbyp mentioned.
I had/have no intention of trying to address the broader nature of the discussion.
But was it racism on my part?
No. It’s a recognition on your part that racism exists and is a possible dynamic in your presentation.
So then your definition of “racism” needs, at minimum, some tweaking.
But was it racism on my part?
No. It’s a recognition on your part that racism exists and is a possible dynamic in your presentation.
So then your definition of “racism” needs, at minimum, some tweaking.
In actuality, no, it is not. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that if you rob somebody, justice calls for righting that wrong?
That isn’t a hard concept, but nobody who was robbed or who did the robbing is here to pay or get paid.
The wealth of the nation is available to provide for everyone, there are all kinds of people who have been taken advantage of and beaten down and all of them aren’t Black. The way to ensure a fair society is to create it for everyone today.
All White people have not benefitted from that creation of wealth, or are we saying their lot in life is entirely their creation? They had white privilege economically and blew it?
In actuality, no, it is not. Why is it so difficult for people to understand that if you rob somebody, justice calls for righting that wrong?
That isn’t a hard concept, but nobody who was robbed or who did the robbing is here to pay or get paid.
The wealth of the nation is available to provide for everyone, there are all kinds of people who have been taken advantage of and beaten down and all of them aren’t Black. The way to ensure a fair society is to create it for everyone today.
All White people have not benefitted from that creation of wealth, or are we saying their lot in life is entirely their creation? They had white privilege economically and blew it?
IMHO the word “racism” needs adjectives like “interpersonal”, “internalized”, “systemic” and “institutional” to reach its full useful potential.
But, at root, I’m persuaded that the idea there even is such a thing as race is itself racism. (The book Racecraft had a lot to do with my thinking here.)
There are genes that code for skin color, just as there are for eye and hair color, but there are no genes for “race” – that’s purely a social construct. When I meet a new person I rarely even notice what color their eyes are, but if they’re african-american then it’s literally the first thing I notice, and I’m unable to stop noticing it afterward. I’m not hostile, but I’m always aware of a person’s race – which isn’t even a real thing! – and it seems unlikely that my brain would be in such an all-fired rush to keep me informed of something unless my brain thought it was really important information. That implies that my brain is planning or expecting to behave differently in some way, whether I consciously intend it or no.
So, yeah, I seem to have the racism bug. This doesn’t mean I hate anyone; it means I have a glitch in my brain, and it’s better to know this and do my best to correct for it than to pretend it isn’t there.
IMHO the word “racism” needs adjectives like “interpersonal”, “internalized”, “systemic” and “institutional” to reach its full useful potential.
But, at root, I’m persuaded that the idea there even is such a thing as race is itself racism. (The book Racecraft had a lot to do with my thinking here.)
There are genes that code for skin color, just as there are for eye and hair color, but there are no genes for “race” – that’s purely a social construct. When I meet a new person I rarely even notice what color their eyes are, but if they’re african-american then it’s literally the first thing I notice, and I’m unable to stop noticing it afterward. I’m not hostile, but I’m always aware of a person’s race – which isn’t even a real thing! – and it seems unlikely that my brain would be in such an all-fired rush to keep me informed of something unless my brain thought it was really important information. That implies that my brain is planning or expecting to behave differently in some way, whether I consciously intend it or no.
So, yeah, I seem to have the racism bug. This doesn’t mean I hate anyone; it means I have a glitch in my brain, and it’s better to know this and do my best to correct for it than to pretend it isn’t there.
It’s fine for me to say “I’m not a racist”, because I bear no particular ill will toward people of color, and in fact the opposite.
It is fine. We may argue about what constitutes racism, but the fact is that calling someone racist is an insult. As such it is likely to do more harm than good when applied to well-intentioned but awkward behavior.
If I behave differently toward them because of their skin color, and I’m not a racist, what am I?
Why do we need a one-word description? What you may be is someone who recognizes a need to try hard to avoid race-based behavior, with the consequence that you come across as somewhat artificial.
I lived a long time in the south. I knew people, plenty of them, who had grown up in a racist society and had picked up the attitudes, yet were aware that these were wrong and had abandoned them. Nonetheless they no doubt behaved as you describe. Some, among other things, may act excessively friendly when meeting black people. But these individuals seem to me to be admirable, not worthy of being labelled racists.
It’s hard to unlearn things.
It’s fine for me to say “I’m not a racist”, because I bear no particular ill will toward people of color, and in fact the opposite.
It is fine. We may argue about what constitutes racism, but the fact is that calling someone racist is an insult. As such it is likely to do more harm than good when applied to well-intentioned but awkward behavior.
If I behave differently toward them because of their skin color, and I’m not a racist, what am I?
Why do we need a one-word description? What you may be is someone who recognizes a need to try hard to avoid race-based behavior, with the consequence that you come across as somewhat artificial.
I lived a long time in the south. I knew people, plenty of them, who had grown up in a racist society and had picked up the attitudes, yet were aware that these were wrong and had abandoned them. Nonetheless they no doubt behaved as you describe. Some, among other things, may act excessively friendly when meeting black people. But these individuals seem to me to be admirable, not worthy of being labelled racists.
It’s hard to unlearn things.
“That implies that my brain is planning or expecting to behave differently in some way, whether I consciously intend it or no.”
No clearer indicator of biased expectation than the thought that this person acts white.
“That implies that my brain is planning or expecting to behave differently in some way, whether I consciously intend it or no.”
No clearer indicator of biased expectation than the thought that this person acts white.
I lived a long time in the south. I knew people, plenty of them, who had grown up in a racist society and had picked up the attitudes, yet were aware that these were wrong and had abandoned them. Nonetheless they no doubt behaved as you describe.
One of the hardest things in the world is to get rid of the culture you grew up in. Even when, intellectually, you know better. As I know first hand.
I grew up in a culture where homosexuality (even though most of us were unaware of having ever met a homosexual; although we doubtless had) was massively negatively viewed. Intellectually, I got past that. In fact, I decided that gay marriage should be legalized in the late 1980s — which put me pretty far ahead of the curve. I’ve had gay co-workers (some out, some of whom came out during the time we were working together) and never had a problem with them.
And yet, just the thought of gay sex still makes my skin crawl. I know that’s a remnant of my youth, and that it’s nonsense. But the attitude lingers nevertheless. That some people have similar issues with race is totally unsurprising.
I lived a long time in the south. I knew people, plenty of them, who had grown up in a racist society and had picked up the attitudes, yet were aware that these were wrong and had abandoned them. Nonetheless they no doubt behaved as you describe.
One of the hardest things in the world is to get rid of the culture you grew up in. Even when, intellectually, you know better. As I know first hand.
I grew up in a culture where homosexuality (even though most of us were unaware of having ever met a homosexual; although we doubtless had) was massively negatively viewed. Intellectually, I got past that. In fact, I decided that gay marriage should be legalized in the late 1980s — which put me pretty far ahead of the curve. I’ve had gay co-workers (some out, some of whom came out during the time we were working together) and never had a problem with them.
And yet, just the thought of gay sex still makes my skin crawl. I know that’s a remnant of my youth, and that it’s nonsense. But the attitude lingers nevertheless. That some people have similar issues with race is totally unsurprising.
wj…srsly…opposite-sex couples do all kinds of kinky things that the Catholic Church wouldn’t approve of too. Some of them are for all practical purposes indistinguishable from what gay people do. (This is a family blog, so I will leave the details to your imagination. 😉
Does your skin crawl when you think about *that*?
wj…srsly…opposite-sex couples do all kinds of kinky things that the Catholic Church wouldn’t approve of too. Some of them are for all practical purposes indistinguishable from what gay people do. (This is a family blog, so I will leave the details to your imagination. 😉
Does your skin crawl when you think about *that*?
So then your definition of “racism” needs, at minimum, some tweaking.
I’m sure that’s so.
the fact is that calling someone racist is an insult.
Yes, that is almost certainly also true.
My headline here is not “who is a racist”. It’s “what is racism”.
And it’s a question, not a claim.
If I behave differently toward people who are a different color, is that racism? If it’s not, what is it? If I just call it a less offensive word, does that change anything?
If I call it a less offensive word because people equate “racism” with “hatred”, does that help, or does it actually make things worse, because it lets me deflect responsibility for my own thoughts and behaviors?
Those are my questions.
I’m not looking to label anybody as anything.
Mostly I’m just trying to own my own crap.
So then your definition of “racism” needs, at minimum, some tweaking.
I’m sure that’s so.
the fact is that calling someone racist is an insult.
Yes, that is almost certainly also true.
My headline here is not “who is a racist”. It’s “what is racism”.
And it’s a question, not a claim.
If I behave differently toward people who are a different color, is that racism? If it’s not, what is it? If I just call it a less offensive word, does that change anything?
If I call it a less offensive word because people equate “racism” with “hatred”, does that help, or does it actually make things worse, because it lets me deflect responsibility for my own thoughts and behaviors?
Those are my questions.
I’m not looking to label anybody as anything.
Mostly I’m just trying to own my own crap.
The government doesn’t reimburse the victims as far as I am aware.
It can, and it has. cf Japanese internment. See also Mandatory Restitution Act of 1996 (feds don’t reimburse directly, but provides ways to obtain restitution via the legal system).
The wealth of the nation is available to provide for everyone, there are all kinds of people who have been taken advantage of and beaten down and all of them aren’t Black.
Certainly, there are “all kinds” but historically, unlike other groups, blacks were explicitly singled out for de jure as well as de facto discrimination. See also mass incarceration and stop and frisk…it’s not as if these were policies of the “distant past”.
There’s the rub.
The government doesn’t reimburse the victims as far as I am aware.
It can, and it has. cf Japanese internment. See also Mandatory Restitution Act of 1996 (feds don’t reimburse directly, but provides ways to obtain restitution via the legal system).
The wealth of the nation is available to provide for everyone, there are all kinds of people who have been taken advantage of and beaten down and all of them aren’t Black.
Certainly, there are “all kinds” but historically, unlike other groups, blacks were explicitly singled out for de jure as well as de facto discrimination. See also mass incarceration and stop and frisk…it’s not as if these were policies of the “distant past”.
There’s the rub.
For another thread I’m sure but is this gay sex only? The idea of another man, or the acts themselves that you envision?
I know plenty of women cringing at the idea of gay sex, based on certain specifics, or those same acts with a heterosexual partner and lots of men same, none of whom have anything against gay men.
For another thread I’m sure but is this gay sex only? The idea of another man, or the acts themselves that you envision?
I know plenty of women cringing at the idea of gay sex, based on certain specifics, or those same acts with a heterosexual partner and lots of men same, none of whom have anything against gay men.
Following bobbyp @1:03, I’ll The Color of Law., which he already cited but which deserves as much mention as it can get in this context.
Following bobbyp @1:03, I’ll The Color of Law., which he already cited but which deserves as much mention as it can get in this context.
bobbyp @1:02, not 1:03……..
bobbyp @1:02, not 1:03……..
Does your skin crawl when you think about *that*?
Actually, no. I certainly think “Why would anyone want to (or be willing to) do that?!?!?” But I don’t seem to have the same visceral reaction.
Does your skin crawl when you think about *that*?
Actually, no. I certainly think “Why would anyone want to (or be willing to) do that?!?!?” But I don’t seem to have the same visceral reaction.
If I behave differently toward people who are a different color, is that racism? If it’s not, what is it? If I just call it a less offensive word, does that change anything?
Yes, it does. It allows for some conversation, without shutting it down instantly. And without that conversation, nothing of substance will be accomplished to rectify the very real problems that you (correctly) identify.
That is why we should avoid spreading the label of “racism” far and wide. Words matter. And using a word that has, as others have noted, massive negative connotations to include behavior (or even attitudes absent behavior) which have only minor impacts, makes it harder to do something useful about the real problems.
If I behave differently toward people who are a different color, is that racism? If it’s not, what is it? If I just call it a less offensive word, does that change anything?
Yes, it does. It allows for some conversation, without shutting it down instantly. And without that conversation, nothing of substance will be accomplished to rectify the very real problems that you (correctly) identify.
That is why we should avoid spreading the label of “racism” far and wide. Words matter. And using a word that has, as others have noted, massive negative connotations to include behavior (or even attitudes absent behavior) which have only minor impacts, makes it harder to do something useful about the real problems.
The government doesn’t reimburse the victims as far as I am aware.
It can, and it has. cf Japanese internment.
Note, however, that that was explicitly and apology, not restitution. And that it went to those who were actually interned. Not to their (unborn at the time) children and grandchildren.
The government doesn’t reimburse the victims as far as I am aware.
It can, and it has. cf Japanese internment.
Note, however, that that was explicitly and apology, not restitution. And that it went to those who were actually interned. Not to their (unborn at the time) children and grandchildren.
If I behave differently toward people who are a different color, is that racism?
It depends on the behavior.
If it’s not, what is it?
I don’t have a good term for innocuous behaviors.
If I just call it a less offensive word, does that change anything?
Yes. If you tell someone that going out of their way to be say, welcoming to a new employee who is black is a racist act you will often make an unnecessary enemy, or start an irrelevant argument, and accomplish nothing.
If I call it a less offensive word because people equate “racism” with “hatred”, does that help, or does it actually make things worse, because it lets me deflect responsibility for my own thoughts and behaviors?
It helps. I don’t think it lets you deflect responsibility as long as you are aware of what you are doing. As I am quite certain you are.
Those are my questions.
Those are my answers.
If I behave differently toward people who are a different color, is that racism?
It depends on the behavior.
If it’s not, what is it?
I don’t have a good term for innocuous behaviors.
If I just call it a less offensive word, does that change anything?
Yes. If you tell someone that going out of their way to be say, welcoming to a new employee who is black is a racist act you will often make an unnecessary enemy, or start an irrelevant argument, and accomplish nothing.
If I call it a less offensive word because people equate “racism” with “hatred”, does that help, or does it actually make things worse, because it lets me deflect responsibility for my own thoughts and behaviors?
It helps. I don’t think it lets you deflect responsibility as long as you are aware of what you are doing. As I am quite certain you are.
Those are my questions.
Those are my answers.
is this gay sex only? The idea of another man, or the acts themselves that you envision?
It’s the idea of another man. The acts themselves, with heterosexuals, fall into the “Why would anyone want to do that?” category. At least for me.
is this gay sex only? The idea of another man, or the acts themselves that you envision?
It’s the idea of another man. The acts themselves, with heterosexuals, fall into the “Why would anyone want to do that?” category. At least for me.
Yes, it does. It allows for some conversation, without shutting it down instantly.
Those are my answers.
All good, and thank you.
Thanks to everyone for your thoughts on this thread, it’s a charged topic and I appreciate your thoughtful and measured responses. They’ve been helpful to me.
Mostly this was me thinking out loud, which is not always fruitful. 🙂 Thanks to everyone especially for not taking offense, in what can often be an offense-rich environment.
Yes, it does. It allows for some conversation, without shutting it down instantly.
Those are my answers.
All good, and thank you.
Thanks to everyone for your thoughts on this thread, it’s a charged topic and I appreciate your thoughtful and measured responses. They’ve been helpful to me.
Mostly this was me thinking out loud, which is not always fruitful. 🙂 Thanks to everyone especially for not taking offense, in what can often be an offense-rich environment.
A story about thinking of people differently based on the category you perceive them to be part of:
Long ago when I was going to a UU church, there was one openly gay male couple (this was long enough ago so that gay people were still by default closeted…even though not as much so in UU churches).
A straight female friend of mine in that congregation (who knew I was gay ) told me something like what wj just said: she had a hard time concerning that couple, because gay sex seemed so icky to her.
I asked her: Well, do you sit around in church imagining the sex lives of anyone else?
Answer: No.
It was a revelatory moment.
I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, wj. I would guess it’s more likely that you’re at least unconsciously putting yourself into a scene that you would ever want to be in, and reacting to that. (I’ll send you my bill for the unsolicited amateur psychologizing later.)
A story about thinking of people differently based on the category you perceive them to be part of:
Long ago when I was going to a UU church, there was one openly gay male couple (this was long enough ago so that gay people were still by default closeted…even though not as much so in UU churches).
A straight female friend of mine in that congregation (who knew I was gay ) told me something like what wj just said: she had a hard time concerning that couple, because gay sex seemed so icky to her.
I asked her: Well, do you sit around in church imagining the sex lives of anyone else?
Answer: No.
It was a revelatory moment.
I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, wj. I would guess it’s more likely that you’re at least unconsciously putting yourself into a scene that you would ever want to be in, and reacting to that. (I’ll send you my bill for the unsolicited amateur psychologizing later.)
I would guess it’s more likely that you’re at least unconsciously putting yourself into a scene that you would ever want to be in, and reacting to that.
I would guess the same. That’s how it works for me. Maybe I just never met Mr. Right. ;^)
But does the same also hold for sex involving two people who are entirely unattractive, regardless of gender? Is it simply that all men are entirely unattractive by virtue of being men?
(And wouldn’t the world be more fun if everyone was bisexual? Or would it just be more complicated?)
I would guess it’s more likely that you’re at least unconsciously putting yourself into a scene that you would ever want to be in, and reacting to that.
I would guess the same. That’s how it works for me. Maybe I just never met Mr. Right. ;^)
But does the same also hold for sex involving two people who are entirely unattractive, regardless of gender? Is it simply that all men are entirely unattractive by virtue of being men?
(And wouldn’t the world be more fun if everyone was bisexual? Or would it just be more complicated?)
Yes, it does. It allows for some conversation, without shutting it down instantly.
Instead of assuming that conversation will be always be shut down by use of the word “racism”, why don’t we try understanding racism in a way that allows the conversation to keep going?
Racism is many things, but one of them is a cognitive error, like question begging or confirmation bias or the availability heuristic (all of which overlap with it to some extent). Everybody has cognitive errors; you don’t need to be ashamed of them or angry about them, you just need to know they’re there so you can correct for them. You can’t fix a problem if you aren’t willing to admit it’s there.
Yes, it does. It allows for some conversation, without shutting it down instantly.
Instead of assuming that conversation will be always be shut down by use of the word “racism”, why don’t we try understanding racism in a way that allows the conversation to keep going?
Racism is many things, but one of them is a cognitive error, like question begging or confirmation bias or the availability heuristic (all of which overlap with it to some extent). Everybody has cognitive errors; you don’t need to be ashamed of them or angry about them, you just need to know they’re there so you can correct for them. You can’t fix a problem if you aren’t willing to admit it’s there.
I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, wj. I would guess it’s more likely that you’re at least unconsciously putting yourself into a scene that you would ever want to be in, and reacting to that. (I’ll send you my bill for the unsolicited amateur psychologizing later.)
I suppose I may be. Mostly, I try (generally successfully) not to think about it. Especially when I am around gay guys. I just deal with them as people, and it seems to work OK. I know the reaction would be there, but as long as I’m focused on the current situation, what they do elsewhere isn’t a problem.
I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, wj. I would guess it’s more likely that you’re at least unconsciously putting yourself into a scene that you would ever want to be in, and reacting to that. (I’ll send you my bill for the unsolicited amateur psychologizing later.)
I suppose I may be. Mostly, I try (generally successfully) not to think about it. Especially when I am around gay guys. I just deal with them as people, and it seems to work OK. I know the reaction would be there, but as long as I’m focused on the current situation, what they do elsewhere isn’t a problem.
Instead of assuming that conversation will be always be shut down by use of the word “racism”, why don’t we try understanding racism in a way that allows the conversation to keep going?
It’s a somewhat attractive idea. In some other reality. But in the world we live in, getting people, especially those who are already hypersensitive on the subject, to redefine the word for our convenience just isn’t going to happen.
Instead of assuming that conversation will be always be shut down by use of the word “racism”, why don’t we try understanding racism in a way that allows the conversation to keep going?
It’s a somewhat attractive idea. In some other reality. But in the world we live in, getting people, especially those who are already hypersensitive on the subject, to redefine the word for our convenience just isn’t going to happen.
” I try (generally successfully) not to think about it. Especially when I am around gay guys.”
You just need to get a few hugs, its like facing your fear of heights. The hugs feel just like hugs and you don’t suddenly have sex. Not advised as a solution in work environments.
” I try (generally successfully) not to think about it. Especially when I am around gay guys.”
You just need to get a few hugs, its like facing your fear of heights. The hugs feel just like hugs and you don’t suddenly have sex. Not advised as a solution in work environments.
That isn’t a hard concept, but nobody who was robbed or who did the robbing is here to pay or get paid.
but slavery wasn’t the only robbery.
there’s a whole wide range of ways in which white Americans continue to rob black Americans.
start with the simple black/white pay gap. then look at redlining. then look at unequal mortgages. then look at stop, arrest, conviction, sentencing and sentence length disparities.
all of that is supposed to be prevented by law. but the law isn’t sufficient.
That isn’t a hard concept, but nobody who was robbed or who did the robbing is here to pay or get paid.
but slavery wasn’t the only robbery.
there’s a whole wide range of ways in which white Americans continue to rob black Americans.
start with the simple black/white pay gap. then look at redlining. then look at unequal mortgages. then look at stop, arrest, conviction, sentencing and sentence length disparities.
all of that is supposed to be prevented by law. but the law isn’t sufficient.
You just need to get a few hugs, its like facing your fear of heights.
On balance, dealing with my fear of heights would be more important for my quality of life. But at least I know where that came from. (Involves sweeping leaves off a flat roof, a skylight concealed by the leaves, and a fall through it to the patio below. Not injured, but….)
You just need to get a few hugs, its like facing your fear of heights.
On balance, dealing with my fear of heights would be more important for my quality of life. But at least I know where that came from. (Involves sweeping leaves off a flat roof, a skylight concealed by the leaves, and a fall through it to the patio below. Not injured, but….)
for wj.
for wj.
there’s a whole wide range of ways in which white Americans continue to rob black Americans.
start with the simple black/white pay gap.
OK, lets look at this one. Does anyone know if there is any research on whether this is consistent across the board, vs concentrated in a subset of industries/jobs? Is the problem the same in large corporations as in small businesses? Do we know how much is based on salary history? (In which case, a solution is going to need to focus on starting pay situations.)
In short, if we want to work on a problem, we need to be clear on exactly what we are dealing with. Otherwise, progress will be even more difficult.
then look at stop, arrest, conviction, sentencing and sentence length disparities.
Agreed. This needs to change. So how do we change it? Stop and arrest is going to take making changes to police personnel attitudes. Convictions is going to take, I suspect, general societal attitude changes. Although I suppose jury selection could help. Sentencing and sentence length is going to require changes in attitudes of judges. Any thoughts on how we make that happen? (Then, when we figure out how to make it happen anywhere, we can figure out how we expand that across the country.)
Assume (not a stretch) that pretty much everybody here agrees that these things should change. So can we move on to figuring out how to make it happen?
there’s a whole wide range of ways in which white Americans continue to rob black Americans.
start with the simple black/white pay gap.
OK, lets look at this one. Does anyone know if there is any research on whether this is consistent across the board, vs concentrated in a subset of industries/jobs? Is the problem the same in large corporations as in small businesses? Do we know how much is based on salary history? (In which case, a solution is going to need to focus on starting pay situations.)
In short, if we want to work on a problem, we need to be clear on exactly what we are dealing with. Otherwise, progress will be even more difficult.
then look at stop, arrest, conviction, sentencing and sentence length disparities.
Agreed. This needs to change. So how do we change it? Stop and arrest is going to take making changes to police personnel attitudes. Convictions is going to take, I suspect, general societal attitude changes. Although I suppose jury selection could help. Sentencing and sentence length is going to require changes in attitudes of judges. Any thoughts on how we make that happen? (Then, when we figure out how to make it happen anywhere, we can figure out how we expand that across the country.)
Assume (not a stretch) that pretty much everybody here agrees that these things should change. So can we move on to figuring out how to make it happen?
OK, lets look at this one.
sounds good to me.
OK, lets look at this one.
sounds good to me.
Stop and arrest is going to take making changes to police personnel attitudes.
The opportunities for the police to engage with citizens could be greatly reduced by doing away with the laws on economic crimes; sex, drugs, and gambling. Except for marijuana, not going to happen anytime soon. And then there’s the whole policing for profit thing.
Stop and arrest is going to take making changes to police personnel attitudes.
The opportunities for the police to engage with citizens could be greatly reduced by doing away with the laws on economic crimes; sex, drugs, and gambling. Except for marijuana, not going to happen anytime soon. And then there’s the whole policing for profit thing.
Policing for profit is fine.
Policing for profit is fine.
Thanks, Bobby.
I do wonder why they consider “differences in school quality” to be an unexplained factor. Seems like its something that could be teased out.
That said, if we see pretty much the same difference across all industries, all sizes of business, etc., etc. then it would appear that we are only going to get an improvement if we change attitudes on the part of those doing hiring. We already know that telling that they are racists is counterproductive. So what do we do that might actually change “hearts and minds”?
We can talk all we want about how there should be change. But what specifically can we (individually or collectively — i.e. by law) that would make it happen?
Thanks, Bobby.
I do wonder why they consider “differences in school quality” to be an unexplained factor. Seems like its something that could be teased out.
That said, if we see pretty much the same difference across all industries, all sizes of business, etc., etc. then it would appear that we are only going to get an improvement if we change attitudes on the part of those doing hiring. We already know that telling that they are racists is counterproductive. So what do we do that might actually change “hearts and minds”?
We can talk all we want about how there should be change. But what specifically can we (individually or collectively — i.e. by law) that would make it happen?
“I suggest that it is, quite simply, racism. If you respond to people differently because of their skin color, that is racism.”
This entails that 1) anti racist activists are racists, 2) sometimes racism is good.
“I suggest that it is, quite simply, racism. If you respond to people differently because of their skin color, that is racism.”
This entails that 1) anti racist activists are racists, 2) sometimes racism is good.
Policing for profit is fine.
A lot of fines. 🙁
Policing for profit is fine.
A lot of fines. 🙁
We already know that telling that they are racists is counterproductive.
Back in the good ol’ days, telling segregationists they were racists did not apparently change their minds. And it most likely made a good number of them angry.
Some things don’t change.
So it could be that your observation may just be the wrong line to initiate the inquiry.
Ask yourself how things did change in the great civil rights struggles of the past. There were (white) people back then defending their hurt feelings and invoking self-serving worries about “going too fast” on this issue. It was a commonly held (white) opinion at the time.
They were wrong then. They are wrong now.
We already know that telling that they are racists is counterproductive.
Back in the good ol’ days, telling segregationists they were racists did not apparently change their minds. And it most likely made a good number of them angry.
Some things don’t change.
So it could be that your observation may just be the wrong line to initiate the inquiry.
Ask yourself how things did change in the great civil rights struggles of the past. There were (white) people back then defending their hurt feelings and invoking self-serving worries about “going too fast” on this issue. It was a commonly held (white) opinion at the time.
They were wrong then. They are wrong now.
I agree, even today we should call white segregationists racists. We do have a fair number of black segregationists today also.
I agree, even today we should call white segregationists racists. We do have a fair number of black segregationists today also.
Grist for the mill… a number of scholars in academia (Beth Coleman being my starting point), have begun to discuss race not as a biological trait or a social construct, but as a technology that can be used to accomplish different types of work (social, economic, etc.). I’m busy working through this way of thinking while I try to wrap my head around what afrofuturism is and does.
Thinking about race in this way certainly does a number on one’s assumptions.
Grist for the mill… a number of scholars in academia (Beth Coleman being my starting point), have begun to discuss race not as a biological trait or a social construct, but as a technology that can be used to accomplish different types of work (social, economic, etc.). I’m busy working through this way of thinking while I try to wrap my head around what afrofuturism is and does.
Thinking about race in this way certainly does a number on one’s assumptions.
I agree, even today we should call white segregationists racists.
Well, there you go. So, would it be fair to call white flight to the suburbs (to send their kids to ‘better schools’) where blacks cannot follow racism? And if so, would it not seem reasonable to call such people, either collectively or yes, individually, racist?
We do have a fair number of black segregationists today also.
Hahahaha…um..no.
I agree, even today we should call white segregationists racists.
Well, there you go. So, would it be fair to call white flight to the suburbs (to send their kids to ‘better schools’) where blacks cannot follow racism? And if so, would it not seem reasonable to call such people, either collectively or yes, individually, racist?
We do have a fair number of black segregationists today also.
Hahahaha…um..no.
Does it matter, if there isn’t hatred involved. Yes, I think it does. Because people perceive how you perceive them. And being perceived as different in a way that needs special treatment – whether it’s animus, or the kind of weird walking-on-eggs deference that Liberals Like Me often adopt, or whatever form it might take – it harmful to people.
For various reasons I haven’t had a lot of time to really engage with this thread, but every so often I’ve grabbed a moment and read the latest comments, because I find the question so interesting. I’m with russell on this subject, (in my case the walking-on-eggs, bending-over-backwards variety), and this causes me acute discomfort because of my family involvement in the fight against apartheid, which I was brought up to think of as pretty much the greatest evil in the contemporary world. Oh how I would wish to be colour-blind, and how I would wish that for all of us.
It reminds me of a story my sister told me about when my (white) South African cousin was visiting her and her late husband in San Francisco in the 90s. This cousin had been very active in what they call in SA “the struggle”, had been in great danger from the apartheid regime several times, and had given refuge several times to ANC people on the run. While he was in SF, he went to a party with my sis and bro-in-law, who had some extremely cool musician friends. A black guy called Jonesy (drummer now for Tony Bennett, then for Natalie Cole and in the past for Ella Fitzgerald, and who played the drums at my bro-in-law’s wake) was at the party, and he was standing next to my cousin as they were having a drink, and said to him: “how’re you liking the party man?” To which my cousin replied “Oh, I don’t know, I’m not used to being around so many white people”. And not only was this a very fine joke, which made Jonesy and everyone else who heard it roar with laughter, but it grabbed the elephant in the room by the tail. Unfortunately, it’s not always possible to acknowledge this problem with such grace.
Does it matter, if there isn’t hatred involved. Yes, I think it does. Because people perceive how you perceive them. And being perceived as different in a way that needs special treatment – whether it’s animus, or the kind of weird walking-on-eggs deference that Liberals Like Me often adopt, or whatever form it might take – it harmful to people.
For various reasons I haven’t had a lot of time to really engage with this thread, but every so often I’ve grabbed a moment and read the latest comments, because I find the question so interesting. I’m with russell on this subject, (in my case the walking-on-eggs, bending-over-backwards variety), and this causes me acute discomfort because of my family involvement in the fight against apartheid, which I was brought up to think of as pretty much the greatest evil in the contemporary world. Oh how I would wish to be colour-blind, and how I would wish that for all of us.
It reminds me of a story my sister told me about when my (white) South African cousin was visiting her and her late husband in San Francisco in the 90s. This cousin had been very active in what they call in SA “the struggle”, had been in great danger from the apartheid regime several times, and had given refuge several times to ANC people on the run. While he was in SF, he went to a party with my sis and bro-in-law, who had some extremely cool musician friends. A black guy called Jonesy (drummer now for Tony Bennett, then for Natalie Cole and in the past for Ella Fitzgerald, and who played the drums at my bro-in-law’s wake) was at the party, and he was standing next to my cousin as they were having a drink, and said to him: “how’re you liking the party man?” To which my cousin replied “Oh, I don’t know, I’m not used to being around so many white people”. And not only was this a very fine joke, which made Jonesy and everyone else who heard it roar with laughter, but it grabbed the elephant in the room by the tail. Unfortunately, it’s not always possible to acknowledge this problem with such grace.
A black guy called Jonesy
The great Harold Jones.
Besides Bennett, Cole, and Ella (as if there needs to anyone besides Ella!) the man worked with Basie, hands down the best swing rhythm section ever.
Nice.
A black guy called Jonesy
The great Harold Jones.
Besides Bennett, Cole, and Ella (as if there needs to anyone besides Ella!) the man worked with Basie, hands down the best swing rhythm section ever.
Nice.
Thanks russell! Telling you the story, I realised I never looked him up, and was about to…
Thanks russell! Telling you the story, I realised I never looked him up, and was about to…
It wasn’t counterproductive to call the segregationists racists for the simple reason that the rest of the country was prepared to use force to make them change their behavior. (I can remember seeing TV news footage of the 82nd Airborne in Little Rock enforcing the desegregation of the high school.) Aided, in significant part, by the geographically limited range of legalized segregation.
Now, we are dealing with more spread out and less easily visible problems. And not ones which can be changed using the US Army. (Even if we had a President who was willing to.) So what worked then doesn’t look likely to work now.
It isn’t a matter of a lot of people not being racists. Even on my narrow definition. It’s a matter of how you go about changing behavior.
It wasn’t counterproductive to call the segregationists racists for the simple reason that the rest of the country was prepared to use force to make them change their behavior. (I can remember seeing TV news footage of the 82nd Airborne in Little Rock enforcing the desegregation of the high school.) Aided, in significant part, by the geographically limited range of legalized segregation.
Now, we are dealing with more spread out and less easily visible problems. And not ones which can be changed using the US Army. (Even if we had a President who was willing to.) So what worked then doesn’t look likely to work now.
It isn’t a matter of a lot of people not being racists. Even on my narrow definition. It’s a matter of how you go about changing behavior.
Great story, GFNC. Everybody wants to know “what can we do”? I propose the creation of a number of new cities populated overwhelmingly by black people to which randomly drafted (bring back the draft!) white people are sent to undergo strenuous role reversal training.
This could take an extremely long time. But what the hey, the conservative policy response to white racism is to do virtually nothing….win, win.
Great story, GFNC. Everybody wants to know “what can we do”? I propose the creation of a number of new cities populated overwhelmingly by black people to which randomly drafted (bring back the draft!) white people are sent to undergo strenuous role reversal training.
This could take an extremely long time. But what the hey, the conservative policy response to white racism is to do virtually nothing….win, win.
An interesting brouhaha that seems related to the topic from several angles:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-lawmaker-says-recent-snowfall-caused-byrothschilds-controlling-the-climate/2018/03/18/daeb0eae-2ae0-11e8-911f-ca7f68bff0fc_story.html
https://forward.com/opinion/399476/the-shameful-character-assassination-of-trayon-white/
The two links are a month or so apart.
An interesting brouhaha that seems related to the topic from several angles:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/dc-lawmaker-says-recent-snowfall-caused-byrothschilds-controlling-the-climate/2018/03/18/daeb0eae-2ae0-11e8-911f-ca7f68bff0fc_story.html
https://forward.com/opinion/399476/the-shameful-character-assassination-of-trayon-white/
The two links are a month or so apart.
I propose the creation of a number of new cities populated overwhelmingly by black people to which randomly drafted (bring back the draft!) white people are sent to undergo strenuous role reversal training.
It would take an army of saints or conflict resolution ninja warriors to make that experiment not simply turn into a permanent reversal of the status quo. Maybe you think that’s just what white people deserve, and maybe it’s just what we’ll get, eventually, even if our overlords turn out to be from that big economic rival across the Pacific in the end.
My life’s greatest teacher, Danaan Parry, was someone I would have trusted to design the experiment, but he left before his time. He used to tell a story of going into a workshop in Northern Ireland (long before the peace process) where the two sides were already bickering when he arrived. He got everyone seated and said, “Okay, the men on this side of the room and the women on that,” and ended up with Catholic and Protestant women seeing how much they had in common, ditto Catholic and Protestant men, through the lens of gender. [This is a HUGE topic…for another thread.]
I use the story not for the sake of the specifics, but just to cite the notion that sometimes you can’t solve at a problem or conflict by butting your head against the well-fortified front door. You have to be creative and go through the back door, or from a side angle, or through a surreptitiously dug tunnel.
We’re awfully stuck….I have a feeling only something very unexpected is going to unstick us, if indeed we ever get there.
I propose the creation of a number of new cities populated overwhelmingly by black people to which randomly drafted (bring back the draft!) white people are sent to undergo strenuous role reversal training.
It would take an army of saints or conflict resolution ninja warriors to make that experiment not simply turn into a permanent reversal of the status quo. Maybe you think that’s just what white people deserve, and maybe it’s just what we’ll get, eventually, even if our overlords turn out to be from that big economic rival across the Pacific in the end.
My life’s greatest teacher, Danaan Parry, was someone I would have trusted to design the experiment, but he left before his time. He used to tell a story of going into a workshop in Northern Ireland (long before the peace process) where the two sides were already bickering when he arrived. He got everyone seated and said, “Okay, the men on this side of the room and the women on that,” and ended up with Catholic and Protestant women seeing how much they had in common, ditto Catholic and Protestant men, through the lens of gender. [This is a HUGE topic…for another thread.]
I use the story not for the sake of the specifics, but just to cite the notion that sometimes you can’t solve at a problem or conflict by butting your head against the well-fortified front door. You have to be creative and go through the back door, or from a side angle, or through a surreptitiously dug tunnel.
We’re awfully stuck….I have a feeling only something very unexpected is going to unstick us, if indeed we ever get there.
Does anyone know if there is any research on whether this is consistent across the board, vs concentrated in a subset of industries/jobs? Is the problem the same in large corporations as in small businesses? Do we know how much is based on salary history?
https://psmag.com/economics/black-white-wage-gap-grows-as-americans-remain-in-denial
Does anyone know if there is any research on whether this is consistent across the board, vs concentrated in a subset of industries/jobs? Is the problem the same in large corporations as in small businesses? Do we know how much is based on salary history?
https://psmag.com/economics/black-white-wage-gap-grows-as-americans-remain-in-denial
We do have a fair number of black segregationists today also.
cool.
give em 400 years in power and we can call it even?
We do have a fair number of black segregationists today also.
cool.
give em 400 years in power and we can call it even?
“give em 400 years in power and we can call it even?”
Do they get to enslave whitey for 250 of those years, and horsewhip the ones that act uppity? AFAAAF
“give em 400 years in power and we can call it even?”
Do they get to enslave whitey for 250 of those years, and horsewhip the ones that act uppity? AFAAAF
first of all, apologies for not being able to keep up, real life has decided to take out its frustrations on me…
There are a number of things I’d like to take up, but I wouldn’t give any of them the attention they deserve. Nonetheless, I didn’t want to just make a drive-by comment, so if there is anything that I wrote that anyone has a question about, please let me know and I’ll make time to reply.
first of all, apologies for not being able to keep up, real life has decided to take out its frustrations on me…
There are a number of things I’d like to take up, but I wouldn’t give any of them the attention they deserve. Nonetheless, I didn’t want to just make a drive-by comment, so if there is anything that I wrote that anyone has a question about, please let me know and I’ll make time to reply.
We’re awfully stuck….I have a feeling only something very unexpected is going to unstick us, if indeed we ever get there.
A sharp increase in interracial marriage? (I’m only half kidding.)
We’re awfully stuck….I have a feeling only something very unexpected is going to unstick us, if indeed we ever get there.
A sharp increase in interracial marriage? (I’m only half kidding.)
I don’t know where to put this, but it is fascinating.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-ugly-coded-critique-of-chick-fil-as-christianity/ar-AAwg9Dg?ocid=spartanntp
I don’t know where to put this, but it is fascinating.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/the-ugly-coded-critique-of-chick-fil-as-christianity/ar-AAwg9Dg?ocid=spartanntp
I’ll give the guy credit for providing the link to the Pew website so you can see how selective he is about what he presents and how he presents it. I could just as easily write and article about how criticizing Christianity is criticizing old, white people using the same source material.
Meh.
I’ll give the guy credit for providing the link to the Pew website so you can see how selective he is about what he presents and how he presents it. I could just as easily write and article about how criticizing Christianity is criticizing old, white people using the same source material.
Meh.
I’m with hsh. Take this passage:
Here we see something about the future. Look at the figures for the young, on the left-hand side. Only 9 percent of white Christians are young millennials, compared with 21 percent of Asian Christians and 16 percent of Latino Christians. Some 17 percent of white Christians are from the so-called silent generation. No other group comes close. In other words, white Christians are aging. Christians of color are youthening.
I’m not at all sure those numbers mean what he says they mean, but I don’t have time to tease out why at the moment.
Plus, it’s bemusing that nowhere is it mentioned that he’s a Yale Law professor.
And finally — I doubt he’s responsible for the clickbait headline…….
I’m with hsh. Take this passage:
Here we see something about the future. Look at the figures for the young, on the left-hand side. Only 9 percent of white Christians are young millennials, compared with 21 percent of Asian Christians and 16 percent of Latino Christians. Some 17 percent of white Christians are from the so-called silent generation. No other group comes close. In other words, white Christians are aging. Christians of color are youthening.
I’m not at all sure those numbers mean what he says they mean, but I don’t have time to tease out why at the moment.
Plus, it’s bemusing that nowhere is it mentioned that he’s a Yale Law professor.
And finally — I doubt he’s responsible for the clickbait headline…….
A sharp increase in interracial marriage?
Actually, I think it is already making inroads. Indeed, I’d say that part of the rise in (visible) racism is due to the racists noticing that. And panicking as a result.
It’s so much harder to rant about racial purity when there are hordes of people, including in your own family, who aren’t pure anything. (And if you decide to hark back to the “one drop” nonsense of yore, you’ll find out that there isn’t much of anyone left. Probably including yourself, if you are so incautious as to do the Ancestral DNA thing.)
A sharp increase in interracial marriage?
Actually, I think it is already making inroads. Indeed, I’d say that part of the rise in (visible) racism is due to the racists noticing that. And panicking as a result.
It’s so much harder to rant about racial purity when there are hordes of people, including in your own family, who aren’t pure anything. (And if you decide to hark back to the “one drop” nonsense of yore, you’ll find out that there isn’t much of anyone left. Probably including yourself, if you are so incautious as to do the Ancestral DNA thing.)
Here’s a chart from Pew:
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/racial-and-ethnic-composition/
Hey, look at the evangelicals!
Here’s a chart from Pew:
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/racial-and-ethnic-composition/
Hey, look at the evangelicals!
I’m not at all sure those numbers mean what he says they mean, but I don’t have time to tease out why at the moment.
While young Asian Christians represent a larger percentage of Asian Christians than do young Christians in other groups, there’s also this (from Pew – http://www.pewforum.org/2012/07/19/asian-americans-a-mosaic-of-faiths-overview/):
The problem for me is that the article presents how Christians within a given group are distributed in terms of demographics and views. But it doesn’t tell you what percentage of people within those groups are Christians to begin with. And it doesn’t tell you what percentage of Christians belong to a given group.
I’m not at all sure those numbers mean what he says they mean, but I don’t have time to tease out why at the moment.
While young Asian Christians represent a larger percentage of Asian Christians than do young Christians in other groups, there’s also this (from Pew – http://www.pewforum.org/2012/07/19/asian-americans-a-mosaic-of-faiths-overview/):
The problem for me is that the article presents how Christians within a given group are distributed in terms of demographics and views. But it doesn’t tell you what percentage of people within those groups are Christians to begin with. And it doesn’t tell you what percentage of Christians belong to a given group.
From Marty’s cite:
Narrow-mindedness of this sort is alarmingly common on the left.
Narrow-mindedness of this sort is alarmingly common. Full stop.
People who live in big cities have, all things considered, different values and a different outlook on life than people who live in rural areas.
People who live in the northeast have, all things considered, different values and a different outlook on life than people who live in the southeast, or the midwest, or the southwest, or the mountain west, or the northwest. People who live in all of those areas have different values and a different outlook than people who live in every other one of those areas.
It’s a big country. People are different.
FWIW, there was nothing “coded” in the New Yorker piece. The author found the kind of evangelical Christianity espoused by the owners of Chik-fil-a to be kind of weird, and found their expression of that in their fast food franchises kind of weird.
Because, the New Yorker.
I’m unclear on what the value of arguing about stuff like this is, anymore. Or maybe ever.
From Marty’s cite:
Narrow-mindedness of this sort is alarmingly common on the left.
Narrow-mindedness of this sort is alarmingly common. Full stop.
People who live in big cities have, all things considered, different values and a different outlook on life than people who live in rural areas.
People who live in the northeast have, all things considered, different values and a different outlook on life than people who live in the southeast, or the midwest, or the southwest, or the mountain west, or the northwest. People who live in all of those areas have different values and a different outlook than people who live in every other one of those areas.
It’s a big country. People are different.
FWIW, there was nothing “coded” in the New Yorker piece. The author found the kind of evangelical Christianity espoused by the owners of Chik-fil-a to be kind of weird, and found their expression of that in their fast food franchises kind of weird.
Because, the New Yorker.
I’m unclear on what the value of arguing about stuff like this is, anymore. Or maybe ever.
I’m unclear on what the value of arguing about stuff like this is, anymore. Or maybe ever.
russell…meant completely unsnarkily…how is arguing about “stuff like this” different from arguing about what behaviors can be labeled “racism”?
You think we have a race problem in the US, and in hopes of helping to end it, you want to be able to talk about it using the word “racism” in a way that some people react badly to.
Carter surely thinks we have a race problem in the US, and (I’m making assumptions here but I don’t think they’re that much of a stretch!) in hopes of helping to end it, he wants to uncover the potential hidden racial component of certain attitudes and assumptions about religion, a line of thinking that some people are likely to react badly to.
Why does one argument have value while the other does not?
I’m unclear on what the value of arguing about stuff like this is, anymore. Or maybe ever.
russell…meant completely unsnarkily…how is arguing about “stuff like this” different from arguing about what behaviors can be labeled “racism”?
You think we have a race problem in the US, and in hopes of helping to end it, you want to be able to talk about it using the word “racism” in a way that some people react badly to.
Carter surely thinks we have a race problem in the US, and (I’m making assumptions here but I don’t think they’re that much of a stretch!) in hopes of helping to end it, he wants to uncover the potential hidden racial component of certain attitudes and assumptions about religion, a line of thinking that some people are likely to react badly to.
Why does one argument have value while the other does not?
Maybe you think that’s just what white people deserve, and maybe it’s just what we’ll get, eventually, even if our overlords turn out to be from that big economic rival across the Pacific in the end.
My suggestion was more in the Swiftian A Modest Proposal vein, but perhaps it did not come across that way to you.
You know it possibly could be what white people deserve….who knows? We live in a world that is overwhelmingly populated by the duskier hues. Civilizations rise and fall. It could well be that our turn at a fall could come, and if you expect non-whites to forgive and forget, well, that may be a forgone hope if racism is “universal”….but we can only hope for the best and do what we can do to push for an inclusive world with equality and justice for all.
Maybe you think that’s just what white people deserve, and maybe it’s just what we’ll get, eventually, even if our overlords turn out to be from that big economic rival across the Pacific in the end.
My suggestion was more in the Swiftian A Modest Proposal vein, but perhaps it did not come across that way to you.
You know it possibly could be what white people deserve….who knows? We live in a world that is overwhelmingly populated by the duskier hues. Civilizations rise and fall. It could well be that our turn at a fall could come, and if you expect non-whites to forgive and forget, well, that may be a forgone hope if racism is “universal”….but we can only hope for the best and do what we can do to push for an inclusive world with equality and justice for all.
but we can only hope for the best and do what we can do to push for an inclusive world with equality and justice for all.
Well said.
but we can only hope for the best and do what we can do to push for an inclusive world with equality and justice for all.
Well said.
The author found the kind of evangelical Christianity espoused by the owners of Chik-fil-a to be kind of weird, and found their expression of that in their fast food franchises kind of weird.
just for the record, there is no Christianity at all in anything a Chik-fil-A customer will see. the owners have their views, but they kindly do not push them into customers’ faces.
there is a really good burger chain in central NC that does push Christianity on its packaging (scripture on cups and wrappers). that’s a drag. CfA doesn’t do that.
the NYer author is mad at what the CfA owners do outside the retail spots, and inexplicably bent out of shape about the cows CfA uses in its ads.
(i encourage the author to avoid BBQ places, which almost always have a pig as a mascot.)
The author found the kind of evangelical Christianity espoused by the owners of Chik-fil-a to be kind of weird, and found their expression of that in their fast food franchises kind of weird.
just for the record, there is no Christianity at all in anything a Chik-fil-A customer will see. the owners have their views, but they kindly do not push them into customers’ faces.
there is a really good burger chain in central NC that does push Christianity on its packaging (scripture on cups and wrappers). that’s a drag. CfA doesn’t do that.
the NYer author is mad at what the CfA owners do outside the retail spots, and inexplicably bent out of shape about the cows CfA uses in its ads.
(i encourage the author to avoid BBQ places, which almost always have a pig as a mascot.)
how is arguing about “stuff like this” different from arguing about what behaviors can be labeled “racism”?
Maybe it’s not. I’m just f***ing sick of coastal-elite-vs-the-heartland culture war bullshit.
No doubt that debate, and dynamic, is as interesting to some folks as the race issue is to me. For those to whom it is, by all means carry on, I will not stop you. I’m just some guy on the internet, I have no power over anyone.
But I’ve had my fill of it. Folks should live their lives as they wish and quit spending time worrying about who does or doesn’t like them. We’d all be better for it.
People of color are, arguably, harmed by the persistence of how they are seen, based on their skin color.
I’m sure there are evangelicals somewhere out there who think they are being harmed by some New Yorker writers dislike of Chik-fil-a, but to be honest I’m not really seeing it as a thing.
Blind spot on my end, no doubt.
FWIW, and to forestall a potential line of rebuttal, I have no problem or issue with, animus toward, or bone to pick with evangelicals. I spent time in that world, I’m more than familiar with it, it doesn’t bug me. I’m not one these days, but I have pretty close to zero ill will toward them.
I’m just sick of the whole snotty liberal elites meme. It is a bigoted and stupid as anything going in the opposite direction.
If the New Yorker ain’t your thing, don’t read it. If you read it, you’re probably going to find stuff that reflects the point of view of fairly highly educated people who live in large cities in the northeast US, and who are somewhat self-consciously that.
It’s as parochial a view as any other, no more no less. Don’t let it ruin your day.
how is arguing about “stuff like this” different from arguing about what behaviors can be labeled “racism”?
Maybe it’s not. I’m just f***ing sick of coastal-elite-vs-the-heartland culture war bullshit.
No doubt that debate, and dynamic, is as interesting to some folks as the race issue is to me. For those to whom it is, by all means carry on, I will not stop you. I’m just some guy on the internet, I have no power over anyone.
But I’ve had my fill of it. Folks should live their lives as they wish and quit spending time worrying about who does or doesn’t like them. We’d all be better for it.
People of color are, arguably, harmed by the persistence of how they are seen, based on their skin color.
I’m sure there are evangelicals somewhere out there who think they are being harmed by some New Yorker writers dislike of Chik-fil-a, but to be honest I’m not really seeing it as a thing.
Blind spot on my end, no doubt.
FWIW, and to forestall a potential line of rebuttal, I have no problem or issue with, animus toward, or bone to pick with evangelicals. I spent time in that world, I’m more than familiar with it, it doesn’t bug me. I’m not one these days, but I have pretty close to zero ill will toward them.
I’m just sick of the whole snotty liberal elites meme. It is a bigoted and stupid as anything going in the opposite direction.
If the New Yorker ain’t your thing, don’t read it. If you read it, you’re probably going to find stuff that reflects the point of view of fairly highly educated people who live in large cities in the northeast US, and who are somewhat self-consciously that.
It’s as parochial a view as any other, no more no less. Don’t let it ruin your day.
It’s as parochial a view as any other, no more no less. Don’t let it ruin your day.
But, if you are going to criticize it, do it in way that doesn’t involve cherry-picking statistics! (In the meantime, eat as much chicken as you please.)
It’s as parochial a view as any other, no more no less. Don’t let it ruin your day.
But, if you are going to criticize it, do it in way that doesn’t involve cherry-picking statistics! (In the meantime, eat as much chicken as you please.)
Carter surely thinks we have a race problem in the US, and (I’m making assumptions here but I don’t think they’re that much of a stretch!) in hopes of helping to end it, he wants to uncover the potential hidden racial component of certain attitudes and assumptions about religion
If that’s what he’s on about, all good, more power to him.
My take-away was “hypocritical liberals, they’re mocking Christians, but they don’t realize they’re really mocking black women!”.
Which seemed about as obnoxious as the NY’er piece. To me.
This is probably a good day for me to stand down from discussions that come with 100 miles of button pushing. I’m coming off of more or less 5 months of 60 hour weeks, I’m freaking beat.
Thank god I’m not an entrepreneur, those guys never get a weekend!! And yes, that was sarcasm.
Four years and ten months to go.
Carter surely thinks we have a race problem in the US, and (I’m making assumptions here but I don’t think they’re that much of a stretch!) in hopes of helping to end it, he wants to uncover the potential hidden racial component of certain attitudes and assumptions about religion
If that’s what he’s on about, all good, more power to him.
My take-away was “hypocritical liberals, they’re mocking Christians, but they don’t realize they’re really mocking black women!”.
Which seemed about as obnoxious as the NY’er piece. To me.
This is probably a good day for me to stand down from discussions that come with 100 miles of button pushing. I’m coming off of more or less 5 months of 60 hour weeks, I’m freaking beat.
Thank god I’m not an entrepreneur, those guys never get a weekend!! And yes, that was sarcasm.
Four years and ten months to go.
Maybe it’s not. I’m just f***ing sick of coastal-elite-vs-the-heartland culture war bullshit.
That’s the whole point. They seek to wear you down with their projection. Don’t succumb!
Maybe it’s not. I’m just f***ing sick of coastal-elite-vs-the-heartland culture war bullshit.
That’s the whole point. They seek to wear you down with their projection. Don’t succumb!
They seek to wear you down with their projection.
It’s working.
They seek to wear you down with their projection.
It’s working.
Shifting gears a bit, and sort of in the spirit of wj’s 11:11 AM comment, I’ve probably mentioned before that my dear, dead grandmother was pretty darned racist. She used the n-word without a thought. In fact, I’m not sure she even meant it in a derogatory way sometimes. I’d guess it’s just what almost everyone around her called black people when she was growing up.
She would say things like, “He’s a good-looking n**ger,” as though she were using the word “fella,” without at tinge of malice in her voice. It was weird.
Meanwhile, she was married to my half-Puerto Rican grandfather, who, based on my and my father’s DNA results, was likely somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% sub-Saharan African. (She insisted that his father was actually a Spaniard, at least by descent, even if he came from Puerto Rico.)
She died not too long before we took the tests, so never had to confront the evidence. She had mellowed a bit in her dotage, and may have found the whole thing amusing. Maybe she would have said, “Ha! Who would have thought I would have a son and a grandson who were 10% n**ger?”
(I also recall her telling me a story about a neighbor who referred to my father as a spic when he was a kid and how much it infuriated her. It’s really something.)
Shifting gears a bit, and sort of in the spirit of wj’s 11:11 AM comment, I’ve probably mentioned before that my dear, dead grandmother was pretty darned racist. She used the n-word without a thought. In fact, I’m not sure she even meant it in a derogatory way sometimes. I’d guess it’s just what almost everyone around her called black people when she was growing up.
She would say things like, “He’s a good-looking n**ger,” as though she were using the word “fella,” without at tinge of malice in her voice. It was weird.
Meanwhile, she was married to my half-Puerto Rican grandfather, who, based on my and my father’s DNA results, was likely somewhere in the neighborhood of 20% sub-Saharan African. (She insisted that his father was actually a Spaniard, at least by descent, even if he came from Puerto Rico.)
She died not too long before we took the tests, so never had to confront the evidence. She had mellowed a bit in her dotage, and may have found the whole thing amusing. Maybe she would have said, “Ha! Who would have thought I would have a son and a grandson who were 10% n**ger?”
(I also recall her telling me a story about a neighbor who referred to my father as a spic when he was a kid and how much it infuriated her. It’s really something.)
Oddly, and I kind of wish I hadn’t posted it, I didn’t think so much about the Cik-fil-a angle.
I was more interested in the notion that Black people were more conservative in general, which matches my experience. I also grew up in Texas and the Mexicans I knew were very religious and conservative.
My take was to wonder if the browning of America or whatever eventually overcomes racism but then swings more voters, free to consider a broader range of choices, to conservative candidates.
Oddly, and I kind of wish I hadn’t posted it, I didn’t think so much about the Cik-fil-a angle.
I was more interested in the notion that Black people were more conservative in general, which matches my experience. I also grew up in Texas and the Mexicans I knew were very religious and conservative.
My take was to wonder if the browning of America or whatever eventually overcomes racism but then swings more voters, free to consider a broader range of choices, to conservative candidates.
I was more interested in the notion that Black people were more conservative in general, which matches my experience.
Mine as well.
if the browning of America or whatever eventually overcomes racism but then swings more voters, free to consider a broader range of choices, to conservative candidates
Could be. If that’s what they want and what they see as being in their best interest, that’s how it should play out.
IMO the biggest mistake the (R) party has made in the last 40 years has been to alienate the Latin/Hispanic community. That ought to have been a lay-up for them, and they’ve completely FUBAR’ed it.
By all means, go ahead and build that wall.
I was more interested in the notion that Black people were more conservative in general, which matches my experience.
Mine as well.
if the browning of America or whatever eventually overcomes racism but then swings more voters, free to consider a broader range of choices, to conservative candidates
Could be. If that’s what they want and what they see as being in their best interest, that’s how it should play out.
IMO the biggest mistake the (R) party has made in the last 40 years has been to alienate the Latin/Hispanic community. That ought to have been a lay-up for them, and they’ve completely FUBAR’ed it.
By all means, go ahead and build that wall.
It’s been pretty clear (at least to me) for quite some time that racism was the main thing keeping the Republicans from recruiting large numbers of conservative blacks, Latinos, etc. But if you make your #1 priority trash talking a group, they aren’t likely to embrace you . . . even if they would agree with you on lots of other issues.
If anyone doubts that, consider that, thru the 1950s, the vast majority of blacks were reliably Republican. It wasn’t the Republican Party was devoted to flaming liberalism then. (It was home to a lot more relative liberals. But it was still, outside the South, the more conservative party.) And nobody thought it amazing that they were voting for the more conservative party.
It’s been pretty clear (at least to me) for quite some time that racism was the main thing keeping the Republicans from recruiting large numbers of conservative blacks, Latinos, etc. But if you make your #1 priority trash talking a group, they aren’t likely to embrace you . . . even if they would agree with you on lots of other issues.
If anyone doubts that, consider that, thru the 1950s, the vast majority of blacks were reliably Republican. It wasn’t the Republican Party was devoted to flaming liberalism then. (It was home to a lot more relative liberals. But it was still, outside the South, the more conservative party.) And nobody thought it amazing that they were voting for the more conservative party.
Haven’t been able to read all the comments so apologies if this has been posted already but:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115
Support for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 election was widely attributed to citizens who were “left behind” economically. These claims were based on the strong cross-sectional relationship between Trump support and lacking a college education. Using a representative panel from 2012 to 2016, I find that change in financial wellbeing had little impact on candidate preference. Instead, changing preferences were related to changes in the party’s positions on issues related to American global dominance and the rise of a majority–minority America: issues that threaten white Americans’ sense of dominant group status.
Haven’t been able to read all the comments so apologies if this has been posted already but:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/04/18/1718155115
Support for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 election was widely attributed to citizens who were “left behind” economically. These claims were based on the strong cross-sectional relationship between Trump support and lacking a college education. Using a representative panel from 2012 to 2016, I find that change in financial wellbeing had little impact on candidate preference. Instead, changing preferences were related to changes in the party’s positions on issues related to American global dominance and the rise of a majority–minority America: issues that threaten white Americans’ sense of dominant group status.
“just for the record, there is no Christianity at all in anything a Chik-fil-A customer will see.”
In late 2016 I went to a Chik-fil-a for the first time in forever, and there was no overt Christianity. It was weirdly cult-like, however. Every time a customer said “thank you”, the workers were apparently forced to respond with “my pleasure!” Their Stepford-esque smiles and the fact the place was in the middle of a rush, with “my pleasure!”s coming fast and furious, will keep me from ever entering one again.
“just for the record, there is no Christianity at all in anything a Chik-fil-A customer will see.”
In late 2016 I went to a Chik-fil-a for the first time in forever, and there was no overt Christianity. It was weirdly cult-like, however. Every time a customer said “thank you”, the workers were apparently forced to respond with “my pleasure!” Their Stepford-esque smiles and the fact the place was in the middle of a rush, with “my pleasure!”s coming fast and furious, will keep me from ever entering one again.
Potential Chik-fil-A customers will “Closed Sunday” on the sign, and I’m pretty sure they didn’t pick that day at random.
Potential Chik-fil-A customers will “Closed Sunday” on the sign, and I’m pretty sure they didn’t pick that day at random.
I love how a post about the nature of racism turns into a discussion about whether or not a fast-food chicken joint is too Christian.
I’m going to make a fuss about the Buddha statues the next time I visit my favorite Asian-fusion restaurant, just to keep it fair.
I love how a post about the nature of racism turns into a discussion about whether or not a fast-food chicken joint is too Christian.
I’m going to make a fuss about the Buddha statues the next time I visit my favorite Asian-fusion restaurant, just to keep it fair.
will SEE, dammit.
will SEE, dammit.
http://www.buddakan.com/?utm_source=Google%20My%20Business&utm_medium=Menu%20Link&utm_campaign=Philadelphia
http://www.buddakan.com/?utm_source=Google%20My%20Business&utm_medium=Menu%20Link&utm_campaign=Philadelphia
And I read so fast that I saw the “see” . . . even though it wasn’t there.
And I read so fast that I saw the “see” . . . even though it wasn’t there.
I’m going to make a fuss about the Buddha statues the next time I visit my favorite Asian-fusion restaurant
Next time I go out for Italian, I will be on the lookout for noodly appendages!
I’m going to make a fuss about the Buddha statues the next time I visit my favorite Asian-fusion restaurant
Next time I go out for Italian, I will be on the lookout for noodly appendages!
If anyone doubts that, consider that, thru the 1950s, the vast majority of blacks were reliably Republican.
FDR got 71% of the black vote in 1936, despite the Democratic Party’s segregationist and lynching all white all the time southern wing. By the end of the 60’s it was over as far as blacks voting GOP in any significant numbers.
How can that be? Well, it might have to do with the Great Migration, support for labor rights, pushing economic reforms, and initiating civil war in the Democratic Party to push Civil Rights Legislation.
That and Eleanor Roosevelt!
If anyone doubts that, consider that, thru the 1950s, the vast majority of blacks were reliably Republican.
FDR got 71% of the black vote in 1936, despite the Democratic Party’s segregationist and lynching all white all the time southern wing. By the end of the 60’s it was over as far as blacks voting GOP in any significant numbers.
How can that be? Well, it might have to do with the Great Migration, support for labor rights, pushing economic reforms, and initiating civil war in the Democratic Party to push Civil Rights Legislation.
That and Eleanor Roosevelt!
If anyone doubts that, consider that, thru the 1950s, the vast majority of blacks were reliably Republican.
Also to consider that many blacks up to and including a good deal of the 1960’s were not allowed to vote at all. This was during my lifetime…not some period in the long ago and forgotten past.
If anyone doubts that, consider that, thru the 1950s, the vast majority of blacks were reliably Republican.
Also to consider that many blacks up to and including a good deal of the 1960’s were not allowed to vote at all. This was during my lifetime…not some period in the long ago and forgotten past.
wj, the reason the Republican party lost the black vote was because of Herbert Hoover
http://www.blacksandpresidency.com/herberthoover.php
and the 1927 Mississippi flood
http://www.blackpast.org/aah/mississippi-river-great-flood-1927
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/09/the-mississippi-flood-that-changed-destinies
While people don’t remember the political maneuverings of Hoover, African Americans do remember the flood, which is why talk of blowing up the levees were rampant during Katrina.
wj, the reason the Republican party lost the black vote was because of Herbert Hoover
http://www.blacksandpresidency.com/herberthoover.php
and the 1927 Mississippi flood
http://www.blackpast.org/aah/mississippi-river-great-flood-1927
https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/may/09/the-mississippi-flood-that-changed-destinies
While people don’t remember the political maneuverings of Hoover, African Americans do remember the flood, which is why talk of blowing up the levees were rampant during Katrina.
” Every time a customer said “thank you”, the workers were apparently forced to respond with “my pleasure!”
This is pretty common in the south, you walk into 7-11 every employee says hello, not because all of them are nice but when the bell rings it’s a requirement. Which is weird because most of them are nice and don’t need the bell to be uncomfortably friendly.
” Every time a customer said “thank you”, the workers were apparently forced to respond with “my pleasure!”
This is pretty common in the south, you walk into 7-11 every employee says hello, not because all of them are nice but when the bell rings it’s a requirement. Which is weird because most of them are nice and don’t need the bell to be uncomfortably friendly.
I love how a post about the nature of racism turns into a discussion about whether or not a fast-food chicken joint is too Christian.
Completely my fault but I did preface with the disclaimer I didn’t really know where to put the link. Sorry.
I love how a post about the nature of racism turns into a discussion about whether or not a fast-food chicken joint is too Christian.
Completely my fault but I did preface with the disclaimer I didn’t really know where to put the link. Sorry.
Every time a customer said “thank you”, the workers were apparently forced to respond with “my pleasure!”
At least they’re not saying “No problem.”
Every time a customer said “thank you”, the workers were apparently forced to respond with “my pleasure!”
At least they’re not saying “No problem.”
Nothing to be sorry about in my opinion, Marty. This kind of meandering conversation is one of the great charms of ObWi.
Nothing to be sorry about in my opinion, Marty. This kind of meandering conversation is one of the great charms of ObWi.
Or “Awesome!”
“This is pretty common in the south, you walk into 7-11 every employee says hello, not because all of them are nice but when the bell rings it’s a requirement. Which is weird because most of them are nice and don’t need the bell to be uncomfortably friendly.”
Yes, folks in the South are nice and friendly by and large, but I’m going to guess that 7-11 and other similar retailers train their clerks to give a loud and clear “Hello” to alert all comers that their presence is noticed and light fingers won’t be tolerated.
Or “Awesome!”
“This is pretty common in the south, you walk into 7-11 every employee says hello, not because all of them are nice but when the bell rings it’s a requirement. Which is weird because most of them are nice and don’t need the bell to be uncomfortably friendly.”
Yes, folks in the South are nice and friendly by and large, but I’m going to guess that 7-11 and other similar retailers train their clerks to give a loud and clear “Hello” to alert all comers that their presence is noticed and light fingers won’t be tolerated.
“Look what the cat dragged in!”, “Speak of the Devil”, a rousing “Norrrrmmmm!” and “All hands on deck … Ixnay on the hombre!” would all be cause for alarm, too.
“Look what the cat dragged in!”, “Speak of the Devil”, a rousing “Norrrrmmmm!” and “All hands on deck … Ixnay on the hombre!” would all be cause for alarm, too.
My son sent me the link to a book review that ties this discussion with another topic that gets frequent attention here:
My son sent me the link to a book review that ties this discussion with another topic that gets frequent attention here:
Based on limited sampling, QuikTrip almost always gives you a “Hello” when you come through the door. RaceTrac seems to pretend that you don’t exist until you approach the counter with money in hand.
Based on limited sampling, QuikTrip almost always gives you a “Hello” when you come through the door. RaceTrac seems to pretend that you don’t exist until you approach the counter with money in hand.
Potential Chik-fil-A customers will “Closed Sunday” on the sign, and I’m pretty sure they didn’t pick that day at random.
yeah, but so what? banks take it off, too.
they take a day off. more businesses should do that!
Potential Chik-fil-A customers will “Closed Sunday” on the sign, and I’m pretty sure they didn’t pick that day at random.
yeah, but so what? banks take it off, too.
they take a day off. more businesses should do that!
Bobby, lj, thanks for the info. (The 1950s were during my lifetime as well. But obviously my pre-teen self wasn’t paying attention to some things.)
Bobby, lj, thanks for the info. (The 1950s were during my lifetime as well. But obviously my pre-teen self wasn’t paying attention to some things.)
This is how Chik-fil-A staff used to greet customers in its flagship store before more politically correct business practices were instituted by franchisees:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j3_iPskjxk
Their original greeting was “Your black sinning soul will burn in everlasting Hell, but in the meantime, how bout some fried chicken?”
This is how Chik-fil-A staff used to greet customers in its flagship store before more politically correct business practices were instituted by franchisees:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3j3_iPskjxk
Their original greeting was “Your black sinning soul will burn in everlasting Hell, but in the meantime, how bout some fried chicken?”
…another topic that gets frequent attention here
Interview with the author:
A Civil Rights Movement for Corporations? Inside the 400-Year Struggle: UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler on his new book We the Corporations
…another topic that gets frequent attention here
Interview with the author:
A Civil Rights Movement for Corporations? Inside the 400-Year Struggle: UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler on his new book We the Corporations
People ask “What is racism?”
Cue the asslicking, pigfucking, vermin, subhuman republican candidate for Governor of Wyoming:
http://juanitajean.com/and-hell-fit-right-in-too/
People ask “What is racism?”
Cue the asslicking, pigfucking, vermin, subhuman republican candidate for Governor of Wyoming:
http://juanitajean.com/and-hell-fit-right-in-too/
When walking into a convenience store (or small restaurant) in Japan, you also get a ‘shout out’ greeting. Perhaps lj could transcribe it. I doubt very much that is ‘company policy’, but an ingrained cultural habit. (that it happens in tiny little local restaurants is evidence for that)
On the receiving end, it’s welcome and comforting. If Chick-Fil-A manages to make their teenage employees less sullen, good for them. It’s pretty crummy that powerful corporations have to exert themselves to ensure polite, friendly public interactions.
When walking into a convenience store (or small restaurant) in Japan, you also get a ‘shout out’ greeting. Perhaps lj could transcribe it. I doubt very much that is ‘company policy’, but an ingrained cultural habit. (that it happens in tiny little local restaurants is evidence for that)
On the receiving end, it’s welcome and comforting. If Chick-Fil-A manages to make their teenage employees less sullen, good for them. It’s pretty crummy that powerful corporations have to exert themselves to ensure polite, friendly public interactions.
(The 1950s were during my lifetime as well. But obviously my pre-teen self wasn’t paying attention to some things.)
I remember my in youth opening Bircher tracts with a world map showing the communist countries colored deep ever advancing red (and the British Commonwealth colored some kind of weird near pink color).
It was scary. I also remember the dreaded domino theory. What happened to these concepts? Could it be that ‘taking over the world’ is pretty hard?
These days, I am a bit more sanguine about such matters. I don’t get too worked up about the Ukraine (traditional Russian sphere of influence), ISIS (’bout time the Muslim world had a civil war), terrorism (phffft), man-made islands in the South China Sea (big deal, we kicked China’s ass for 200 years and you don’t expect blowback? Are you ‘effing insane?), dictatorships in Latin America (ours are just ducky, “theirs” are the embodiment of pure absolute evil), and anything going on in Africa (total tragedy on a massive and unacknowledged scale).
One thing that is a concern: American hubris. It will either end or somebody else will end it. I tend to prefer the former.
(The 1950s were during my lifetime as well. But obviously my pre-teen self wasn’t paying attention to some things.)
I remember my in youth opening Bircher tracts with a world map showing the communist countries colored deep ever advancing red (and the British Commonwealth colored some kind of weird near pink color).
It was scary. I also remember the dreaded domino theory. What happened to these concepts? Could it be that ‘taking over the world’ is pretty hard?
These days, I am a bit more sanguine about such matters. I don’t get too worked up about the Ukraine (traditional Russian sphere of influence), ISIS (’bout time the Muslim world had a civil war), terrorism (phffft), man-made islands in the South China Sea (big deal, we kicked China’s ass for 200 years and you don’t expect blowback? Are you ‘effing insane?), dictatorships in Latin America (ours are just ducky, “theirs” are the embodiment of pure absolute evil), and anything going on in Africa (total tragedy on a massive and unacknowledged scale).
One thing that is a concern: American hubris. It will either end or somebody else will end it. I tend to prefer the former.
Remember when Roosevelt “gave away eastern Europe to Stalin?” and the US Department of State somehow misplaced (“lost”) China? Good times. How did that work out for them?
But, in my cups, I digress.
Back on topic: If you (rightfully) point out to somebody that what they believe, feel, or do is “racist” and they take offense, go all red in the face, and get righteously angry, don’t despair. Racist is as racist does. Repeated exposure to such an admonition may have a salutary effect. Don’t give up. Keep calling them out.
Usually, you will never “change their mind” anyway (it’s, you know, usually already made up), but it’s worth the effort. You know what makes a good salesperson? Expressing empathy? Agreeing with the client? Being nice?
Sometimes. But the really great ones can hear a thousand “no’s” and press on to the until that one response of, “Sure, why not?” And they move on to the next 1,000.
Never give up. Never surrender. Spit in their eye.
Remember when Roosevelt “gave away eastern Europe to Stalin?” and the US Department of State somehow misplaced (“lost”) China? Good times. How did that work out for them?
But, in my cups, I digress.
Back on topic: If you (rightfully) point out to somebody that what they believe, feel, or do is “racist” and they take offense, go all red in the face, and get righteously angry, don’t despair. Racist is as racist does. Repeated exposure to such an admonition may have a salutary effect. Don’t give up. Keep calling them out.
Usually, you will never “change their mind” anyway (it’s, you know, usually already made up), but it’s worth the effort. You know what makes a good salesperson? Expressing empathy? Agreeing with the client? Being nice?
Sometimes. But the really great ones can hear a thousand “no’s” and press on to the until that one response of, “Sure, why not?” And they move on to the next 1,000.
Never give up. Never surrender. Spit in their eye.
If Russia wants influence in Ukraine (or Georgia or the Baltics for that matter) they should try the Chinese model: put some money into infrastructure, like China is in Africa and central Asia. You can even own a chunk of it, if you at least build it. Having a booming economy to flaunt helps, too.
Instead, the Russian approach appears to be to buy politicians when they can and use military force when they can’t. Of course, following the Chinese model would require at least a small step back from total kleptocracy, which doesn’t seem to be how Putin rolls….
American hubris can be a problem, but it’s not something where we’ve corneted the market.
If Russia wants influence in Ukraine (or Georgia or the Baltics for that matter) they should try the Chinese model: put some money into infrastructure, like China is in Africa and central Asia. You can even own a chunk of it, if you at least build it. Having a booming economy to flaunt helps, too.
Instead, the Russian approach appears to be to buy politicians when they can and use military force when they can’t. Of course, following the Chinese model would require at least a small step back from total kleptocracy, which doesn’t seem to be how Putin rolls….
American hubris can be a problem, but it’s not something where we’ve corneted the market.
I had quite enough of the “bless your heart” brand of hospitality Southerners use during the 30 years I had to live there. Genuine niceness is preferable, but if I can’t get that I’ll take the honest, sullen teen telling me there were no problems encountered during the preparation of my food.
I had quite enough of the “bless your heart” brand of hospitality Southerners use during the 30 years I had to live there. Genuine niceness is preferable, but if I can’t get that I’ll take the honest, sullen teen telling me there were no problems encountered during the preparation of my food.
wj, the reason the Republican party lost the black vote was because of Herbert Hoover
Any mention of Herbert Hoover brings to mind for me the theme song from All in the Family. And now Archie Bunker, more or less, is president.
wj, the reason the Republican party lost the black vote was because of Herbert Hoover
Any mention of Herbert Hoover brings to mind for me the theme song from All in the Family. And now Archie Bunker, more or less, is president.
Just as a refresher, here are the aforementioned lyrics. It does capture the same mentality that seems to be widely shared by Trump’s base.
Just as a refresher, here are the aforementioned lyrics. It does capture the same mentality that seems to be widely shared by Trump’s base.
I also remember the dreaded domino theory.
My high school freshman year world history teacher, bless his basketball coach soul, said ominously that there was something called “dialectical materialism,” which was the Communists’ plan for conquering the world. Dialectical materialism, he explained, was a phenomenon involving fighting small wars and winning them — e.g. in Vietnam (this was 1964) — and consolidating territory, then having another war, and winning that, and on and on until they had the whole world.
This teacher sat in class one day in the late spring and gave us, out loud, the 100 questions that would be on the final exam — and the answers, for us to jot down and study.
I also remember the dreaded domino theory.
My high school freshman year world history teacher, bless his basketball coach soul, said ominously that there was something called “dialectical materialism,” which was the Communists’ plan for conquering the world. Dialectical materialism, he explained, was a phenomenon involving fighting small wars and winning them — e.g. in Vietnam (this was 1964) — and consolidating territory, then having another war, and winning that, and on and on until they had the whole world.
This teacher sat in class one day in the late spring and gave us, out loud, the 100 questions that would be on the final exam — and the answers, for us to jot down and study.
Mister we could use a man
Like Herbert Hoover again.
I suspect that there’s nobody here who wouldn’t agree that Herbert Hover would be a huge step up from today. Not only was he a far better President, for all his shortcomings. It’s also impossible to imagine Trump doing the kind of job that Hoover did leading relief efforts in Europe after WW I and again advising on them after WW II. Or being called upon, by any successor, to advise on the reorganization of the executive branch (Hoover Commission).
Those were the days, indeed!
Mister we could use a man
Like Herbert Hoover again.
I suspect that there’s nobody here who wouldn’t agree that Herbert Hover would be a huge step up from today. Not only was he a far better President, for all his shortcomings. It’s also impossible to imagine Trump doing the kind of job that Hoover did leading relief efforts in Europe after WW I and again advising on them after WW II. Or being called upon, by any successor, to advise on the reorganization of the executive branch (Hoover Commission).
Those were the days, indeed!
I haven’t read all the comments so I apologize if there is some repetition.
Part of the problem with ‘racism’ as a term is that we want too much out of it. The academic definition ranges all the way from subtle bias all the way through to systemic oppression and further to wanting to kill someone or ruin their lives just based on their race.
You can’t expect a term with that much range to be usefully used in public discourse. This is especially true when the most common non-academic definitions are used to mean something more on the KKK range rather than ‘might have a slight hesitation in recognizing someone of another race’.
Which leads to the other problem–practical usage. The term ‘racist’ tends to be used to mark someone as out of bounds, worthy of ostracism, or not worthy of being heard. It is a silencing move in much of current discourse. Since that is a very common usage, it tough to talk about ‘racism’ in terms that don’t justify ostracism (think about the entymology too, ostracism is ‘being put out of the race’).
You can EITHER mark some small subset of things as out of bounds and worthy of ostracism OR mark some broadly experienced thing as undesirable but not worthy of ostracism. But if you use the same word to cover both cases you are going to cause trouble. People will feel attacked when you don’t mean for them to feel attacked. This will lead them to discount your attacks as ‘hypersensitive’ and will innoculate them to the word when you want to use it in the strong ostracism sense.
I tend to use racism in the out of bounds sense. So KKK members are racists. Institutional racism should be strongly fought. Lower level bias is worth noticing, but I don’t want to muddy the strength of the ostracism sense of racism by mixing in low level things.
I feel the same way about ‘sexual misconduct’. Don’t lump in rape and inappropriate flirting in the same term. We want wildly different responses so we shouldn’t umbrella them.
I haven’t read all the comments so I apologize if there is some repetition.
Part of the problem with ‘racism’ as a term is that we want too much out of it. The academic definition ranges all the way from subtle bias all the way through to systemic oppression and further to wanting to kill someone or ruin their lives just based on their race.
You can’t expect a term with that much range to be usefully used in public discourse. This is especially true when the most common non-academic definitions are used to mean something more on the KKK range rather than ‘might have a slight hesitation in recognizing someone of another race’.
Which leads to the other problem–practical usage. The term ‘racist’ tends to be used to mark someone as out of bounds, worthy of ostracism, or not worthy of being heard. It is a silencing move in much of current discourse. Since that is a very common usage, it tough to talk about ‘racism’ in terms that don’t justify ostracism (think about the entymology too, ostracism is ‘being put out of the race’).
You can EITHER mark some small subset of things as out of bounds and worthy of ostracism OR mark some broadly experienced thing as undesirable but not worthy of ostracism. But if you use the same word to cover both cases you are going to cause trouble. People will feel attacked when you don’t mean for them to feel attacked. This will lead them to discount your attacks as ‘hypersensitive’ and will innoculate them to the word when you want to use it in the strong ostracism sense.
I tend to use racism in the out of bounds sense. So KKK members are racists. Institutional racism should be strongly fought. Lower level bias is worth noticing, but I don’t want to muddy the strength of the ostracism sense of racism by mixing in low level things.
I feel the same way about ‘sexual misconduct’. Don’t lump in rape and inappropriate flirting in the same term. We want wildly different responses so we shouldn’t umbrella them.
I agree with Sebastian. I dont use the word “racism” except when its freaking obvious. For one thing, a word like that ends communication and I still believe communication is possible with people who stop short of joining the KKK.
I agree with Sebastian. I dont use the word “racism” except when its freaking obvious. For one thing, a word like that ends communication and I still believe communication is possible with people who stop short of joining the KKK.
I feel similarly about ‘homophobia’. If you are q bit squicked out by the thought of man on man sex, but are willing to let me love who I want, marry who I want, etc I don’t think it helps to call your reaction ‘homophobic’.
Academics shouldn’t try to appropriate high emotion words for low emotion situations.
I feel similarly about ‘homophobia’. If you are q bit squicked out by the thought of man on man sex, but are willing to let me love who I want, marry who I want, etc I don’t think it helps to call your reaction ‘homophobic’.
Academics shouldn’t try to appropriate high emotion words for low emotion situations.
I don’t think the problem is academics so much as ideological purists in the political sphere. For one thing, they are in a position to do far more damage . . . to the causes they purport to support.
I don’t think the problem is academics so much as ideological purists in the political sphere. For one thing, they are in a position to do far more damage . . . to the causes they purport to support.
sebastian, i think you have captured the sense of the room. and true to form have done so succinctly, eloquently, and in a moderate (in the best way!) tone.
y’all have persuaded me. “racism” will be reserved for actual malice.
thanks for your thoughts everyone.
sebastian, i think you have captured the sense of the room. and true to form have done so succinctly, eloquently, and in a moderate (in the best way!) tone.
y’all have persuaded me. “racism” will be reserved for actual malice.
thanks for your thoughts everyone.
Hmmmm. I appreciate Sebastian weighing in, but I disagree. There are a lot of systematic, structural issues that I think should be labeled as racism in order to underline the destructive nature, even though they are absent actual malice. Was there malice involved in Flint, MI? Was their malice involved in the Philly Starbucks?
I do agree that developments have problematized the term racism. I personally think that ‘micro aggressions’ immediately imply that the person ‘committing’ the act has malice when they may not have any malice at all.
But going back to structural issues that end up impacting African Americans, what precisely do we call them so as to bring attention to the negative impact they have on not only African Americans but on our goal of a equitable society? If we don’t call them ‘racism’, we are really fooling ourselves as to the progress we are making towards that goal.
Hmmmm. I appreciate Sebastian weighing in, but I disagree. There are a lot of systematic, structural issues that I think should be labeled as racism in order to underline the destructive nature, even though they are absent actual malice. Was there malice involved in Flint, MI? Was their malice involved in the Philly Starbucks?
I do agree that developments have problematized the term racism. I personally think that ‘micro aggressions’ immediately imply that the person ‘committing’ the act has malice when they may not have any malice at all.
But going back to structural issues that end up impacting African Americans, what precisely do we call them so as to bring attention to the negative impact they have on not only African Americans but on our goal of a equitable society? If we don’t call them ‘racism’, we are really fooling ourselves as to the progress we are making towards that goal.
is this racism?
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/5/17199810/school-discipline-race-racism-gao
it leads to real, and really negative, outcomes for black kids.
is this racism?
https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/4/5/17199810/school-discipline-race-racism-gao
it leads to real, and really negative, outcomes for black kids.
You can coin all the precisely defined, non-inflammatory terms you want for bigotry/racism/bias/homophobia, etc.
Once the Rush Limbaughs of this world get their filthy mitts on them, the connotations and emotional impact will be completely out of your control.
So, “Limbaughism = racism + sex with underage Dominican hookers + goat fncking”. Rush can use that on his show as much as he wants.
You can coin all the precisely defined, non-inflammatory terms you want for bigotry/racism/bias/homophobia, etc.
Once the Rush Limbaughs of this world get their filthy mitts on them, the connotations and emotional impact will be completely out of your control.
So, “Limbaughism = racism + sex with underage Dominican hookers + goat fncking”. Rush can use that on his show as much as he wants.
There are a lot of systematic, structural issues that I think should be labeled as racism in order to underline the destructive nature, even though they are absent actual malice. Was there malice involved in Flint, MI? Was their malice involved in the Philly Starbucks?
I would suggest that there is something you might term “passive malice”. That’s what we saw in Flint — indifference to the negative consequences of actions because of who would be impacted. It’s not a matter of acting out of malice; just of not doing anything about what was happening.
In the Starbucks case, I would say that malice was again at least passively present. That is, the manager acted because of a negative view of the race of those involved. It may have been more a thought of “I have to get these guys out of here because they will do something bad” than “I have to attack these guys because of their race.” But the only real difference is whether the attack is first or second hand.
There are a lot of systematic, structural issues that I think should be labeled as racism in order to underline the destructive nature, even though they are absent actual malice. Was there malice involved in Flint, MI? Was their malice involved in the Philly Starbucks?
I would suggest that there is something you might term “passive malice”. That’s what we saw in Flint — indifference to the negative consequences of actions because of who would be impacted. It’s not a matter of acting out of malice; just of not doing anything about what was happening.
In the Starbucks case, I would say that malice was again at least passively present. That is, the manager acted because of a negative view of the race of those involved. It may have been more a thought of “I have to get these guys out of here because they will do something bad” than “I have to attack these guys because of their race.” But the only real difference is whether the attack is first or second hand.
If you are q bit squicked out by the thought of man on man sex, but are willing to let me love who I want, marry who I want, etc I don’t think it helps to call your reaction ‘homophobic’.
Sorry to weigh in twice, but if I am squicked out by that, why is that the case? I’d suggest it is because society makes it so that men are constrained to act in particular ways, and other ways of acting are not available to them. In that case, it is a lot more enlightening to view it as ‘homophobia’, because it is a societal pressure to make people believe that doing certain things with a man is gross, but doing the precise same things with a woman is the way things should be. ‘don’t worry, it is not homophobic if you get grossed out’ is a way of assuring people they are not wrong, but if you think about it, they have been conditioned by society to think one way that really is, at its heart, wrong. You may be right that it does not help to use an accusation of homophobia as a club to beat people on the head with. But it carries the implicit danger that people are going to think that it is alright to be squicked out, and when someone acts on that, the macho ‘if a f*g ever makes a pass at me, I’d knock his teeth down this throat’, you are saying that somehow that behavior, while not acceptable, is understandable. Is it?
This makes a bigger difference for African Americans because they aren’t afforded the opportunity to ‘pass’. Two gay white guys sit in a starbucks in Philly without ordering and no one is going to call the cops on them. So someone is squicked out by a black man and a white woman holding hands, saying that is not racist seems to be missing the point. Or cleek’s example, where blacks children are presumed to be more responsible for their actions, which then justifies them being punished more severely.
On refresh, wj suggests it is passive malice. So why is it so harmful to call that passive racism? Or if racism is passive, it isn’t really racism? Or is it not really worth the effort to confront it? It seems to me that it is and all the discussions about how it is important to take smaller steps seems to miss the fact that these are the smaller steps, confronting these attitudes at that point rather than in some life or death situation, is where you want to do it.
If you are q bit squicked out by the thought of man on man sex, but are willing to let me love who I want, marry who I want, etc I don’t think it helps to call your reaction ‘homophobic’.
Sorry to weigh in twice, but if I am squicked out by that, why is that the case? I’d suggest it is because society makes it so that men are constrained to act in particular ways, and other ways of acting are not available to them. In that case, it is a lot more enlightening to view it as ‘homophobia’, because it is a societal pressure to make people believe that doing certain things with a man is gross, but doing the precise same things with a woman is the way things should be. ‘don’t worry, it is not homophobic if you get grossed out’ is a way of assuring people they are not wrong, but if you think about it, they have been conditioned by society to think one way that really is, at its heart, wrong. You may be right that it does not help to use an accusation of homophobia as a club to beat people on the head with. But it carries the implicit danger that people are going to think that it is alright to be squicked out, and when someone acts on that, the macho ‘if a f*g ever makes a pass at me, I’d knock his teeth down this throat’, you are saying that somehow that behavior, while not acceptable, is understandable. Is it?
This makes a bigger difference for African Americans because they aren’t afforded the opportunity to ‘pass’. Two gay white guys sit in a starbucks in Philly without ordering and no one is going to call the cops on them. So someone is squicked out by a black man and a white woman holding hands, saying that is not racist seems to be missing the point. Or cleek’s example, where blacks children are presumed to be more responsible for their actions, which then justifies them being punished more severely.
On refresh, wj suggests it is passive malice. So why is it so harmful to call that passive racism? Or if racism is passive, it isn’t really racism? Or is it not really worth the effort to confront it? It seems to me that it is and all the discussions about how it is important to take smaller steps seems to miss the fact that these are the smaller steps, confronting these attitudes at that point rather than in some life or death situation, is where you want to do it.
OK, I also agree with everything in LJ’s last couple of comments.
So, I remain confused. Nothing new in my world.
Maybe the line is whether someone is actually harmed? If so, who decides what “actual harm” is?
Getting arrested for waiting for a friend, or having lead in your water, are clearly harms.
Feeling like your culture has been co-opted if someone who doesn’t look like cooks your favorite food or sings your favorite song, maybe no so much.
There’s a line somewhere in the middle of that.
Where is it? I don’t know.
OK, I also agree with everything in LJ’s last couple of comments.
So, I remain confused. Nothing new in my world.
Maybe the line is whether someone is actually harmed? If so, who decides what “actual harm” is?
Getting arrested for waiting for a friend, or having lead in your water, are clearly harms.
Feeling like your culture has been co-opted if someone who doesn’t look like cooks your favorite food or sings your favorite song, maybe no so much.
There’s a line somewhere in the middle of that.
Where is it? I don’t know.
lj:But it carries the implicit danger that people are going to think that it is alright to be squicked out
Is it a little ok to be squicked out by sex in general hetsex samesex all the sex without discrimination? I mean that shit is messy and complicated and strenuous and mutates the body and fuddles the mind and that is if it is done right.
Asking for a friend.
lj:But it carries the implicit danger that people are going to think that it is alright to be squicked out
Is it a little ok to be squicked out by sex in general hetsex samesex all the sex without discrimination? I mean that shit is messy and complicated and strenuous and mutates the body and fuddles the mind and that is if it is done right.
Asking for a friend.
On refresh, wj suggests it is passive malice. So why is it so harmful to call that passive racism? Or if racism is passive, it isn’t really racism?
I see I have been unclear. Yes, passive racism absolutely is racism. You have taken an (in)action based on race.
However, look at your point on homophobia. If someone is “grossed out”, but doesn’t allow that to change their behavior in interactions, then I would say that is NOT homophobia.
Just as, if you get twitchy at a black man and a white woman (every notice how it is rarely if ever raised a problem if the genders are reversed?**), but do not allow that to impact your behavior, it isn’t racism. You have a bias, certainly. But you manage to keep it from impacting your behavior — you neither do nor fail to do things that you would if it was not an interracial couple.
And that’s were, IMHO, the threshold lies: behavior.
** Kind of like people worrying loudly about transgender individuals in the girls bathroom, but not if they are using the boys bathroom. I suppose what we are seeing there is sexism…. 😉
On refresh, wj suggests it is passive malice. So why is it so harmful to call that passive racism? Or if racism is passive, it isn’t really racism?
I see I have been unclear. Yes, passive racism absolutely is racism. You have taken an (in)action based on race.
However, look at your point on homophobia. If someone is “grossed out”, but doesn’t allow that to change their behavior in interactions, then I would say that is NOT homophobia.
Just as, if you get twitchy at a black man and a white woman (every notice how it is rarely if ever raised a problem if the genders are reversed?**), but do not allow that to impact your behavior, it isn’t racism. You have a bias, certainly. But you manage to keep it from impacting your behavior — you neither do nor fail to do things that you would if it was not an interracial couple.
And that’s were, IMHO, the threshold lies: behavior.
** Kind of like people worrying loudly about transgender individuals in the girls bathroom, but not if they are using the boys bathroom. I suppose what we are seeing there is sexism…. 😉
Maybe the line is whether someone is actually harmed?
I’m kind of on the fence on this one. As I think about it, I’m inclined towards “impacted” rather than “harmed.” But it’s very fuzzy in my mind right now.
For example, if you are a straight man, and you behave differently towards a woman based on whether or not she is a lesbian, is that homophobia? Or just acceptance of the fact that, for some kinds of behavior, it would be unwelcome? Gonna have to wrestle with this for a while.
Maybe the line is whether someone is actually harmed?
I’m kind of on the fence on this one. As I think about it, I’m inclined towards “impacted” rather than “harmed.” But it’s very fuzzy in my mind right now.
For example, if you are a straight man, and you behave differently towards a woman based on whether or not she is a lesbian, is that homophobia? Or just acceptance of the fact that, for some kinds of behavior, it would be unwelcome? Gonna have to wrestle with this for a while.
sebastian, i think you have captured the sense of the room. and true to form have done so succinctly, eloquently, and in a moderate (in the best way!) tone.
***
OK, I also agree with everything in LJ’s last couple of comments.
So, I remain confused. Nothing new in my world.
Agreed, on both counts. This is such an interesting thread, even for somebody who currently doesn’t have the time or mental space to click on most of the links, and can only do drive-by comments….
sebastian, i think you have captured the sense of the room. and true to form have done so succinctly, eloquently, and in a moderate (in the best way!) tone.
***
OK, I also agree with everything in LJ’s last couple of comments.
So, I remain confused. Nothing new in my world.
Agreed, on both counts. This is such an interesting thread, even for somebody who currently doesn’t have the time or mental space to click on most of the links, and can only do drive-by comments….
Who is a racist? Who is a liar? Everyone lies sometimes about something. Do we call everyone a liar? Being racist in some way or another at some time or another – is that the same as being A racist (in the noun form)?
Who is a racist? Who is a liar? Everyone lies sometimes about something. Do we call everyone a liar? Being racist in some way or another at some time or another – is that the same as being A racist (in the noun form)?
You want real confusion? Look up the Joy-Reid-is-homophobic brouhaha. For example
For those who don’t know, Joy Reid is the thoughtful and ebullient black woman who hosts AM Joy on MSNBC.
–TP
You want real confusion? Look up the Joy-Reid-is-homophobic brouhaha. For example
For those who don’t know, Joy Reid is the thoughtful and ebullient black woman who hosts AM Joy on MSNBC.
–TP
All here decry racism. All well and good.
Most acknowledge the racism of and by the collective community known as “white people”, their collective actions, mores, superstitions, and social and political structures are in some actually existing ways detrimental to the community known as “black people”.
Again….that is good.
So it would seem that this particular type of ‘racism’ of the US variety should be mitigated to the point that “black people” no longer collectively or individually suffer due to one, and only one thing….their skin color.
Agree?
If this is the goal, then the battle must continue until such time as we can declare some kind “victory”, and if the use of this word is a cudgel in that struggle, then please don’t ask me to put it down.
Perhaps white people need to unilaterally disarm, eh?
If you get called a racist by somebody for doing something they apparently don’t approve of, then maybe it’s time to check your anger at the door and ask why they pounded you with that epithet.
There have been actual documented cases of people doing that and actually changing their ways. I know this is hard to believe, but trust me on this.
Or call me a liar 🙂
All here decry racism. All well and good.
Most acknowledge the racism of and by the collective community known as “white people”, their collective actions, mores, superstitions, and social and political structures are in some actually existing ways detrimental to the community known as “black people”.
Again….that is good.
So it would seem that this particular type of ‘racism’ of the US variety should be mitigated to the point that “black people” no longer collectively or individually suffer due to one, and only one thing….their skin color.
Agree?
If this is the goal, then the battle must continue until such time as we can declare some kind “victory”, and if the use of this word is a cudgel in that struggle, then please don’t ask me to put it down.
Perhaps white people need to unilaterally disarm, eh?
If you get called a racist by somebody for doing something they apparently don’t approve of, then maybe it’s time to check your anger at the door and ask why they pounded you with that epithet.
There have been actual documented cases of people doing that and actually changing their ways. I know this is hard to believe, but trust me on this.
Or call me a liar 🙂
because it is a societal pressure to make people believe that doing certain things with a man is gross, but doing the precise same things with a woman is the way things should be.
I am not sure this is entirely accurate, some people find the thought of some sex acts repulsive. There is a spectrum of behaviors that may fall into this category. However, I think it was said upthread that the imagining, mostly subconsciously, being in a sexual encounter you fervently do not desire is really the crux. Perhaps that is societal, but some forms of hetero sex are considered equally undesirable, beyond even kinky.
The difference is that encountering, for example, gay PDA leaves a short list of options for your subconscious and that creates a reaction. Your mind doesn’t subconsciously go to those same acts as the short list for hetero PDA. So, if the thought of those occurs for hetero sex it is a conscious consideration that has more chance to be evaluated rationally, “why would anyone enjoy that?”, than emotionally ewww/shiver.
I think that, in this case, the homophobic label should be mostly limited to those people who act on that emotional reaction. It certainly should include actions of aggression and separation. These cause harm in different ways, but both are worthy of the label.
Obviously anyone who simply rejects the concept as being evil, sick or dangerous certainly deserves the label, even though it is a clearer category.
Kind of rambles but I will leave it for discussion.
because it is a societal pressure to make people believe that doing certain things with a man is gross, but doing the precise same things with a woman is the way things should be.
I am not sure this is entirely accurate, some people find the thought of some sex acts repulsive. There is a spectrum of behaviors that may fall into this category. However, I think it was said upthread that the imagining, mostly subconsciously, being in a sexual encounter you fervently do not desire is really the crux. Perhaps that is societal, but some forms of hetero sex are considered equally undesirable, beyond even kinky.
The difference is that encountering, for example, gay PDA leaves a short list of options for your subconscious and that creates a reaction. Your mind doesn’t subconsciously go to those same acts as the short list for hetero PDA. So, if the thought of those occurs for hetero sex it is a conscious consideration that has more chance to be evaluated rationally, “why would anyone enjoy that?”, than emotionally ewww/shiver.
I think that, in this case, the homophobic label should be mostly limited to those people who act on that emotional reaction. It certainly should include actions of aggression and separation. These cause harm in different ways, but both are worthy of the label.
Obviously anyone who simply rejects the concept as being evil, sick or dangerous certainly deserves the label, even though it is a clearer category.
Kind of rambles but I will leave it for discussion.
I was born a ramblin’ man
Thanks, Marty.
I was born a ramblin’ man
Thanks, Marty.
I think the reaction to whatever aspect of homosexuality one (a heterosexual one) is presented with is some combination of nature and nurture. The more extreme the negative reaction to less-extreme presentations, the more nurture than nature. If you’re really bothered by two guys holding hands, you’ve probably been conditioned to be that way.
But we do have innate sexual preferences to some degree, and I think they do come into play. Depending on the culture one is raised in, those preferences can either be amplified or attenuated, particularly is it concerns how those preferences drive reactions to exposure to the sexuality of others.
Here’s a question I don’t know the answer to. Do homosexuals tend to be as grossed out by hetero sex as vice versa? My guess would be no, similar to the statistics about black people being far more likely to have white friends than vice versa. If you’re gay, you have no choice but to get used to straight people, given both the numbers and the societal norms you’re subject to.
I think the reaction to whatever aspect of homosexuality one (a heterosexual one) is presented with is some combination of nature and nurture. The more extreme the negative reaction to less-extreme presentations, the more nurture than nature. If you’re really bothered by two guys holding hands, you’ve probably been conditioned to be that way.
But we do have innate sexual preferences to some degree, and I think they do come into play. Depending on the culture one is raised in, those preferences can either be amplified or attenuated, particularly is it concerns how those preferences drive reactions to exposure to the sexuality of others.
Here’s a question I don’t know the answer to. Do homosexuals tend to be as grossed out by hetero sex as vice versa? My guess would be no, similar to the statistics about black people being far more likely to have white friends than vice versa. If you’re gay, you have no choice but to get used to straight people, given both the numbers and the societal norms you’re subject to.
At a guess, I’d expect that gay people think about sex no more and no less than not-gay people. (“Straight” is kinda judgemental, even if conventional.) Judging by my own experience, thinking about sex correlates with age, not preference.
I am reminded of a bit from Groucho Marx. A woman guest on You Bet Your Life told him she had eight(?) children. When Groucho’s eyebrows shot up at that, the woman eplained with a giggle: “I love my husband.” Groucho remarked: “Well, I love my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while.”
–TP
At a guess, I’d expect that gay people think about sex no more and no less than not-gay people. (“Straight” is kinda judgemental, even if conventional.) Judging by my own experience, thinking about sex correlates with age, not preference.
I am reminded of a bit from Groucho Marx. A woman guest on You Bet Your Life told him she had eight(?) children. When Groucho’s eyebrows shot up at that, the woman eplained with a giggle: “I love my husband.” Groucho remarked: “Well, I love my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while.”
–TP
At a guess, I’d expect that gay people think about sex no more and no less than not-gay people.
But it’s not a question, or at least not the one I raised, of how much people think about sex. It’s about how they react to sex other than the kind they wish to engage in.
At a guess, I’d expect that gay people think about sex no more and no less than not-gay people.
But it’s not a question, or at least not the one I raised, of how much people think about sex. It’s about how they react to sex other than the kind they wish to engage in.
At least one study has found evidence that homophobia is linked with arousal. It may be that it’s not a matter of nature or nurture, but rather one of cognitive dissonance when nature and nurture are at odds with each other in a person’s value structures:
Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992 ). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
I understand that the results and conclusions are still a matter of debate amongst psychologists, but, again, grist for the mill.
At least one study has found evidence that homophobia is linked with arousal. It may be that it’s not a matter of nature or nurture, but rather one of cognitive dissonance when nature and nurture are at odds with each other in a person’s value structures:
Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?
The authors investigated the role of homosexual arousal in exclusively heterosexual men who admitted negative affect toward homosexual individuals. Participants consisted of a group of homophobic men (n = 35) and a group of nonhomophobic men (n = 29); they were assigned to groups on the basis of their scores on the Index of Homophobia (W. W. Hudson & W. A. Ricketts, 1980). The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992 ). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.
I understand that the results and conclusions are still a matter of debate amongst psychologists, but, again, grist for the mill.
“Do homosexuals tend to be as grossed out by hetero sex as vice versa?”
This one isn’t. My reaction is more like “Oh” and once, “No, thank you.”
“Do homosexuals tend to be as grossed out by hetero sex as vice versa?”
This one isn’t. My reaction is more like “Oh” and once, “No, thank you.”
(“Straight” is kinda judgemental, even if conventional.)
Hey! Tell that to the straight-acting gay guy in the singles ad! ;^)
(“Straight” is kinda judgemental, even if conventional.)
Hey! Tell that to the straight-acting gay guy in the singles ad! ;^)
Late to this thread, as is my pattern these days evidently.
Russell and I should both be alarmed at how much I agree with practically everything he’s written in his main post and ensuing comments, but I can’t bring myself to an appreciable level of concern.
As for gay sex, well, I think that I am squicked out by gay (male) sex to maybe the same degree that gay men are squicked out at the thought of sex with a woman.
But I could be wrong.
I think it’s wrong to automatically ascribe some kind of disorder to that kind of thing. Not everyone is into everything. I’m not into swinging. Have at it, though, if that pleases you. It is, still, if notionally, a free country.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
Late to this thread, as is my pattern these days evidently.
Russell and I should both be alarmed at how much I agree with practically everything he’s written in his main post and ensuing comments, but I can’t bring myself to an appreciable level of concern.
As for gay sex, well, I think that I am squicked out by gay (male) sex to maybe the same degree that gay men are squicked out at the thought of sex with a woman.
But I could be wrong.
I think it’s wrong to automatically ascribe some kind of disorder to that kind of thing. Not everyone is into everything. I’m not into swinging. Have at it, though, if that pleases you. It is, still, if notionally, a free country.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
There have been studies on bodily reactions to pörn with clips of hetero, gay and lesbian sex shown to hetero and homo men and women.
Iirc there was positive reaction by all groups to all except male-on-male, which bodily appealed only to homosexual males. So even male homosexuals had a positive body reaction to lesbian sex scenes.
Measured bodily reaction could differ significantly from conscious statements by the test subjects.
This is a bit of a tricky topic since it was also found out that women have some lubrication reaction even in case of rape, i.e. in a totally involontary situation (possibly a biological self-protection mechanism, not, as often is claimed, a proof that women secretly desire to get raped).
There have been studies on bodily reactions to pörn with clips of hetero, gay and lesbian sex shown to hetero and homo men and women.
Iirc there was positive reaction by all groups to all except male-on-male, which bodily appealed only to homosexual males. So even male homosexuals had a positive body reaction to lesbian sex scenes.
Measured bodily reaction could differ significantly from conscious statements by the test subjects.
This is a bit of a tricky topic since it was also found out that women have some lubrication reaction even in case of rape, i.e. in a totally involontary situation (possibly a biological self-protection mechanism, not, as often is claimed, a proof that women secretly desire to get raped).
I think it’s wrong to automatically ascribe some kind of disorder to that kind of thing.
Did I miss where someone automatically ascribed a disorder to something?
It is, still, if notionally, a free country.
Except for the federal mandatory-swinging law that was recently enacted. (I need to move to a sexier neighborhood, post-haste.)
I think it’s wrong to automatically ascribe some kind of disorder to that kind of thing.
Did I miss where someone automatically ascribed a disorder to something?
It is, still, if notionally, a free country.
Except for the federal mandatory-swinging law that was recently enacted. (I need to move to a sexier neighborhood, post-haste.)
On a side note Rosie O’Donnell had a hilarious bit about men’s fascination with lesbian porn, based on her view that nothing could be less appealing than watching two men have sex. It was hilarious.
On a side note Rosie O’Donnell had a hilarious bit about men’s fascination with lesbian porn, based on her view that nothing could be less appealing than watching two men have sex. It was hilarious.
(every notice how it is rarely if ever raised a problem if the genders are reversed?**)
That’s a good call out on me. Though is it calling me out cause I’m sexist rather than racist? (hence the need to study intersectionality)
I believe it is pretty common in the AA community (and here, Janie’s observation of our lack of AA commenters starts sounding a klaxon) for black women to be upset at the number of black men with white girlfriends. Which points to the fact that lots of factors conspire to make all the isms very difficult to eliminate or even reduce even as it gives some idiots with rudimentary grasp of logic the talking point of ‘ha!, it can’t be racist cause black people feel the same way!’ (and to get in a parenthetical elbow here, this is why the claim that various groups are more conservative, so the Republicans screwed up in alienating them is the wrong reading, the Republican conservatism is the flavor du jour relies on peeling off dissatisfied white people, and a Republican conservatism that gave up the race war idea would no longer be Republican conservatism)
Japanese-Americans had and continue to have the highest rate of out-marriage. Here in Japan, there is this discussion
https://futurealisreal.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/international-marriage-in-japan-a-few-facts-and-a-few-opinions/
which is good, but I’m not positive about some of the conclusions the author draws.
(every notice how it is rarely if ever raised a problem if the genders are reversed?**)
That’s a good call out on me. Though is it calling me out cause I’m sexist rather than racist? (hence the need to study intersectionality)
I believe it is pretty common in the AA community (and here, Janie’s observation of our lack of AA commenters starts sounding a klaxon) for black women to be upset at the number of black men with white girlfriends. Which points to the fact that lots of factors conspire to make all the isms very difficult to eliminate or even reduce even as it gives some idiots with rudimentary grasp of logic the talking point of ‘ha!, it can’t be racist cause black people feel the same way!’ (and to get in a parenthetical elbow here, this is why the claim that various groups are more conservative, so the Republicans screwed up in alienating them is the wrong reading, the Republican conservatism is the flavor du jour relies on peeling off dissatisfied white people, and a Republican conservatism that gave up the race war idea would no longer be Republican conservatism)
Japanese-Americans had and continue to have the highest rate of out-marriage. Here in Japan, there is this discussion
https://futurealisreal.wordpress.com/2016/09/04/international-marriage-in-japan-a-few-facts-and-a-few-opinions/
which is good, but I’m not positive about some of the conclusions the author draws.
I have much to add to this thread but the shifting from the rationality or not of the Holocaust to race to the squickedness or not of gay sex has me unable to collect my thoughts on any one item.
Somehow the picture of Slart possibly pursuing both swinging AND hog splitting presses a squicked indelibleness on the mind.
However, the term “squicked out” is going to find its way into most of my near-term conversations, regardless of subject.
Let us … by whom I mean wj … fall back on the latter Victorians, always good for some passive-aggressive frankness when it comes to country matters for what might be bothering us when we talk about what we talk about. It’s a game of inches and of compartmentalization:
Crazy Jane Talks With The Bishop by William Butler Yeats
I met the Bishop on the road
And much said he and I.
‘Those breasts are flat and fallen now,
Those veins must soon be dry;
Live in a heavenly mansion,
Not in some foul sty.’
‘Fair and foul are near of kin,
And fair needs foul,’ I cried.
‘My friends are gone, but that’s a truth
Nor grave nor bed denied,
Learned in bodily lowliness
And in the heart’s pride.
‘A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;
For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.’
Let me add, probably unfortunately, that years ago, when my son was a toddler, we hired this wonderful day care person (in her home, along with her kids) to look after the kid one day a week to give stay-at-home Dad here a break.
We got along swimmingly because, out of earshot of the kids, she possessed a bawdy sense of humor so what’s not for me to like?
One day, and I forget how the conversation ended up where it did, she said (funny, in context) that she “can never look at a lesbian’s mouth without thinking where it’s been”.
I’m not the guy to say things like that to, because I shot back, “Well, give it a moment’s thought and you’ll realize we could think that about EVERYONE, and now that you mention it, I am!”, my attitude being “Hooray for all of it!”, but in the ordinary course of a day, none of this really bears thinking about, though believe me, I can bear it.
On top of that, not five minutes before this repartee, she had bent over and exchanged kisses and licks on the mouth with her dog, which happens to bring out a little Santorum squickieness in my loins.
I’m a cat person. I’m bent that way.
Janie, upthread, mentions the Church Lady. I don’t believe that woman when she said she doesn’t think about heterosexual matters of the flesh as she goes about her day, especially in church.
I was so bored in church when I was 13 years old that my mind was a veritable decameron. It couldn’t have been worse if I had been John Cleese. The Virgin Birth (and who is this Mary Magdelene with the seven demons person) gets a guy thinking.
And THAT was a Protestant Church, where SEX is, or was back then, spelled SHUTUP.
I couldn’t wait to get out of there and make out with my Catholic girlfriend and discuss doctrine.
I have much to add to this thread but the shifting from the rationality or not of the Holocaust to race to the squickedness or not of gay sex has me unable to collect my thoughts on any one item.
Somehow the picture of Slart possibly pursuing both swinging AND hog splitting presses a squicked indelibleness on the mind.
However, the term “squicked out” is going to find its way into most of my near-term conversations, regardless of subject.
Let us … by whom I mean wj … fall back on the latter Victorians, always good for some passive-aggressive frankness when it comes to country matters for what might be bothering us when we talk about what we talk about. It’s a game of inches and of compartmentalization:
Crazy Jane Talks With The Bishop by William Butler Yeats
I met the Bishop on the road
And much said he and I.
‘Those breasts are flat and fallen now,
Those veins must soon be dry;
Live in a heavenly mansion,
Not in some foul sty.’
‘Fair and foul are near of kin,
And fair needs foul,’ I cried.
‘My friends are gone, but that’s a truth
Nor grave nor bed denied,
Learned in bodily lowliness
And in the heart’s pride.
‘A woman can be proud and stiff
When on love intent;
But Love has pitched his mansion in
The place of excrement;
For nothing can be sole or whole
That has not been rent.’
Let me add, probably unfortunately, that years ago, when my son was a toddler, we hired this wonderful day care person (in her home, along with her kids) to look after the kid one day a week to give stay-at-home Dad here a break.
We got along swimmingly because, out of earshot of the kids, she possessed a bawdy sense of humor so what’s not for me to like?
One day, and I forget how the conversation ended up where it did, she said (funny, in context) that she “can never look at a lesbian’s mouth without thinking where it’s been”.
I’m not the guy to say things like that to, because I shot back, “Well, give it a moment’s thought and you’ll realize we could think that about EVERYONE, and now that you mention it, I am!”, my attitude being “Hooray for all of it!”, but in the ordinary course of a day, none of this really bears thinking about, though believe me, I can bear it.
On top of that, not five minutes before this repartee, she had bent over and exchanged kisses and licks on the mouth with her dog, which happens to bring out a little Santorum squickieness in my loins.
I’m a cat person. I’m bent that way.
Janie, upthread, mentions the Church Lady. I don’t believe that woman when she said she doesn’t think about heterosexual matters of the flesh as she goes about her day, especially in church.
I was so bored in church when I was 13 years old that my mind was a veritable decameron. It couldn’t have been worse if I had been John Cleese. The Virgin Birth (and who is this Mary Magdelene with the seven demons person) gets a guy thinking.
And THAT was a Protestant Church, where SEX is, or was back then, spelled SHUTUP.
I couldn’t wait to get out of there and make out with my Catholic girlfriend and discuss doctrine.
Count…..that was exceptionally fine. It’s fun to be supplied with such a belly laugh at the end of the day. Or any time, really. 🙂
Count…..that was exceptionally fine. It’s fun to be supplied with such a belly laugh at the end of the day. Or any time, really. 🙂
sorry, hidden window with this unsent.
What they say is irrashaimase (or shortened irrashai). Honorific form of the verb ‘to come’ so, translating it like a Charlie Chan dialogue
‘enter honorable guest’
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%84%E3%82%89%E3%81%A3%E3%81%97%E3%82%83%E3%82%8B
at 1:39 in this video (Simpsons)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyhZYQpMK4Y
sorry, hidden window with this unsent.
What they say is irrashaimase (or shortened irrashai). Honorific form of the verb ‘to come’ so, translating it like a Charlie Chan dialogue
‘enter honorable guest’
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%84%E3%82%89%E3%81%A3%E3%81%97%E3%82%83%E3%82%8B
at 1:39 in this video (Simpsons)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyhZYQpMK4Y
lj, believe me, I wasn’t trying to call out anyone. Just pointing out that some recognitions of differences seem, objectively, very similar. But rarely get viewed that way.
lj, believe me, I wasn’t trying to call out anyone. Just pointing out that some recognitions of differences seem, objectively, very similar. But rarely get viewed that way.
It rather looks like the article on Japanese nationals’ out-marriage misses one significant point. The rather obvious reason that Japanese women who marry internationally overwhelmingly marry American man, while Japanese men marry Asians, could simply be that thete are lots of (single) American military men in Japan; far fewer American militrary women. Mere opportunity seems likely to be, at the very least, a major factor in the statistics.
It rather looks like the article on Japanese nationals’ out-marriage misses one significant point. The rather obvious reason that Japanese women who marry internationally overwhelmingly marry American man, while Japanese men marry Asians, could simply be that thete are lots of (single) American military men in Japan; far fewer American militrary women. Mere opportunity seems likely to be, at the very least, a major factor in the statistics.
Weren’t Lenny and Squicky the dopey neighbors on “Laverne and Squirrelly”?
Weren’t Lenny and Squicky the dopey neighbors on “Laverne and Squirrelly”?
No need to apologize wj, I didn’t take it as insult, it was a great observation highlighting my own blind spots.
As far as the military connection goes, that’s a good point, though I think another problem is that marriage statistics don’t really pick up couples that are living together, etc, so any argument constructed on those stats is always going to lag behind, perhaps way behind.
No need to apologize wj, I didn’t take it as insult, it was a great observation highlighting my own blind spots.
As far as the military connection goes, that’s a good point, though I think another problem is that marriage statistics don’t really pick up couples that are living together, etc, so any argument constructed on those stats is always going to lag behind, perhaps way behind.
Maybe automatically was a poor choice of words. This is what I was referring to, not to single out lj for what may be an unremarkable POV:
I used disorder in the sense of an abnormal physical or mental condition, not some sort of mental illness. Think eating disorder if that helps.
And, sure, there may be a disparity in the aversions to various heterodox sexual activities. I’m not claiming it’s an absolute equality. Just similar in nature. Do not want.
Maybe automatically was a poor choice of words. This is what I was referring to, not to single out lj for what may be an unremarkable POV:
I used disorder in the sense of an abnormal physical or mental condition, not some sort of mental illness. Think eating disorder if that helps.
And, sure, there may be a disparity in the aversions to various heterodox sexual activities. I’m not claiming it’s an absolute equality. Just similar in nature. Do not want.
IFAICT, society wants to condition everybody to love mayonnaise. but i have resisted because it squicks me.
that’s kindof how i feel about some sexual practices: i guess i’m fine if you like it, but i don’t want any. and don’t try to sneak it in if you think i’m not paying attention!
IFAICT, society wants to condition everybody to love mayonnaise. but i have resisted because it squicks me.
that’s kindof how i feel about some sexual practices: i guess i’m fine if you like it, but i don’t want any. and don’t try to sneak it in if you think i’m not paying attention!
I think we are approximately in agreement, cleek.
I think we are approximately in agreement, cleek.
IFAICT, society wants to condition everybody to love mayonnaise. but i have resisted because it squicks me.
Mayo is not good, but at least not intolerable. Ketchup, on the other hand, has nothing to recommend it. And Thousand Island dressing is an abomination — although the various “special sauce” offerings are worse.
IFAICT, society wants to condition everybody to love mayonnaise. but i have resisted because it squicks me.
Mayo is not good, but at least not intolerable. Ketchup, on the other hand, has nothing to recommend it. And Thousand Island dressing is an abomination — although the various “special sauce” offerings are worse.
Thousand Island has both mayonnaise and ketchup in it, which may be the source of your revulsion.
Thousand Island has both mayonnaise and ketchup in it, which may be the source of your revulsion.
mayo is intolerable. one drop (bloblet?) is too much.
ketchup is just badly-made salsa, so i can almost forgive it.
mayo is intolerable. one drop (bloblet?) is too much.
ketchup is just badly-made salsa, so i can almost forgive it.
As with sexual practices, just so with mayo.
Speak French.
Call it aioli.
If I have a GPS in my car, I set it on the female French voice. I don’t know what it is saying, but I’ll follow it off a cliff.
As with sexual practices, just so with mayo.
Speak French.
Call it aioli.
If I have a GPS in my car, I set it on the female French voice. I don’t know what it is saying, but I’ll follow it off a cliff.
Thousand Island has both mayonnaise and ketchup in it, which may be the source of your revulsion.
Miscegenation of course, which renders it particularly relevant for this thread. I vaguely remember that there may be a prohibition against mixing fish and meat in more detailed kashruth (the rules governing kosher food), which suggests some kind of more generalised taboo against “inappropriate mixing”. wj, I think you are (among other things) an anthropologist. Does this kind of taboo ring any bells for you?
Thousand Island has both mayonnaise and ketchup in it, which may be the source of your revulsion.
Miscegenation of course, which renders it particularly relevant for this thread. I vaguely remember that there may be a prohibition against mixing fish and meat in more detailed kashruth (the rules governing kosher food), which suggests some kind of more generalised taboo against “inappropriate mixing”. wj, I think you are (among other things) an anthropologist. Does this kind of taboo ring any bells for you?
My favorite sushi is “spicy salmon roll.” I try it everywhere I go, and surprisingly enough, my favorite is from a Thai place with a sushi bar in central Maine. The main reason I like theirs best is that most of the other places use a flavoring that has an edge of mayo, and that’s just yucky. (The other reason is that this place use whole slices of salmon instead of chopped/ground up remnants.) (Disclaimer: I have only rarely, and long ago, been to really a high-end Japanese restaurant, and never to Japan.)
Aioli — long ago, when I was a more ambitious cook, once or twice I made some from scratch. That was something else again from any purchased mayonnaise-based glop. 😉
My favorite sushi is “spicy salmon roll.” I try it everywhere I go, and surprisingly enough, my favorite is from a Thai place with a sushi bar in central Maine. The main reason I like theirs best is that most of the other places use a flavoring that has an edge of mayo, and that’s just yucky. (The other reason is that this place use whole slices of salmon instead of chopped/ground up remnants.) (Disclaimer: I have only rarely, and long ago, been to really a high-end Japanese restaurant, and never to Japan.)
Aioli — long ago, when I was a more ambitious cook, once or twice I made some from scratch. That was something else again from any purchased mayonnaise-based glop. 😉
GftNC, well I have degree(s) in Anthropology, but I’ve never been in the business and the education was half a century ago. So discount accordingly.
There are an amazing number of religious food restrictions. We here tend to be most familiar with the kosher (Jewish) restrictions, but they are far from unique. The halal (Islamic) restrictions are quite similar — likely copied wholesale, in fact. In the vast majority of cases, as far as I can tell, the principal difference is whether a rabbi or an imam certifies that the (same) proper procedures were followed.
In general, those food restrictions tend to hark back to someone discovering that, if you ate (or mixed) particular foods, bad things happened. In the days before refrigeration, not to mention sanitation in food production, there was lots of opportunity for that.
But some restrictions (e.g. meat and milk) seem to stem more from what the rest of us see as an odd sort of empathy — then wildly generalized. The meat and milk restriction, as actually written, is against cooking a calf in its own mother’s milk. Separating all meat and all milk might make a certain kind of sense in a village where all the cattle were likely related. But today, when it is pretty much certain that you milk comes from a thousand miles away from where your meat comes from? Not that mere logic is going to impact established religious practice like this.
GftNC, well I have degree(s) in Anthropology, but I’ve never been in the business and the education was half a century ago. So discount accordingly.
There are an amazing number of religious food restrictions. We here tend to be most familiar with the kosher (Jewish) restrictions, but they are far from unique. The halal (Islamic) restrictions are quite similar — likely copied wholesale, in fact. In the vast majority of cases, as far as I can tell, the principal difference is whether a rabbi or an imam certifies that the (same) proper procedures were followed.
In general, those food restrictions tend to hark back to someone discovering that, if you ate (or mixed) particular foods, bad things happened. In the days before refrigeration, not to mention sanitation in food production, there was lots of opportunity for that.
But some restrictions (e.g. meat and milk) seem to stem more from what the rest of us see as an odd sort of empathy — then wildly generalized. The meat and milk restriction, as actually written, is against cooking a calf in its own mother’s milk. Separating all meat and all milk might make a certain kind of sense in a village where all the cattle were likely related. But today, when it is pretty much certain that you milk comes from a thousand miles away from where your meat comes from? Not that mere logic is going to impact established religious practice like this.
Mixing milk and meat: this prohibition has been held for a long time to apply to chicken etc, which is pretty funny (fowl not being mammals).
No, I’ll look up when I have time, I think it gets a whole lot more complicated than that for the really observant: leaving fields fallow for the 7th year of every cycle, not mixing meat and (otherwise neutral, for purposes of milk inclusion) fish, etc etc.
Liberal Elitism Alert: It all just goes to show, to this atheist, how nutty religious observance is in this day and age, no matter how much sense it seemed to make to elders trying to prevent disease etc in primitive times.
Mixing milk and meat: this prohibition has been held for a long time to apply to chicken etc, which is pretty funny (fowl not being mammals).
No, I’ll look up when I have time, I think it gets a whole lot more complicated than that for the really observant: leaving fields fallow for the 7th year of every cycle, not mixing meat and (otherwise neutral, for purposes of milk inclusion) fish, etc etc.
Liberal Elitism Alert: It all just goes to show, to this atheist, how nutty religious observance is in this day and age, no matter how much sense it seemed to make to elders trying to prevent disease etc in primitive times.
I set it on the female French voice. I don’t know what it is saying, but I’ll follow it off a cliff.
mon sembable, – mon frere!
also, I have no issue with mayo. home-made is best, but hard to find.
and if we’re speaking french, aioli is to mayo as isabelle huppert is to hayley mills. just saying.
I set it on the female French voice. I don’t know what it is saying, but I’ll follow it off a cliff.
mon sembable, – mon frere!
also, I have no issue with mayo. home-made is best, but hard to find.
and if we’re speaking french, aioli is to mayo as isabelle huppert is to hayley mills. just saying.
In my opinion, there is nothing which aioli does not improve (with the possible exception of dessert).
What’s interesting is people’s decreasing tolerance for very strong tastes: in my youth it was accepted from the authorities that aioli should be made exclusively with extra virgin olive oil and a great deal of garlic. Nowadays, you frequently see (even from decent foodie sources) a neutral/mild oil being recommended, for some or all of the oil, and comparatively little garlic. A loss, in my opinion, along with the many Caeser dressings that omit garlic and anchovies (yes, I know anchovies weren’t in the original).
In my opinion, there is nothing which aioli does not improve (with the possible exception of dessert).
What’s interesting is people’s decreasing tolerance for very strong tastes: in my youth it was accepted from the authorities that aioli should be made exclusively with extra virgin olive oil and a great deal of garlic. Nowadays, you frequently see (even from decent foodie sources) a neutral/mild oil being recommended, for some or all of the oil, and comparatively little garlic. A loss, in my opinion, along with the many Caeser dressings that omit garlic and anchovies (yes, I know anchovies weren’t in the original).
Store-bought mayo is, undoubtedly, made from the cheapest possible ingredients.
Make your own and see if you like it. Our eggs have yolks that are decidedly orange-ish, so our mayonnaise could NOT achieve the nearly snow-white color of store-bought mayo. Custard made with these is sort of a rich golden color. Custard is usually how we use up our extra eggs.
We’re not even going to mention Miracle Whip. No.
Store-bought mayo is, undoubtedly, made from the cheapest possible ingredients.
Make your own and see if you like it. Our eggs have yolks that are decidedly orange-ish, so our mayonnaise could NOT achieve the nearly snow-white color of store-bought mayo. Custard made with these is sort of a rich golden color. Custard is usually how we use up our extra eggs.
We’re not even going to mention Miracle Whip. No.
For anybody remotely interested in this kind or arcane information, I’ve just checked: apparently the Talmud does prohibit the cooking or serving on the same plate of meat and fish together. Also, from what I saw, you can’t plant two grains in the same field, or allow hybridisation. The taboo against certain kinds of “mixing” seems strong, at least in that culture.
Slartibartfast: your eggs sound like foodie heaven. You could charge a fortune for them here!
For anybody remotely interested in this kind or arcane information, I’ve just checked: apparently the Talmud does prohibit the cooking or serving on the same plate of meat and fish together. Also, from what I saw, you can’t plant two grains in the same field, or allow hybridisation. The taboo against certain kinds of “mixing” seems strong, at least in that culture.
Slartibartfast: your eggs sound like foodie heaven. You could charge a fortune for them here!
We’re not even going to mention Miracle Whip.
Wait, I thought we were talking about food…
The taboo against certain kinds of “mixing” seems strong
As it was explained to me, about 40 years ago, in a class on Deuteronomy:
A lot of the law given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy has to do with *not mixing unlike things*. The sense of it is that the Israelites were to be continually reminded to keep themselves separate from the tribes among whom they were making their home.
So, religious, ritual, and ceremonial law as an aide-memoir or object lesson.
We’re not even going to mention Miracle Whip.
Wait, I thought we were talking about food…
The taboo against certain kinds of “mixing” seems strong
As it was explained to me, about 40 years ago, in a class on Deuteronomy:
A lot of the law given in Leviticus and Deuteronomy has to do with *not mixing unlike things*. The sense of it is that the Israelites were to be continually reminded to keep themselves separate from the tribes among whom they were making their home.
So, religious, ritual, and ceremonial law as an aide-memoir or object lesson.
I could charge a fortune for them here, were I motivated to package and deliver them. Our free-range chickens actually ARE free-range, in the sense that they’re not confined to a little bitty patch of earth that was picked bare long ago. They go where they want to go. Some of them roost in the trees at night.
We just now got some Leghorns to work the garden, so we’ll also have white eggs. They all pretty much taste the same, though.
We’re also raising ducks, which is new. We’ll see how that goes. And free-range turkeys. All of this is purely for our own enjoyment; if we made it into a business it’d probably go all no-fun in short order.
Bunny-raising is pretty simple, but I’ve made some mistakes in separating out the boys from the girls, and we’ve had a couple of tragic, unexpected deliveries of brother-on-sister litters, all of which died because we weren’t expecting them.
So. We’re going to go to a two-person team for sexing them, because it’s REALLY hard to get a look at tiny rabbit genitals when they’re struggling like that.
These are big rabbits, but you do the separating when small.
I could charge a fortune for them here, were I motivated to package and deliver them. Our free-range chickens actually ARE free-range, in the sense that they’re not confined to a little bitty patch of earth that was picked bare long ago. They go where they want to go. Some of them roost in the trees at night.
We just now got some Leghorns to work the garden, so we’ll also have white eggs. They all pretty much taste the same, though.
We’re also raising ducks, which is new. We’ll see how that goes. And free-range turkeys. All of this is purely for our own enjoyment; if we made it into a business it’d probably go all no-fun in short order.
Bunny-raising is pretty simple, but I’ve made some mistakes in separating out the boys from the girls, and we’ve had a couple of tragic, unexpected deliveries of brother-on-sister litters, all of which died because we weren’t expecting them.
So. We’re going to go to a two-person team for sexing them, because it’s REALLY hard to get a look at tiny rabbit genitals when they’re struggling like that.
These are big rabbits, but you do the separating when small.
Our free-range chickens actually ARE free-range, in the sense that they’re not confined to a little bitty patch of earth that was picked bare long ago. They go where they want to go. Some of them roost in the trees at night.
Alas, we couldn’t go quite that free range around here. In a word: coyotes. Those who do free range chickens typically have multiple fenced (including roofs!) areas, and rotate the chickens among them. Thus giving the vegetation time to recover.
Our free-range chickens actually ARE free-range, in the sense that they’re not confined to a little bitty patch of earth that was picked bare long ago. They go where they want to go. Some of them roost in the trees at night.
Alas, we couldn’t go quite that free range around here. In a word: coyotes. Those who do free range chickens typically have multiple fenced (including roofs!) areas, and rotate the chickens among them. Thus giving the vegetation time to recover.
Any coyote problem around here is negated by my guard dog, and my dad’s.
We have a 90 lb Great Pyrenees who is absolutely diligent at keeping most living creatures (except for the ones we’re raising, here) off the property. As in: well away from the edges. Dad’s dog is even better: 95 lb Maremma. Together, they prowl the night.
Dad’s got two more Maremmas in training, so coyotes are not going to be a problem.
We did have an issue with foxes, but that cleared up shortly after Kina decided that it was her life’s work to rid the world of predators. I don’t think she can catch the foxes, but they have decided that elsewhere is the place to be.
Raccoons are less timid, and she’s had to kill a couple of those. Skunks she has had a few run-ins with, but I think ran them off before they could do any damage.
Owls and hawks are a threat, too, but Kina and Jackie (Dad’s oldest and best-trained Maremma) both instinctively look to the skies. Jackie almost caught a vulture that decided a low glide path over Dad’s pasture would be cool for checking out possible meal items. Missed it by inches.
I think we only spent about $400 for Kina, without any idea of how good of a guard dog she is. We lucked out bigtime. I think Jackie taught her some things. So when Kina gets a few years older, we’re going to buy another GP and get her training it as Jackie is training her younger counterparts now.
We didn’t have much to do with it. It’s very difficult to train these kinds of behaviors into a dog. They either have those instinctively, or they don’t.
Any coyote problem around here is negated by my guard dog, and my dad’s.
We have a 90 lb Great Pyrenees who is absolutely diligent at keeping most living creatures (except for the ones we’re raising, here) off the property. As in: well away from the edges. Dad’s dog is even better: 95 lb Maremma. Together, they prowl the night.
Dad’s got two more Maremmas in training, so coyotes are not going to be a problem.
We did have an issue with foxes, but that cleared up shortly after Kina decided that it was her life’s work to rid the world of predators. I don’t think she can catch the foxes, but they have decided that elsewhere is the place to be.
Raccoons are less timid, and she’s had to kill a couple of those. Skunks she has had a few run-ins with, but I think ran them off before they could do any damage.
Owls and hawks are a threat, too, but Kina and Jackie (Dad’s oldest and best-trained Maremma) both instinctively look to the skies. Jackie almost caught a vulture that decided a low glide path over Dad’s pasture would be cool for checking out possible meal items. Missed it by inches.
I think we only spent about $400 for Kina, without any idea of how good of a guard dog she is. We lucked out bigtime. I think Jackie taught her some things. So when Kina gets a few years older, we’re going to buy another GP and get her training it as Jackie is training her younger counterparts now.
We didn’t have much to do with it. It’s very difficult to train these kinds of behaviors into a dog. They either have those instinctively, or they don’t.
We’re also raising ducks, which is new.
If you have tendencies toward cruelty, set duck eggs under a hen.
We’re also raising ducks, which is new.
If you have tendencies toward cruelty, set duck eggs under a hen.
if we made it into a business it’d probably go all no-fun in short order.
I’m sure this is right.
Duck eggs: yum. Nice and rich. And if you allow them to be fertilised, ducklings are certainly very adorable, if you’re into that kind of thing. Once you’ve roasted a few ducks, you’ll have enough duck fat to make the future ducks into confit, which will last you ages and be fab. You’re living the (foodie) dream, Slartibartfast.
I believe those orange yolks (which are so prized) are to do with what the chickens eat, irrespective of the colour of the shells. Some cynical, commercial types feed them special dark stuff to get it, but free-range chickens like yours probably get quite a bit of the necessary from worms etc as they scratch around.
Also, big rabbits marinated in good oil, garlic and herbs then charcoal grilled, are supposed to be wonderful to eat.
Honestly, your livestock would enable you to live the perfect, French, foodie lifestyle, if you were that way inclined.
if we made it into a business it’d probably go all no-fun in short order.
I’m sure this is right.
Duck eggs: yum. Nice and rich. And if you allow them to be fertilised, ducklings are certainly very adorable, if you’re into that kind of thing. Once you’ve roasted a few ducks, you’ll have enough duck fat to make the future ducks into confit, which will last you ages and be fab. You’re living the (foodie) dream, Slartibartfast.
I believe those orange yolks (which are so prized) are to do with what the chickens eat, irrespective of the colour of the shells. Some cynical, commercial types feed them special dark stuff to get it, but free-range chickens like yours probably get quite a bit of the necessary from worms etc as they scratch around.
Also, big rabbits marinated in good oil, garlic and herbs then charcoal grilled, are supposed to be wonderful to eat.
Honestly, your livestock would enable you to live the perfect, French, foodie lifestyle, if you were that way inclined.
I believe those orange yolks (which are so prized) are to do with what the chickens eat, irrespective of the colour of the shells.
Yup, as an old farm boy, I can tell you that shell color is utterly irrelevant. (Racists take note!) As for yolk color, the paler the yolks, the less healthy the chickens are. A healthy chicken will produce yolks with a nice rich yellow hue.
I believe those orange yolks (which are so prized) are to do with what the chickens eat, irrespective of the colour of the shells.
Yup, as an old farm boy, I can tell you that shell color is utterly irrelevant. (Racists take note!) As for yolk color, the paler the yolks, the less healthy the chickens are. A healthy chicken will produce yolks with a nice rich yellow hue.
Great Pyrs are more or less a perfect dog for what you’re doing.
Family of ours have 80 acres near Eugene OR. They lost most of their goat herd to a cougar. I’m not sure a dog would help that, but I could be wrong. Dogs are remarkable animals, we were lucky to befriend them.
Great Pyrs are more or less a perfect dog for what you’re doing.
Family of ours have 80 acres near Eugene OR. They lost most of their goat herd to a cougar. I’m not sure a dog would help that, but I could be wrong. Dogs are remarkable animals, we were lucky to befriend them.
Gabrielle Hamilton (Owner/Chef Prune in NYC; I will eat there in June) roasts rabbits on skewers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqh2LhmpvQY
not complete
Gabrielle Hamilton (Owner/Chef Prune in NYC; I will eat there in June) roasts rabbits on skewers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqh2LhmpvQY
not complete
I’m sure you’ve read her book, Blood Bones and Butter, Count, but if not it’s terrific. I bet your meal at Prune will be great!
I’m sure you’ve read her book, Blood Bones and Butter, Count, but if not it’s terrific. I bet your meal at Prune will be great!
Cougars are kind of shy, so the presence of a large dog nearby MAY be a deterrent.
Then again, maybe not.
Duck confit is the desired end product, to be sure. But it may take a while before our ducks reproduce enough that we can afford to harvest some.
I haven’t tried grilling rabbit. So far, my favorite recipes have been, more or less, stews. Hassenpfeffer is really, really good. And I have a hankering to use one and make Lapins au Vin.
I’m a fair cook. Not great, but I can follow directions.
Cougars are kind of shy, so the presence of a large dog nearby MAY be a deterrent.
Then again, maybe not.
Duck confit is the desired end product, to be sure. But it may take a while before our ducks reproduce enough that we can afford to harvest some.
I haven’t tried grilling rabbit. So far, my favorite recipes have been, more or less, stews. Hassenpfeffer is really, really good. And I have a hankering to use one and make Lapins au Vin.
I’m a fair cook. Not great, but I can follow directions.
hello
hello
Is it me you’re looking for
Is it me you’re looking for
posting is fraught.
posting is fraught.
Required determination is
Required determination is
Slartibartfast:
I’ve never had hassenpfeffer, but it looks interesting. My favourite rabbit dish (and it does work for chicken pieces too), which is extremely delicious, is a rather simple french one with a dijon mustard, wine, stock and cream sauce. I looked online so I could link the recipe for you, but none of the ones I found was exactly right (I don’t tend to cook from recipes myself, just from sort of half-remembered experiences). Whatever recipe you use, if you try it, the vital thing is to add the dijon mustard (smooth, not grainy) very near the end of the cooking, with the cream, because if you cook mustard for any length of time it loses most of its savour (this is where most of the online recipes I found fell down).
Slartibartfast:
I’ve never had hassenpfeffer, but it looks interesting. My favourite rabbit dish (and it does work for chicken pieces too), which is extremely delicious, is a rather simple french one with a dijon mustard, wine, stock and cream sauce. I looked online so I could link the recipe for you, but none of the ones I found was exactly right (I don’t tend to cook from recipes myself, just from sort of half-remembered experiences). Whatever recipe you use, if you try it, the vital thing is to add the dijon mustard (smooth, not grainy) very near the end of the cooking, with the cream, because if you cook mustard for any length of time it loses most of its savour (this is where most of the online recipes I found fell down).
Not only is posting fraught (the hosting company says that it is having server problems), but sometimes it says something is posted when it is not. Sigh.
Not only is posting fraught (the hosting company says that it is having server problems), but sometimes it says something is posted when it is not. Sigh.
is this sexism
is this sexism
gftnc:
Yes, I sure did. Maybe the best memoir by a chef ever. She’s one of a kind. What a life! Almost Rousseauean.
I purchased her cookbook too a few months ago, called simply “Prune”.
You’ll be in the middle of a dish, alone in your kitchen and she’ll interject in the recipe that she doesn’t want to have to fire you because you haven’t prepped properly.
Well then, I’ll scabbard my knives and get out if that’s how it is, and then you remember that the recipes and the added notes were written for HER kitchen staff and you are basically looking over their shoulders, and hers.
Also, no index, which I like, because cookbook really makes you hunt and rea
gftnc:
Yes, I sure did. Maybe the best memoir by a chef ever. She’s one of a kind. What a life! Almost Rousseauean.
I purchased her cookbook too a few months ago, called simply “Prune”.
You’ll be in the middle of a dish, alone in your kitchen and she’ll interject in the recipe that she doesn’t want to have to fire you because you haven’t prepped properly.
Well then, I’ll scabbard my knives and get out if that’s how it is, and then you remember that the recipes and the added notes were written for HER kitchen staff and you are basically looking over their shoulders, and hers.
Also, no index, which I like, because cookbook really makes you hunt and rea
(d)
(d)
is this sexism
Cue McKinney dropping in to ask us why we’re obsessed with people’s genitals………
is this sexism
Cue McKinney dropping in to ask us why we’re obsessed with people’s genitals………
Only, he (rather euphemistically and prudishly) calls it people’s “plumbing”…
Only, he (rather euphemistically and prudishly) calls it people’s “plumbing”…
is this sexism
what that article doesn’t mention from the poll is quest #47C
59% of Republicans somewhat agree (27%) or strongly agree (32%).
and, of course the classic at #69:
GOP : strongly approve (52%) or somewhat approve (28%).
conservative: strongly approve (46%), somewhat approve (27%)
it’s Trump’s party. don’t let anyone tell you any different.
is this sexism
what that article doesn’t mention from the poll is quest #47C
59% of Republicans somewhat agree (27%) or strongly agree (32%).
and, of course the classic at #69:
GOP : strongly approve (52%) or somewhat approve (28%).
conservative: strongly approve (46%), somewhat approve (27%)
it’s Trump’s party. don’t let anyone tell you any different.
It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough
this is my take on white privilege:
i spent most of my young adulthood farting around from one thing to the next. i’m not genius smart, but sort-of smart, so I didn’t have to work particularly hard, or more to the point in a particularly focused way, to sort of get by.
in mid-20’s I thought I’d look into software, because musicians were supposed to be good at it and I had no idea how else to make a living. was accepted into computer science grad school on the strength of my GRE’s, because if there;s one thing I can do it’s take a standardized test. blew that off, because why not, later on after working a warehouse gig and as a janitor took a six-month trade school thing that was advertised on the subway. and got a job.
actually quit that because i thought i’d rather work in building trades. discovered i had absolutely zero head for heights, plus to be honest i had no idea what i was doing, so that was that. went back to the 9 to 5. had a couple of strokes of luck and ended up making a career of it.
that, plus i met my wife, and i’ve had and have a life i barely deserve.
american white male from a bog-standard suburban background, reasonable intelligence, no significant physical impediments. all i had to do was get out of my own way and not f*** up too badly or too often.
I don’t think it’s like that for everyone.
It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough
this is my take on white privilege:
i spent most of my young adulthood farting around from one thing to the next. i’m not genius smart, but sort-of smart, so I didn’t have to work particularly hard, or more to the point in a particularly focused way, to sort of get by.
in mid-20’s I thought I’d look into software, because musicians were supposed to be good at it and I had no idea how else to make a living. was accepted into computer science grad school on the strength of my GRE’s, because if there;s one thing I can do it’s take a standardized test. blew that off, because why not, later on after working a warehouse gig and as a janitor took a six-month trade school thing that was advertised on the subway. and got a job.
actually quit that because i thought i’d rather work in building trades. discovered i had absolutely zero head for heights, plus to be honest i had no idea what i was doing, so that was that. went back to the 9 to 5. had a couple of strokes of luck and ended up making a career of it.
that, plus i met my wife, and i’ve had and have a life i barely deserve.
american white male from a bog-standard suburban background, reasonable intelligence, no significant physical impediments. all i had to do was get out of my own way and not f*** up too badly or too often.
I don’t think it’s like that for everyone.
This thread having ranged from racism to homophobia to animal husbandry to recipes for carnivores, I feel emboldened to observe:
All humans do things on a daily basis which are fairly gross if you focus on the acts themselves in any clinical detail.
I’m not a vegetarian by any means, but I confess I feel “squicked out” (if that’s the new term) when I eat a ham sandwich. Especially since I’m sure I’d barf if I had to kill the pig myself. And the less said about the normal consequences of eating ham sandwiches or hassenpfeffer or anything else, the better.
–TP
This thread having ranged from racism to homophobia to animal husbandry to recipes for carnivores, I feel emboldened to observe:
All humans do things on a daily basis which are fairly gross if you focus on the acts themselves in any clinical detail.
I’m not a vegetarian by any means, but I confess I feel “squicked out” (if that’s the new term) when I eat a ham sandwich. Especially since I’m sure I’d barf if I had to kill the pig myself. And the less said about the normal consequences of eating ham sandwiches or hassenpfeffer or anything else, the better.
–TP
About twenty hours ago I tried (at least four times) to post the comment below and failed. Here we go again. Fortunately, my words are timeless:
I feel I should say something since I’m now the chef-in-chief of our 2-person household (my wife is poorly), but I’m clearly well behind the curve both in cuisine and in comments. Nevertheless:
– Have any of you tried “Kewpie” [sic] Mayonnaise? Japanese, comes in a squeeze bottle (annoying, since you can never get the last bit out), recommended in some online recipes. We got some and it’s interesting, nice on tomato sandwiches, what I tend to think of as a kind of Japanese version of aioli, but I’d like comments from anyone (anyone? Buhler?) whose palate is more subtle than mine.
– WRT catsup (from the Malay kejap, originally from Cantonese, I believe): I am striving to be an equal opportunity-offender with a fairly tasty and simple Chesapeake [sic] fish stew of which the primary ingredients, other than the fish itself, are catsup and bacon, thus striking at the fish and flesh dichotomy as well as many others. On tap for tomorrow night (actually tonight, as I write) unless someone fervently convinces me of the error of my ways.
And just a note to say that I’m still lurking, usually with interest, though more than a little weary of interminable political threads in which Marty and McManus pop up to say, from opposite (?) ends of the spectrum, that there’s really no difference between Hillary and Trump.
Sheesh.
dr ngo
About twenty hours ago I tried (at least four times) to post the comment below and failed. Here we go again. Fortunately, my words are timeless:
I feel I should say something since I’m now the chef-in-chief of our 2-person household (my wife is poorly), but I’m clearly well behind the curve both in cuisine and in comments. Nevertheless:
– Have any of you tried “Kewpie” [sic] Mayonnaise? Japanese, comes in a squeeze bottle (annoying, since you can never get the last bit out), recommended in some online recipes. We got some and it’s interesting, nice on tomato sandwiches, what I tend to think of as a kind of Japanese version of aioli, but I’d like comments from anyone (anyone? Buhler?) whose palate is more subtle than mine.
– WRT catsup (from the Malay kejap, originally from Cantonese, I believe): I am striving to be an equal opportunity-offender with a fairly tasty and simple Chesapeake [sic] fish stew of which the primary ingredients, other than the fish itself, are catsup and bacon, thus striking at the fish and flesh dichotomy as well as many others. On tap for tomorrow night (actually tonight, as I write) unless someone fervently convinces me of the error of my ways.
And just a note to say that I’m still lurking, usually with interest, though more than a little weary of interminable political threads in which Marty and McManus pop up to say, from opposite (?) ends of the spectrum, that there’s really no difference between Hillary and Trump.
Sheesh.
dr ngo
interminable political threads in which Marty and McManus pop up to say, from opposite (?) ends of the spectrum, that there’s really no difference between Hillary and Trump.
Viewed from gamma ray wavelengths, or from radio wavelengths, there’s no difference between red and blue. And those of us who think we see one are obviously delusional.
interminable political threads in which Marty and McManus pop up to say, from opposite (?) ends of the spectrum, that there’s really no difference between Hillary and Trump.
Viewed from gamma ray wavelengths, or from radio wavelengths, there’s no difference between red and blue. And those of us who think we see one are obviously delusional.
I don’t think it’s like that for everyone.
But it should be.
I’d like comments from anyone (anyone? Buhler?) whose palate is more subtle than mine.
My palate isn’t subtle, but Kewpie is obviously delicious, partly because it’s a quality mayonnaisse, but also because it has MSG, which is a wonderful food additive that people in the US faddishly became afraid of. I’ve recently discovered how good it makes steamed vegetables. Yum.
Speaking of food and racism, this Yellow Fever article is timely. I am impatient when I hear complaints like this, which seem to me to be frivolous. Perhaps I need to self-examine.
I don’t think it’s like that for everyone.
But it should be.
I’d like comments from anyone (anyone? Buhler?) whose palate is more subtle than mine.
My palate isn’t subtle, but Kewpie is obviously delicious, partly because it’s a quality mayonnaisse, but also because it has MSG, which is a wonderful food additive that people in the US faddishly became afraid of. I’ve recently discovered how good it makes steamed vegetables. Yum.
Speaking of food and racism, this Yellow Fever article is timely. I am impatient when I hear complaints like this, which seem to me to be frivolous. Perhaps I need to self-examine.
But it should be.
yes, I agree.
I’m not really that interested in getting into pissing matches – not with you, but potentially with others – about whether some folks occupy a position of privilege or not, and who they are or aren’t.
I recognize that I occupy a position of privilege. I was able to spend my early and maybe not-so-early adulthood basically being a semi-f***up, and end up in what I can only describe as pretty good shape.
And while I work fairly hard, it behooves me to say that all of that is in no small part down to my being native born American, white, male, with a pretty good public education, and acculturated from birth into bog-standard suburban normalcy.
I’m not even getting into all of the free passes I got for really stupid juvenile knucklehead BS.
I got a lot for free, because of where and when I was born and who my parents were. A lot. You can call it a lot of things – luck, for example – but one perfectly reasonable name for it is privilege.
Folks might think they have it, other folks might think they don’t. I know I do, and my take-away from that is to be grateful, try to pay some of it forward, and never assume what was given to me by great good fortune is anything I earned or am entitled to.
But it should be.
yes, I agree.
I’m not really that interested in getting into pissing matches – not with you, but potentially with others – about whether some folks occupy a position of privilege or not, and who they are or aren’t.
I recognize that I occupy a position of privilege. I was able to spend my early and maybe not-so-early adulthood basically being a semi-f***up, and end up in what I can only describe as pretty good shape.
And while I work fairly hard, it behooves me to say that all of that is in no small part down to my being native born American, white, male, with a pretty good public education, and acculturated from birth into bog-standard suburban normalcy.
I’m not even getting into all of the free passes I got for really stupid juvenile knucklehead BS.
I got a lot for free, because of where and when I was born and who my parents were. A lot. You can call it a lot of things – luck, for example – but one perfectly reasonable name for it is privilege.
Folks might think they have it, other folks might think they don’t. I know I do, and my take-away from that is to be grateful, try to pay some of it forward, and never assume what was given to me by great good fortune is anything I earned or am entitled to.
I found the social media kvetching over Yellow Fever silly, too.
I was more squicked out by a dining establishment of any kind naming itself after a contagious disease.
The jokes by the city health inspectors must be hilarious.
Restaurant reviewers must have a field day: “I knew we were in for a dining treat when the chef visited our table and cast a jaundiced eye over the proceedings.”
Why not A Little Taste of Botulism, or The Trichinosis Table, The Mad Cow Feedbag?
It reminded me of an old Woody Allen joke, however:
“I heard Dissent and Commentary merged and formed Dysentery.”
Welcome to the Bacteria Cafeteria! Our reputation is spreading like the plague, we are not afraid to boast. My name is Typhoid Mary and I will be your server today. Our special this evening is the Country Road-foraged Armadillo Croquettes napped in a delicate Funk and Wagnell’s mayonnaise cured under the hot sun for a fortnight and the What’s Yer Poison pot au eww served in a bucket.
Our soup du jour is the cream of fire hydrant bisque. Should you have the itch for greens, we have a selection of micro climbing ivies for your dining delectation.
The Maitre D will have the emergency personnel on speed dial.
John Lennon was fond of calling the band “Booker T and the MGs” Bookyertable and the Maitre D’s.
I found the social media kvetching over Yellow Fever silly, too.
I was more squicked out by a dining establishment of any kind naming itself after a contagious disease.
The jokes by the city health inspectors must be hilarious.
Restaurant reviewers must have a field day: “I knew we were in for a dining treat when the chef visited our table and cast a jaundiced eye over the proceedings.”
Why not A Little Taste of Botulism, or The Trichinosis Table, The Mad Cow Feedbag?
It reminded me of an old Woody Allen joke, however:
“I heard Dissent and Commentary merged and formed Dysentery.”
Welcome to the Bacteria Cafeteria! Our reputation is spreading like the plague, we are not afraid to boast. My name is Typhoid Mary and I will be your server today. Our special this evening is the Country Road-foraged Armadillo Croquettes napped in a delicate Funk and Wagnell’s mayonnaise cured under the hot sun for a fortnight and the What’s Yer Poison pot au eww served in a bucket.
Our soup du jour is the cream of fire hydrant bisque. Should you have the itch for greens, we have a selection of micro climbing ivies for your dining delectation.
The Maitre D will have the emergency personnel on speed dial.
John Lennon was fond of calling the band “Booker T and the MGs” Bookyertable and the Maitre D’s.
However privileged Russell has been, you ain’t seen nothing until you’ve looked back at my white male life.*
I never had to step to fetch it.
School came to ME downhill … both ways.
A little work never hoit no one and I’m living proof of the adage. Not a mark on me.
My grandparents and parents worked hard for everything I have.
Life was handed to me on a plastic tray, which became a collectible and didn’t have to be polished like the silver variety.
Nothing ventured and everything gained.
I am affirmative inaction personified.
I cut in line at birth and stayed there.
I could have gone far but where I am is good enough.
I coulda been a contenda but contending seemed like too much effort.
Why shoot for the Moon when you can lay back in the grass and admire it.
I’m on the inside looking out.
I was born at the front of the bus and got there first. When I rode at the back of the bus, it turned out it had steering wheels at both ends and someone drove it backwards and I ended up …. at the same destination.
Sideways mobility is good enough for me.
I’ll take luck over talent any day, because it lets me keep my talent in pristine reserve, like a fire ax behind glass, just in case.
My teeth shed their skin and quickly grow a new one while I’m holding on.
My relatives and friends say I’m oblivious. But I watch out now, take care, and am aware of falling swingers.
How do you know if you don’t try? I just know.
My headstone will read: “See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
*all representations here to persons living and dead are coincidental at best and certainly unintended, and when intended, also exaggerated. The point being that I’ve had it easy and I’m not afraid to say 95% of it is due to birthright and luck.
However privileged Russell has been, you ain’t seen nothing until you’ve looked back at my white male life.*
I never had to step to fetch it.
School came to ME downhill … both ways.
A little work never hoit no one and I’m living proof of the adage. Not a mark on me.
My grandparents and parents worked hard for everything I have.
Life was handed to me on a plastic tray, which became a collectible and didn’t have to be polished like the silver variety.
Nothing ventured and everything gained.
I am affirmative inaction personified.
I cut in line at birth and stayed there.
I could have gone far but where I am is good enough.
I coulda been a contenda but contending seemed like too much effort.
Why shoot for the Moon when you can lay back in the grass and admire it.
I’m on the inside looking out.
I was born at the front of the bus and got there first. When I rode at the back of the bus, it turned out it had steering wheels at both ends and someone drove it backwards and I ended up …. at the same destination.
Sideways mobility is good enough for me.
I’ll take luck over talent any day, because it lets me keep my talent in pristine reserve, like a fire ax behind glass, just in case.
My teeth shed their skin and quickly grow a new one while I’m holding on.
My relatives and friends say I’m oblivious. But I watch out now, take care, and am aware of falling swingers.
How do you know if you don’t try? I just know.
My headstone will read: “See, that wasn’t so hard, was it?
*all representations here to persons living and dead are coincidental at best and certainly unintended, and when intended, also exaggerated. The point being that I’ve had it easy and I’m not afraid to say 95% of it is due to birthright and luck.
When I come to a fork in the trail, I split the difference and bushwhack.
Unless it’s raining. Then I head back to the house.
When I come to a fork in the trail, I split the difference and bushwhack.
Unless it’s raining. Then I head back to the house.
Not unconnected to the topic…
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/30/how-american-racism-influenced-hitler
Not unconnected to the topic…
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/04/30/how-american-racism-influenced-hitler
Speaking of food and racism, this Yellow Fever article is timely. I am impatient when I hear complaints like this, which seem to me to be frivolous.
Not only frivolous. It both distracts from real problems and debases the term “racism” from instances where it is real.
Speaking of food and racism, this Yellow Fever article is timely. I am impatient when I hear complaints like this, which seem to me to be frivolous.
Not only frivolous. It both distracts from real problems and debases the term “racism” from instances where it is real.
Nigel’s New Yorker review link is, if nothing else, a great primer bibliography on The Hitler literature.
Nigel’s New Yorker review link is, if nothing else, a great primer bibliography on The Hitler literature.
Haaven’t read the New Yorker piece yet, but just wanted to say that the Count’s piece at 09.45 is worthy of Ferlinghetti (who may have been riffing off Whitman at the time, but if so I woud have been too ignorant to have spotted it).
Haaven’t read the New Yorker piece yet, but just wanted to say that the Count’s piece at 09.45 is worthy of Ferlinghetti (who may have been riffing off Whitman at the time, but if so I woud have been too ignorant to have spotted it).
Nigel’s New Yorker review link is, if nothing else, a great primer bibliography on The Hitler literature.
And all those Amazon.com links are tagged so that, when someone uses one of the links to buy a book, the The New Yorker gets a cut. 🙂
Nigel’s New Yorker review link is, if nothing else, a great primer bibliography on The Hitler literature.
And all those Amazon.com links are tagged so that, when someone uses one of the links to buy a book, the The New Yorker gets a cut. 🙂
Interesting flashback in terms of some of where this thread has gone. From G. B. Shaw’s letters, a short one dated Dec. 20, 1909, to one Louis Wilkinson. The first bit is from editor Dan H. Laurence’s headnote to the letter:
Shaw did take a public stand (more than once IIRC) against persecution of gay people, or “inverts.” He wasn’t in tune with the prejudices of his time and had close friends who were gay. (I know……)
But oh, the weightedness of the vocabulary … I was once asked, by a neighbor who wanted to drop something off at my house relating to a kids’ sports league, “Do you get up at normal hours?”
I wanted to say FU but I was too polite. ;=)
I do hate that word, “normal.”
Interesting flashback in terms of some of where this thread has gone. From G. B. Shaw’s letters, a short one dated Dec. 20, 1909, to one Louis Wilkinson. The first bit is from editor Dan H. Laurence’s headnote to the letter:
Shaw did take a public stand (more than once IIRC) against persecution of gay people, or “inverts.” He wasn’t in tune with the prejudices of his time and had close friends who were gay. (I know……)
But oh, the weightedness of the vocabulary … I was once asked, by a neighbor who wanted to drop something off at my house relating to a kids’ sports league, “Do you get up at normal hours?”
I wanted to say FU but I was too polite. ;=)
I do hate that word, “normal.”
Just for entertainment, the next letter in the volume, again starting with the headnote.
Some things never change.
Just for entertainment, the next letter in the volume, again starting with the headnote.
Some things never change.
Sorry, extra right bracket after “almighty.”
Sorry, extra right bracket after “almighty.”
I do hate that word, “normal.”
I don’t think a question about “normal hours” is necessarily intended offensively. It’s a question that might reasonably be asked of anyone who does not go in to work at an office.
Personally, left to myself I wouldn’t keep “normal hours.” I’d stay up reading until 2-3 AM, and then sleep until 10. But of course, I wasn’t “left to myself” from the time I got morning (rather than afternoon) kindergarten until I hit my late 60s. Including in college, where engineering and science classes had an irritating tendency to be scheduled at 8 AM!
I do hate that word, “normal.”
I don’t think a question about “normal hours” is necessarily intended offensively. It’s a question that might reasonably be asked of anyone who does not go in to work at an office.
Personally, left to myself I wouldn’t keep “normal hours.” I’d stay up reading until 2-3 AM, and then sleep until 10. But of course, I wasn’t “left to myself” from the time I got morning (rather than afternoon) kindergarten until I hit my late 60s. Including in college, where engineering and science classes had an irritating tendency to be scheduled at 8 AM!
I’m like wj in this, if not more extreme: my hours have never been considered normal, whenever I have been at liberty to keep them.
I’m like wj in this, if not more extreme: my hours have never been considered normal, whenever I have been at liberty to keep them.
I don’t think a question about “normal hours” is necessarily intended offensively.
I didn’t say it was.
Still, used consciously or otherwise, the word is widely employed to prop up the idea that some people are “normal” and others are not, in relation to a wide range of abilities, behaviors, appearances, preferences, etc.
That’s indirectly a part of what this essay is about, prompted by the Toronto murders committed by an aggrieved “incel” (heaven help us).
I don’t think a question about “normal hours” is necessarily intended offensively.
I didn’t say it was.
Still, used consciously or otherwise, the word is widely employed to prop up the idea that some people are “normal” and others are not, in relation to a wide range of abilities, behaviors, appearances, preferences, etc.
That’s indirectly a part of what this essay is about, prompted by the Toronto murders committed by an aggrieved “incel” (heaven help us).
Apologies for misunderstanding you
Apologies for misunderstanding you
I have normal minutes.
Sometimes they string themselves together for minutes on end.
Then I come to.
I have normal minutes.
Sometimes they string themselves together for minutes on end.
Then I come to.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CurONBAJnk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CurONBAJnk
Re: Hitler being inspired by American racism:
IMO the crazy was already there, and was gathering whatever supplements that it could find.
Not that we have a glorious history of racial equity. Far from it.
Maybe we should be grateful that we didn’t have our own Hitler, even if we [Maxwell Smart]missed it by that much[/Maxwell Smart].
Re: Hitler being inspired by American racism:
IMO the crazy was already there, and was gathering whatever supplements that it could find.
Not that we have a glorious history of racial equity. Far from it.
Maybe we should be grateful that we didn’t have our own Hitler, even if we [Maxwell Smart]missed it by that much[/Maxwell Smart].
Given some stuff circulated in late 19th century Germany Hitler was quite moderate. He always remained a petit bourgeois at heart. Himmler got much closer but even he does not mark the fringe (e.g. he wanted a breeding program just for the SS, some German ‘thinkers’ wanted the government to treat the whole population like breeding livestock as in industrial cattle breeding with mate selection, birthing quotas and all of that in state supervised facilities that would have looked like KZ with better hygiene).
Idea-wise the late 19th century seems to be (at least to me) the most poisonous era in human history (although certain times in late antiquity and during the Renaissance give it a run for its money; there is really sick stuff out there).
Given some stuff circulated in late 19th century Germany Hitler was quite moderate. He always remained a petit bourgeois at heart. Himmler got much closer but even he does not mark the fringe (e.g. he wanted a breeding program just for the SS, some German ‘thinkers’ wanted the government to treat the whole population like breeding livestock as in industrial cattle breeding with mate selection, birthing quotas and all of that in state supervised facilities that would have looked like KZ with better hygiene).
Idea-wise the late 19th century seems to be (at least to me) the most poisonous era in human history (although certain times in late antiquity and during the Renaissance give it a run for its money; there is really sick stuff out there).
Idea-wise the late 19th century seems to be (at least to me) the most poisonous era in human history (although certain times in late antiquity and during the Renaissance give it a run for its money; there is really sick stuff out there)
Since this is just a blog and proof is not required, would you care to speculate as to why that might be? The disruption wrought by the industrial revolution unleashed….stuff? I’d postulate that the decline of the Catholic Church as an almost absolute dominant power had something to do with it too, but then IMO the Catholic Church was at times part of some “really sick stuff” in its own right, so I’m not sure that makes any sense.
Idea-wise the late 19th century seems to be (at least to me) the most poisonous era in human history (although certain times in late antiquity and during the Renaissance give it a run for its money; there is really sick stuff out there)
Since this is just a blog and proof is not required, would you care to speculate as to why that might be? The disruption wrought by the industrial revolution unleashed….stuff? I’d postulate that the decline of the Catholic Church as an almost absolute dominant power had something to do with it too, but then IMO the Catholic Church was at times part of some “really sick stuff” in its own right, so I’m not sure that makes any sense.
I’m not Hartmut, so my speculation is even more unmoored, but my guess is that both periods had an idea that things were getting better and with just a little more effort and application, they were going to reach a perfect world. If you think you are close, breaking a few eggs to make that utopian omelette is not much of a stretch.
I’m not Hartmut, so my speculation is even more unmoored, but my guess is that both periods had an idea that things were getting better and with just a little more effort and application, they were going to reach a perfect world. If you think you are close, breaking a few eggs to make that utopian omelette is not much of a stretch.
I’d say that lj’s got half the answer. The other half being that science and technology, having enabled so much progress, got people trying to apply them anywhere and everywhere. Even to problems where they are irrelevant.
It didn’t end in the late 19th century, unfortunately. I can remember reading the initial articles (in the late 1950s IIRC) which became the basis of Scientology. Talk about toxic!
Of course, deciding to turn one’s back on all of science and technology, not to mention objective reality, seems to be our current overreaction. I really hope we eventually manage to achieve a happy medium….
I’d say that lj’s got half the answer. The other half being that science and technology, having enabled so much progress, got people trying to apply them anywhere and everywhere. Even to problems where they are irrelevant.
It didn’t end in the late 19th century, unfortunately. I can remember reading the initial articles (in the late 1950s IIRC) which became the basis of Scientology. Talk about toxic!
Of course, deciding to turn one’s back on all of science and technology, not to mention objective reality, seems to be our current overreaction. I really hope we eventually manage to achieve a happy medium….
Obviously, the Enlightenment was a big mistake.
Obviously, the Enlightenment was a big mistake.
Has … had …. we don’t talk too good. Maybe we should switch to Spanish, like decent Americans.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/white-house-says-claim-that-iran-has-a-robust-nuclear-weapons-program-resulted-from-clerical-error-2018-05-01?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T2uBeiNXAo
At least Michelle Wolf got her tenses right when she said we HAVE pigfucking murderous lying subhuman, anti-American republican filth in the White House and leading the Congress.
Has … had …. we don’t talk too good. Maybe we should switch to Spanish, like decent Americans.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/white-house-says-claim-that-iran-has-a-robust-nuclear-weapons-program-resulted-from-clerical-error-2018-05-01?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T2uBeiNXAo
At least Michelle Wolf got her tenses right when she said we HAVE pigfucking murderous lying subhuman, anti-American republican filth in the White House and leading the Congress.
The other half being that science and technology, having enabled so much progress, got people trying to apply them anywhere and everywhere.
Including scientific racism.
The other half being that science and technology, having enabled so much progress, got people trying to apply them anywhere and everywhere.
Including scientific racism.
Apropos an earlier back and forth somewhere, don’t you think these “never Trumpers” should at least be asked to take a quiz.
It’s the least we can ask.
Apropos an earlier back and forth somewhere, don’t you think these “never Trumpers” should at least be asked to take a quiz.
It’s the least we can ask.
Bobby, you might need to tweak that quiz a bit. For example, some Never Trmpers might have been preteens when SwiftBoating was going on. So demanding that they talk about how they denounced it is a bit ridiculous. Ditto (even more so) for some of the follies of Reagan.
Not to say that it’s unreasonable to ask for some examples of how they behaved as adults when Republican administrations misbehaved. But let’s not just assume that all Never Trump folks are 40 or 50 or older.
Bobby, you might need to tweak that quiz a bit. For example, some Never Trmpers might have been preteens when SwiftBoating was going on. So demanding that they talk about how they denounced it is a bit ridiculous. Ditto (even more so) for some of the follies of Reagan.
Not to say that it’s unreasonable to ask for some examples of how they behaved as adults when Republican administrations misbehaved. But let’s not just assume that all Never Trump folks are 40 or 50 or older.
Thanks, wj. I’ll pass that on to Charlie Pierce!
Thanks, wj. I’ll pass that on to Charlie Pierce!
With the exception of Wallace, most of those folks listed by Pierce were around as adults back in at least the 90’s if not before, and they all have the Reagan hagiography down pat. So please do return to the actual wording of the actual questions posed. The earliest “what did you do back then” question relates to the year 2000. Thanks.
With the exception of Wallace, most of those folks listed by Pierce were around as adults back in at least the 90’s if not before, and they all have the Reagan hagiography down pat. So please do return to the actual wording of the actual questions posed. The earliest “what did you do back then” question relates to the year 2000. Thanks.
I read “these Never Trumpers” in your post in the sense of “those (unspecified) guys who are Never Trumpers” rather than a specific list.
I read “these Never Trumpers” in your post in the sense of “those (unspecified) guys who are Never Trumpers” rather than a specific list.
LOL….ok.
The thought of thinking of William Kristol and his ilk as some kind of “allies” makes my sphincter seize up.
LOL….ok.
The thought of thinking of William Kristol and his ilk as some kind of “allies” makes my sphincter seize up.
“Politics makes strange bedfellows.”
Now you know what he meant.
“Politics makes strange bedfellows.”
Now you know what he meant.
Strange bedfellows? Who’s on top here?
–TP
Strange bedfellows? Who’s on top here?
–TP
If (R)’s want to get behind clean energy, whether because it’s the newest shiny toy in the economic development basket, or just to line their pockets or their campaign coffers, I say fine.
If money speaks a language they will listen to, let the money flow.
If (R)’s want to get behind clean energy, whether because it’s the newest shiny toy in the economic development basket, or just to line their pockets or their campaign coffers, I say fine.
If money speaks a language they will listen to, let the money flow.
Whoever it is, it ain’t the Midwestern farmers. The EPA’s actions are hurting ethanol demand, which has them in an uproar. Gee, maybe they will figure out that Democrats are their friends.
Whoever it is, it ain’t the Midwestern farmers. The EPA’s actions are hurting ethanol demand, which has them in an uproar. Gee, maybe they will figure out that Democrats are their friends.
Nuclear is the only energy source that has any chance of replacing fossil fuels. Better to spend money on that.
Nuclear is the only energy source that has any chance of replacing fossil fuels. Better to spend money on that.
I, for one, look forward to my Nuclear Roadster.
The rednecks who “roll coal” can eat my fallout.
I, for one, look forward to my Nuclear Roadster.
The rednecks who “roll coal” can eat my fallout.
C4 News reporting right now that Cambridge Analytica is closing down! Apparently, they’ve been bleeding clients….
However, they did start a new firm (the name of which I forget), so we’ll have to watch this space.
C4 News reporting right now that Cambridge Analytica is closing down! Apparently, they’ve been bleeding clients….
However, they did start a new firm (the name of which I forget), so we’ll have to watch this space.
C4 News reporting right now that Cambridge Analytica is closing down! Apparently, they’ve been bleeding clients….
However, they did start a new firm (the name of which I forget), so we’ll have to watch this space.
C4 News reporting right now that Cambridge Analytica is closing down! Apparently, they’ve been bleeding clients….
However, they did start a new firm (the name of which I forget), so we’ll have to watch this space.
I think great shifts bring out the worst in humanity. The threatened old order tries to keep control by newly available means and the new forces radicalize. Both sides escalate in the this until all bets are off. Plus rascals get into positions of power on both sides.
Even if there is no immediate large-scale bloodshed, the ideas that get produced and disseminated may germinate at a later date with catastrophic consequences.
In the case of Germany Bismarck managed to temporarily stabilize the system but was unable (and in part unwilling) to get rid of the underlying tensions. When the safety valves he installed/opened got blocked in later years, the accumulated madness got its chance to go to work. The 2nd Reich had strong ‘modern’ antisemitic undercurrents as a result of Jewish emancipation but the state did not allow its violent expression (no Dreyfus Affair in Germany) but underground the movement grew and made its first attempts at action in WW1 (which failed for the most part), was not punished and waited for the second chance (results well-known).
Sorry, this is of course extremly oversimplified.
Another thing is the toxic fusion of Malthusianism with social Darwinism (imo neither Malthus nor Darwin are at fault there).
I think great shifts bring out the worst in humanity. The threatened old order tries to keep control by newly available means and the new forces radicalize. Both sides escalate in the this until all bets are off. Plus rascals get into positions of power on both sides.
Even if there is no immediate large-scale bloodshed, the ideas that get produced and disseminated may germinate at a later date with catastrophic consequences.
In the case of Germany Bismarck managed to temporarily stabilize the system but was unable (and in part unwilling) to get rid of the underlying tensions. When the safety valves he installed/opened got blocked in later years, the accumulated madness got its chance to go to work. The 2nd Reich had strong ‘modern’ antisemitic undercurrents as a result of Jewish emancipation but the state did not allow its violent expression (no Dreyfus Affair in Germany) but underground the movement grew and made its first attempts at action in WW1 (which failed for the most part), was not punished and waited for the second chance (results well-known).
Sorry, this is of course extremly oversimplified.
Another thing is the toxic fusion of Malthusianism with social Darwinism (imo neither Malthus nor Darwin are at fault there).
Cambridge Analytica is closing down!
everything Trump touches falls apart.
Cambridge Analytica is closing down!
everything Trump touches falls apart.
You could equally say that every thing that touches Trump (i.e. it’s their choice to do so) falls apart. In those cases, they deserve it.
You could equally say that every thing that touches Trump (i.e. it’s their choice to do so) falls apart. In those cases, they deserve it.
Whichever of those two ways you look at it, let’s hope that more and more people realise that if you’re going to dine with Trump, the spoon can’t possibly be long enough. Of course, as I reported some weeks ago the Mercer daughters had already joined the board of a (similar?) company with several other CA execs, and no doubt the skulduggery will continue. But still, hopefully it’s a blow against the empire.
Whichever of those two ways you look at it, let’s hope that more and more people realise that if you’re going to dine with Trump, the spoon can’t possibly be long enough. Of course, as I reported some weeks ago the Mercer daughters had already joined the board of a (similar?) company with several other CA execs, and no doubt the skulduggery will continue. But still, hopefully it’s a blow against the empire.
You know, if only the decent world had very thick coated bonded paper for their anti-Fascism protest signs back when Fascists had some sense of shame and weren’t afraid to butcher the Other in public when the latter giggled over the former’s antics, we could have avoided slitting Mussolini’s belly open and letting him bleed out in the public square, because he would have been a tender conservative snowflake too and taken the sign home and shot at it in private, like our little example here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI4kJf-BGbI
So, speaking of bleeding out, what about this conservative principle spreading throughout government like a conservative gummint-sanctioned hemorrhage throughout a Margaret Atwood novel:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/charter-school-bathroom-policy-periods_us_5ae7a19be4b04aa23f26463c
But, let me add to the monthly irritability, not for the innocent girls, but for conservative ass wipes among us, nationally:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0_pm8Sl0rQ
Before last week, I didn’t know Michelle Wolfe from Robert Conrad and I’m not too hot on her schtick, but I did some hunting around and she’s growing on me. When Dean Martin rises from the dead, may she be invited to his roasts to tell Rickles exactly where to put his tongue in Sinatra’s taint.
Here’s a white male republican conservative c*nt, above a certain age, approximately three years old: “Well, you know it makes poifect business sense, from a bottom-line point of view, what have you, to charge more for the Other of the contradictory gender for their irregular ladies’ problems and maybe even designate ‘does problems oveh haeh, as a watchamacallit, a preexisting and very, very profitable condition, so that ipso fatso, our political donors and their shareholders will be in the money, in the money, lend it spend it buy a boat and let them die broke, cause it’s the American way.”
Why, Ayn Rand, herself, sent $500 each and a soiled bedsheet to John Galt, Donald mp’s father, and the John Birch Society to prove that Dagney Taggart was a girl who could put her lips together and blow with the prevailing winds.
Now, inevitably, this brings me to the Second Amendment.
Look here, at this republican snowflake who suddenly realized the possible and potential discourteousness of an armed society governed by a*shole, jagoff clowns:
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/mo-brooks-says-republicans-are-resigning-because-of-assassination-fears
What, I ask you, did they think was going to happen after the past 40 years of republican vermin at every level of gummint encouraging every trigger-happy galoot and underaged backstage blowjob rock and roll aggrandizer, I’m talking to you Nugent and your fat f*ck bass player Huckabee and and loverboy Greitans, to govern us with their low-taxed d*cks?
So mea culpa, I have been wrong about the Second Amendment all these years.
It works, to dis-encourage, in a therapeutic way, as is my wont, a*shole republicans from governing me.
The beauty of it is, the supreme excellence of the Founders’ completely unexamined, unintentional bullshit, despite their coagulated phrasing with the seven commas in the text of the Second Amendment, conservatives own weaponry, much of it of military grade, and liberals, by and large, don’t.
And yet, conservative politicians are asceared of being shot in the head.
What gives? Hanh??
Are they asceared of being shot in the head by their fellow republican vermin they have armed to the teeth, or by pansy, unarmed liberals?
Apparently, I belong to a militia, a fearsome one, and one that didn’t even require that I buy a weapon and and a clip and ammo so conservative a*sholes stay the f*ck away from the institutions that govern me.
But regarding the charter school and the intimacy of their intrusion of their female students.
Say, my daughter is a student at that “school”.
She comes home, her clothes soiled.
Say, I own an AR-15.
What do you think is going to happen?
At the very least, I’m not going through the PTA on this.
Now, some will say, well, Rahm Emanual is a faggot Democrat and so .. stop right there.
Democrats who adopt conservative principles are merely the first casualties.
You know, if only the decent world had very thick coated bonded paper for their anti-Fascism protest signs back when Fascists had some sense of shame and weren’t afraid to butcher the Other in public when the latter giggled over the former’s antics, we could have avoided slitting Mussolini’s belly open and letting him bleed out in the public square, because he would have been a tender conservative snowflake too and taken the sign home and shot at it in private, like our little example here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gI4kJf-BGbI
So, speaking of bleeding out, what about this conservative principle spreading throughout government like a conservative gummint-sanctioned hemorrhage throughout a Margaret Atwood novel:
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/charter-school-bathroom-policy-periods_us_5ae7a19be4b04aa23f26463c
But, let me add to the monthly irritability, not for the innocent girls, but for conservative ass wipes among us, nationally:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0_pm8Sl0rQ
Before last week, I didn’t know Michelle Wolfe from Robert Conrad and I’m not too hot on her schtick, but I did some hunting around and she’s growing on me. When Dean Martin rises from the dead, may she be invited to his roasts to tell Rickles exactly where to put his tongue in Sinatra’s taint.
Here’s a white male republican conservative c*nt, above a certain age, approximately three years old: “Well, you know it makes poifect business sense, from a bottom-line point of view, what have you, to charge more for the Other of the contradictory gender for their irregular ladies’ problems and maybe even designate ‘does problems oveh haeh, as a watchamacallit, a preexisting and very, very profitable condition, so that ipso fatso, our political donors and their shareholders will be in the money, in the money, lend it spend it buy a boat and let them die broke, cause it’s the American way.”
Why, Ayn Rand, herself, sent $500 each and a soiled bedsheet to John Galt, Donald mp’s father, and the John Birch Society to prove that Dagney Taggart was a girl who could put her lips together and blow with the prevailing winds.
Now, inevitably, this brings me to the Second Amendment.
Look here, at this republican snowflake who suddenly realized the possible and potential discourteousness of an armed society governed by a*shole, jagoff clowns:
https://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/mo-brooks-says-republicans-are-resigning-because-of-assassination-fears
What, I ask you, did they think was going to happen after the past 40 years of republican vermin at every level of gummint encouraging every trigger-happy galoot and underaged backstage blowjob rock and roll aggrandizer, I’m talking to you Nugent and your fat f*ck bass player Huckabee and and loverboy Greitans, to govern us with their low-taxed d*cks?
So mea culpa, I have been wrong about the Second Amendment all these years.
It works, to dis-encourage, in a therapeutic way, as is my wont, a*shole republicans from governing me.
The beauty of it is, the supreme excellence of the Founders’ completely unexamined, unintentional bullshit, despite their coagulated phrasing with the seven commas in the text of the Second Amendment, conservatives own weaponry, much of it of military grade, and liberals, by and large, don’t.
And yet, conservative politicians are asceared of being shot in the head.
What gives? Hanh??
Are they asceared of being shot in the head by their fellow republican vermin they have armed to the teeth, or by pansy, unarmed liberals?
Apparently, I belong to a militia, a fearsome one, and one that didn’t even require that I buy a weapon and and a clip and ammo so conservative a*sholes stay the f*ck away from the institutions that govern me.
But regarding the charter school and the intimacy of their intrusion of their female students.
Say, my daughter is a student at that “school”.
She comes home, her clothes soiled.
Say, I own an AR-15.
What do you think is going to happen?
At the very least, I’m not going through the PTA on this.
Now, some will say, well, Rahm Emanual is a faggot Democrat and so .. stop right there.
Democrats who adopt conservative principles are merely the first casualties.
This is how business is done by bucket shops and crime families:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/05/02/breaking-literally-cambridge-analytica-skitters-away/
And this:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ryan-warns-of-subpoenas-if-democrats-take-back-control-of-the-house
No, Paulie, after the subpeonas and the dotting of the legal i’s and the crossing of the rule of law t’s, there will be firing squads.
Months and months of them.
We know that you used Russian sezinformatsiya in your stolen re-election campaign, Paulie TwoFaces.
This is how business is done by bucket shops and crime families:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/05/02/breaking-literally-cambridge-analytica-skitters-away/
And this:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ryan-warns-of-subpoenas-if-democrats-take-back-control-of-the-house
No, Paulie, after the subpeonas and the dotting of the legal i’s and the crossing of the rule of law t’s, there will be firing squads.
Months and months of them.
We know that you used Russian sezinformatsiya in your stolen re-election campaign, Paulie TwoFaces.
The republican vermin candidates for the firing squads shouldn’t voluntarily stand in perfect formation and ask for a last cigarette, like maybe they are going to enjoy their executions:
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/05/mulvaney-mulls-option-of-moving-cfpb-into-basement-or-dallas/
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/05/how-many-civilians-did-trump-kill-in-drone-strikes-last-year/
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/05/ukraine-and-trump-a-match-made-in-heaven/
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/05/quote-of-the-day-health-insurance-is-cratering-thanks-to-donald-trump/
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a20123769/scott-pruitt-staff-quit/
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/cnn-mike-pence-s-physician-informed-white-house-of-dr-ronny-jackson-s-behavior-last-fall.html
By the way, Jackson was chosen by mp especially so that he could intimidate, harass and threaten the good people at the VA, because republicans believe government employees are just a bunch of niggers.
Tell you what, I’m a sporting man. We’ll skip the formalities, count to ten and republicans can run for their lives.
We’ll hunt you down.
The republican vermin candidates for the firing squads shouldn’t voluntarily stand in perfect formation and ask for a last cigarette, like maybe they are going to enjoy their executions:
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/05/mulvaney-mulls-option-of-moving-cfpb-into-basement-or-dallas/
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/05/how-many-civilians-did-trump-kill-in-drone-strikes-last-year/
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/05/ukraine-and-trump-a-match-made-in-heaven/
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/05/quote-of-the-day-health-insurance-is-cratering-thanks-to-donald-trump/
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a20123769/scott-pruitt-staff-quit/
https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/hospital-management-administration/cnn-mike-pence-s-physician-informed-white-house-of-dr-ronny-jackson-s-behavior-last-fall.html
By the way, Jackson was chosen by mp especially so that he could intimidate, harass and threaten the good people at the VA, because republicans believe government employees are just a bunch of niggers.
Tell you what, I’m a sporting man. We’ll skip the formalities, count to ten and republicans can run for their lives.
We’ll hunt you down.
Thanks for this, Count. I realize that outrage may not get us anywhere, but it belongs here nevertheless.
Thanks for this, Count. I realize that outrage may not get us anywhere, but it belongs here nevertheless.
i’ve been in the habit of calling for reasonable conservatives to fix the (R) party.
actually, i think it’s too late.
i’ve been in the habit of calling for reasonable conservatives to fix the (R) party.
actually, i think it’s too late.
What is stupidity?
Go long popcorn futures.
What is stupidity?
Go long popcorn futures.
Bobby, O M G!
Just when you think they can’t find another foot to shoot themselves in, they show you how utterly lacking your imagination is.
Bobby, O M G!
Just when you think they can’t find another foot to shoot themselves in, they show you how utterly lacking your imagination is.
I recommend that anyone particularly interested in the Cambridge Analytica story follow Carole Cadwalladr of the Guardian/Observer on twitter. She is the journalist who painstakingly worked on this for over a year, and who “owns” this story according to the other news organisations.
I recommend that anyone particularly interested in the Cambridge Analytica story follow Carole Cadwalladr of the Guardian/Observer on twitter. She is the journalist who painstakingly worked on this for over a year, and who “owns” this story according to the other news organisations.
HIllary Clinton’s Trickle Down America
Pretty much explains how I feel about a lot of stuff: urbanization, suburbs. energy policy. What cities are about.
“The relative powerlessness of Trickle-Down America’s foreign-born workers* is a big part of what’s made its cosmopolitan cities so attractive to high-skill professionals. Because low-skill immigrant workers are willing to work for such low wages, they lower the cost to skilled professionals of outsourcing various household tasks, and so they make it easier for these skilled professionals to work longer hours.”
“For now, though, Trickle-Down America’s affluent professionals find themselves in a sweet spot, which surely accounts for some of Clinton’s triumphalism. The food is better. Beautiful old houses are being renovated everywhere you turn. An abundance of low-wage immigrant labor adds diversity and dynamism to cosmopolitan cities, yet the noncitizen working class isn’t in a position to press for a more egalitarian social order—one that could prove discomfiting for local elites. Best of all, opposition to Trump is helping to obscure simmering discontent over Trickle-Down America’s business model.”
*concentrated in cities and Democratic areas
Basically, the Democratic party is the (wage) slavery party, flattering themselves with the diversity of the women with whips like Clinton.
HIllary Clinton’s Trickle Down America
Pretty much explains how I feel about a lot of stuff: urbanization, suburbs. energy policy. What cities are about.
“The relative powerlessness of Trickle-Down America’s foreign-born workers* is a big part of what’s made its cosmopolitan cities so attractive to high-skill professionals. Because low-skill immigrant workers are willing to work for such low wages, they lower the cost to skilled professionals of outsourcing various household tasks, and so they make it easier for these skilled professionals to work longer hours.”
“For now, though, Trickle-Down America’s affluent professionals find themselves in a sweet spot, which surely accounts for some of Clinton’s triumphalism. The food is better. Beautiful old houses are being renovated everywhere you turn. An abundance of low-wage immigrant labor adds diversity and dynamism to cosmopolitan cities, yet the noncitizen working class isn’t in a position to press for a more egalitarian social order—one that could prove discomfiting for local elites. Best of all, opposition to Trump is helping to obscure simmering discontent over Trickle-Down America’s business model.”
*concentrated in cities and Democratic areas
Basically, the Democratic party is the (wage) slavery party, flattering themselves with the diversity of the women with whips like Clinton.
stop me at the point you think the GOP would have closed the government, burned DC to the ground, and stormed the White House to remove Obama.
The President had an extra-marital affair.
With a porn star.
In the weeks after his third wife, …
… an illegal immigrant, …
… gave birth.
Thugs were sent to threaten her and her child.
He then conspired with his mobbed-up lawyer.
To pay the porn star $130,000.
On the eve of the election.
To keep quiet about the affair.
He used a pseudonym on the contract.
As he often did in his dealings.
This wasn’t the first mistress he bought the silence of.
He denied having anything to do with the contract or with this porn star.
The payment is either a campaign finance violation.
Or money laundering.
Or didn’t happen.
Depending on which story you believe.
stop me at the point you think the GOP would have closed the government, burned DC to the ground, and stormed the White House to remove Obama.
The President had an extra-marital affair.
With a porn star.
In the weeks after his third wife, …
… an illegal immigrant, …
… gave birth.
Thugs were sent to threaten her and her child.
He then conspired with his mobbed-up lawyer.
To pay the porn star $130,000.
On the eve of the election.
To keep quiet about the affair.
He used a pseudonym on the contract.
As he often did in his dealings.
This wasn’t the first mistress he bought the silence of.
He denied having anything to do with the contract or with this porn star.
The payment is either a campaign finance violation.
Or money laundering.
Or didn’t happen.
Depending on which story you believe.
you know how demonizing the hard-working, church-going, weekend-hunting yeomen and -women of middle America has created disaffection and resentment and given us Donald J Trump?
bitching about those hypocritical liberal coastal elites isn’t gonna get you anywhere, either.
if you don’t like cities, don’t live in one. it’s a big country, there are plenty of other options.
enough of this shit, please.
you know how demonizing the hard-working, church-going, weekend-hunting yeomen and -women of middle America has created disaffection and resentment and given us Donald J Trump?
bitching about those hypocritical liberal coastal elites isn’t gonna get you anywhere, either.
if you don’t like cities, don’t live in one. it’s a big country, there are plenty of other options.
enough of this shit, please.
No, Russell, you are not going to get me to stop criticizing corporate urban Democrats in the middle of party infighting and fucking primary season, though I can tell you’re working up to getting me banned, and experience tells me that if an incident can’t be found, one will get manufactured.
Ghost of New Democrats Are Still Haunting
“Consider, for instance, a long-standing New Democrat named Elaine Kamarck. She’s one of only a few people (all of them Clinton 2016 primary supporters) on both the DNC’s Unity Reform Commission and its powerful Rules and Bylaws Committee—which will meet in Washington next week to vote on such matters as superdelegates to the 2020 Democratic National Convention.”
That makes sense, when you consider that Kamarck is working to lower corporate taxes. She’s co-chair of the big business organization RATE (Reforming America’s Taxes Equitably) Coalition, which has the explicit mission of “reducing the corporate income tax rate.”
No, Russell, you are not going to get me to stop criticizing corporate urban Democrats in the middle of party infighting and fucking primary season, though I can tell you’re working up to getting me banned, and experience tells me that if an incident can’t be found, one will get manufactured.
Ghost of New Democrats Are Still Haunting
“Consider, for instance, a long-standing New Democrat named Elaine Kamarck. She’s one of only a few people (all of them Clinton 2016 primary supporters) on both the DNC’s Unity Reform Commission and its powerful Rules and Bylaws Committee—which will meet in Washington next week to vote on such matters as superdelegates to the 2020 Democratic National Convention.”
That makes sense, when you consider that Kamarck is working to lower corporate taxes. She’s co-chair of the big business organization RATE (Reforming America’s Taxes Equitably) Coalition, which has the explicit mission of “reducing the corporate income tax rate.”
bitching about those hypocritical liberal coastal elites isn’t gonna get you anywhere, either.
So who is that analog to Trump for liberal coastal elites with hurt feelings? Would this person have to be a scrupulously ethical and moral, devoutly monogamous college professor who eschews any false pretense of religiosity and believes strongly in economic and political globalism? A humble and even-tempered person with simple but impeccable taste and a large vocabulary? Should this person have a naturally thick and lustrous head of hair, or should this person embrace baldness without a hint of vanity?
bitching about those hypocritical liberal coastal elites isn’t gonna get you anywhere, either.
So who is that analog to Trump for liberal coastal elites with hurt feelings? Would this person have to be a scrupulously ethical and moral, devoutly monogamous college professor who eschews any false pretense of religiosity and believes strongly in economic and political globalism? A humble and even-tempered person with simple but impeccable taste and a large vocabulary? Should this person have a naturally thick and lustrous head of hair, or should this person embrace baldness without a hint of vanity?
I can tell you’re working up to getting me banned
?!?
Nope.
Carry on as you wish. I’m not a fan of “New Democrats” either, and I don’t care all that much if you hate on Hilary. Live it up.
I think the whole “coastal elite vs worthy heartlander” thing is stupid and non-productive. Most of us “coastal elites” get our asses out of bed and go to work every day, like everyone else. We have Wall St, middle America has agriculture and consumer retail and oil and gas and a pretty big slice of manufacturing. We have Hollywood, middle America has Nashville and Sinclair and ClearChannel.
I call it even. If you don’t like arugula, don’t eat it. If you don’t want a meat and three, don’t order one. If you want a gun, I don’t really care, just learn how to use it safely and don’t wave it around like an asshole.
A chacun son gout.
If we can keep the conversation on substance, and not so much on culture, I’ll appreciate it.
I can tell you’re working up to getting me banned
?!?
Nope.
Carry on as you wish. I’m not a fan of “New Democrats” either, and I don’t care all that much if you hate on Hilary. Live it up.
I think the whole “coastal elite vs worthy heartlander” thing is stupid and non-productive. Most of us “coastal elites” get our asses out of bed and go to work every day, like everyone else. We have Wall St, middle America has agriculture and consumer retail and oil and gas and a pretty big slice of manufacturing. We have Hollywood, middle America has Nashville and Sinclair and ClearChannel.
I call it even. If you don’t like arugula, don’t eat it. If you don’t want a meat and three, don’t order one. If you want a gun, I don’t really care, just learn how to use it safely and don’t wave it around like an asshole.
A chacun son gout.
If we can keep the conversation on substance, and not so much on culture, I’ll appreciate it.
“Because low-skill immigrant workers are willing to work for such low wages, they lower the cost to skilled professionals of outsourcing various household tasks, and so they make it easier for these skilled professionals to work longer hours.”
I might be someone who would be classified as one of those ‘skilled professionals’ and my background means that I know others who I think would be classified in that group. Yet I and the people I know don’t have an army of nannies, yardboys, pool cleaners etc waiting on us hand and foot. I’m sure there are skilled professionals who have household help that then allows them to work longer hours. But I don’t think that they make up enough of a statistically significant portion of the phenomenon to bear the weight that the writer and you are ascribing to it, making it more like ressentiment than an actual analysis of the situation.
My take is that when you make life shitty in other countries, as US foreign policy is wont to do, you create this situation. Someone once said ‘one thing you have to remember, an immigrant’s shittiest day in the US is better than their best day back in their home country’ Certainly, the current admin is doing their best to make that shittiest day here worse than the best day at home (I do think setting it up so migrants die in the desert of thirst is one way to do that), but as long as there is a gap between the haves and the have nots, this is going to be a problem. But making the ‘skilled professionals’ out to be haves and you out to be a have not doesn’t really provide anything in the way of explanatory power.
“Because low-skill immigrant workers are willing to work for such low wages, they lower the cost to skilled professionals of outsourcing various household tasks, and so they make it easier for these skilled professionals to work longer hours.”
I might be someone who would be classified as one of those ‘skilled professionals’ and my background means that I know others who I think would be classified in that group. Yet I and the people I know don’t have an army of nannies, yardboys, pool cleaners etc waiting on us hand and foot. I’m sure there are skilled professionals who have household help that then allows them to work longer hours. But I don’t think that they make up enough of a statistically significant portion of the phenomenon to bear the weight that the writer and you are ascribing to it, making it more like ressentiment than an actual analysis of the situation.
My take is that when you make life shitty in other countries, as US foreign policy is wont to do, you create this situation. Someone once said ‘one thing you have to remember, an immigrant’s shittiest day in the US is better than their best day back in their home country’ Certainly, the current admin is doing their best to make that shittiest day here worse than the best day at home (I do think setting it up so migrants die in the desert of thirst is one way to do that), but as long as there is a gap between the haves and the have nots, this is going to be a problem. But making the ‘skilled professionals’ out to be haves and you out to be a have not doesn’t really provide anything in the way of explanatory power.
I might be someone who would be classified as one of those ‘skilled professionals’ and my background means that I know others who I think would be classified in that group. Yet I and the people I know don’t have an army of nannies, yardboys, pool cleaners etc waiting on us hand and foot.
Ditto. I get about as far as folks went when I was growing up and had a neighborhood kid (i.e. someone way cheaper to hire than an adult) mow the lawn every week.
I might be someone who would be classified as one of those ‘skilled professionals’ and my background means that I know others who I think would be classified in that group. Yet I and the people I know don’t have an army of nannies, yardboys, pool cleaners etc waiting on us hand and foot.
Ditto. I get about as far as folks went when I was growing up and had a neighborhood kid (i.e. someone way cheaper to hire than an adult) mow the lawn every week.
I am apparently exactly the kind of person mcmanus’ article is talking about.
I work with software. I make pretty good money. Not tech-start-up equity payday money, just pretty good money. A salary.
My wife and I hire someone who cleans our house every other week. We hire a lawn service to do spring cleanup.
We pay the cleaning woman $100. It takes her about 3 hours, so she is grossing $30+/hour. She and her husband had a pretty good business of some kind back in Brazil, now she cleans house, which lets her work her own hours and get paid in cash, and her husband has a small construction business. I think they do OK.
I don’t know what we pay the lawn guy. His crew are a combination of people who look like Aztecs, and white guys who seem like they need to learn some basic life skills. The Aztecs kick ass, the white guys not so much. I imagine they make $15-$30 an hour. My wife used to do the clean-ups herself, but she’s in her late 60’s and it kicks the crap out of her, so we pay some guys.
I mow my own lawn. I used to hire the kid down the street – $10, it took him half an hour, good money for an 11 year old kid. He grew out of it, his kid brother took over, but kid brother didn’t really do a good job. So, I do it myself now.
I used to shovel my own snow, but when I turned 60 I figured I’d hire a guy. We use a guy named Garcia, who lives in Lynn. I forget what we pay him, but it’s probably $50, double that if the storm is more than 8″ of snow. We don’t have a long driveway. He took over from a guy in Salem – a white guy, Salem townie, has a construction business – who did a better job, frankly, for less $$$. For Salem guy it was a way to make extra $$$ on days when he wasn’t going to be on the job site anyway. Salem guy decided to take his snow days off, so now it’s Garcia.
It’s true, hiring these people means my wife and I can do other stuff. For me, it means I can work 55-65 hours a week, which I do, all the time. Been doing it for about 35 years, I’ll keep doing it until I hit full retirement. For my wife it mostly means time to run the house and do volunteer stuff, which she does a lot of .
For my 55-65 hour weeks, I live in an 1800 sf ranch with no garage, on a 1/8 acre lot. Zillow tells me my house is worth a little over half a million bucks, which IMO is freaking insane, but it is what it is. It’s a nice house, we like it, but it’s nothing special. I drive a Mazda 5. My wife drives a Honda Insight, because she’s a wicked tree-hugger. Every couple of years we take a two-week vacation and go somewhere nice. We’re on track to have the house paid off by the time I retire.
So hell yeah, I’m a pretty well paid urban coastal elite white guy with a tech job living in the burbs, and my wife and I employ some folks to do some stuff for us. Some of those folks are brown, some are immigrants. They actually don’t seem to mind having the work.
If anyone from the heartland wants to come work 60+ hours a week to pay half a million bucks for a medium sized ranch on a postage stamp of land, I’m sure they could do it. Oh yeah, I have a short commute now, but for most of my career I spent about 2 hours a day in my car, going to and from work. Just part of the gig.
Many of the folks my wife and I hire weren’t born here. They have funny names, speak some other language, have darker skin than we do. Oddly enough, more than half the folks I work with at my fabulous tech gig were born somewhere else, have funny names, speak some other language, and have darker skin than I do. Funny, that. Personally, I enjoy it. I don’t want to live where everyone is just like me. To each his or her own.
Here are some things I don’t do.
I don’t fish. I don’t hunt. I don’t play golf. Other than playing music, I have no hobbies. I don’t have a boat, I don’t go camping. I don’t go to big concerts, I don’t go to professional sports events. If I’m not working, I’m probably reading about something work-related.
If I had the time, and I wasn’t working or reading something work-related, I’d be practicing vibraphone and studying be-bop. What can I say, I like a challenge.
mcmanus’ article was actually kind of right on in many ways. Population density creates problems. Wealth inequality creates problems. Let’s solve those problems.
Just leave the culture war crap out of it. It serves no purpose other than to make people pissed off at each other.
Most folks who “live in the heartland” don’t want to do what I do, for the length of time I do it, for what I get out of it. If they wanted to, they could. They probably don’t. They don’t want the long hours, the deadlines, the constant pressure to keep ahead of a changing industry. They don’t want the crowds, the traffic, the annoying regulatory BS of living in a densely populated area. They don’t want the hassle. That’s great. If it ain’t your thing, do something else.
I don’t mind it. So, this is what I do.
To each his or her own.
I am apparently exactly the kind of person mcmanus’ article is talking about.
I work with software. I make pretty good money. Not tech-start-up equity payday money, just pretty good money. A salary.
My wife and I hire someone who cleans our house every other week. We hire a lawn service to do spring cleanup.
We pay the cleaning woman $100. It takes her about 3 hours, so she is grossing $30+/hour. She and her husband had a pretty good business of some kind back in Brazil, now she cleans house, which lets her work her own hours and get paid in cash, and her husband has a small construction business. I think they do OK.
I don’t know what we pay the lawn guy. His crew are a combination of people who look like Aztecs, and white guys who seem like they need to learn some basic life skills. The Aztecs kick ass, the white guys not so much. I imagine they make $15-$30 an hour. My wife used to do the clean-ups herself, but she’s in her late 60’s and it kicks the crap out of her, so we pay some guys.
I mow my own lawn. I used to hire the kid down the street – $10, it took him half an hour, good money for an 11 year old kid. He grew out of it, his kid brother took over, but kid brother didn’t really do a good job. So, I do it myself now.
I used to shovel my own snow, but when I turned 60 I figured I’d hire a guy. We use a guy named Garcia, who lives in Lynn. I forget what we pay him, but it’s probably $50, double that if the storm is more than 8″ of snow. We don’t have a long driveway. He took over from a guy in Salem – a white guy, Salem townie, has a construction business – who did a better job, frankly, for less $$$. For Salem guy it was a way to make extra $$$ on days when he wasn’t going to be on the job site anyway. Salem guy decided to take his snow days off, so now it’s Garcia.
It’s true, hiring these people means my wife and I can do other stuff. For me, it means I can work 55-65 hours a week, which I do, all the time. Been doing it for about 35 years, I’ll keep doing it until I hit full retirement. For my wife it mostly means time to run the house and do volunteer stuff, which she does a lot of .
For my 55-65 hour weeks, I live in an 1800 sf ranch with no garage, on a 1/8 acre lot. Zillow tells me my house is worth a little over half a million bucks, which IMO is freaking insane, but it is what it is. It’s a nice house, we like it, but it’s nothing special. I drive a Mazda 5. My wife drives a Honda Insight, because she’s a wicked tree-hugger. Every couple of years we take a two-week vacation and go somewhere nice. We’re on track to have the house paid off by the time I retire.
So hell yeah, I’m a pretty well paid urban coastal elite white guy with a tech job living in the burbs, and my wife and I employ some folks to do some stuff for us. Some of those folks are brown, some are immigrants. They actually don’t seem to mind having the work.
If anyone from the heartland wants to come work 60+ hours a week to pay half a million bucks for a medium sized ranch on a postage stamp of land, I’m sure they could do it. Oh yeah, I have a short commute now, but for most of my career I spent about 2 hours a day in my car, going to and from work. Just part of the gig.
Many of the folks my wife and I hire weren’t born here. They have funny names, speak some other language, have darker skin than we do. Oddly enough, more than half the folks I work with at my fabulous tech gig were born somewhere else, have funny names, speak some other language, and have darker skin than I do. Funny, that. Personally, I enjoy it. I don’t want to live where everyone is just like me. To each his or her own.
Here are some things I don’t do.
I don’t fish. I don’t hunt. I don’t play golf. Other than playing music, I have no hobbies. I don’t have a boat, I don’t go camping. I don’t go to big concerts, I don’t go to professional sports events. If I’m not working, I’m probably reading about something work-related.
If I had the time, and I wasn’t working or reading something work-related, I’d be practicing vibraphone and studying be-bop. What can I say, I like a challenge.
mcmanus’ article was actually kind of right on in many ways. Population density creates problems. Wealth inequality creates problems. Let’s solve those problems.
Just leave the culture war crap out of it. It serves no purpose other than to make people pissed off at each other.
Most folks who “live in the heartland” don’t want to do what I do, for the length of time I do it, for what I get out of it. If they wanted to, they could. They probably don’t. They don’t want the long hours, the deadlines, the constant pressure to keep ahead of a changing industry. They don’t want the crowds, the traffic, the annoying regulatory BS of living in a densely populated area. They don’t want the hassle. That’s great. If it ain’t your thing, do something else.
I don’t mind it. So, this is what I do.
To each his or her own.
also, not for nothing, but the author of the article might want to check the native language and skin color of the people who are picking lettuce and packing meat out their in the worthy heartland.
and the author might want to check out whose pockets the value created by those folks’ labor lands in .
also, not for nothing, but the author of the article might want to check the native language and skin color of the people who are picking lettuce and packing meat out their in the worthy heartland.
and the author might want to check out whose pockets the value created by those folks’ labor lands in .
Just leave the culture war crap out of it.
I didn’t really see much culture-warring in that article. It was mostly about Clinton’s and other Democratic leaders’ positions and the economics of it. Same with mcmanus’ comment. I didn’t see much in the way of blame being laid upon the people on the high-income side of the urban economic divide, just a matter-of-fact presentation of how they benefit from it. It was focused on “the system” AFAICT.
Just leave the culture war crap out of it.
I didn’t really see much culture-warring in that article. It was mostly about Clinton’s and other Democratic leaders’ positions and the economics of it. Same with mcmanus’ comment. I didn’t see much in the way of blame being laid upon the people on the high-income side of the urban economic divide, just a matter-of-fact presentation of how they benefit from it. It was focused on “the system” AFAICT.
I didn’t really see much culture-warring in that article.
ok, really?
Trickle-Down America’s affluent professionals find themselves in a sweet spot, which surely accounts for some of Clinton’s triumphalism. The food is better. Beautiful old houses are being renovated everywhere you turn. An abundance of low-wage immigrant labor adds diversity and dynamism to cosmopolitan cities, yet the noncitizen working class isn’t in a position to press for a more egalitarian social order—one that could prove discomfiting for local elites.
“The food is better”?
“Beautiful houses are being renovated?”
It’s like everyplace is freaking Park Slope.
Who are these elites?
How do they benefit from the “urban economic divide”?
There aren’t any wealthy people outside of the cities?
What proportion of people outside the cities are wealthy, compared to the proportion who are not?
From the US Census : Quintiles of GINI index in the US by county. Blue indicates a high degree of inequality.
Proximity to oceans has bugger-all to do with it. Proximity to cities, for that matter, has bugger-all to do with it.
The whole piece is about contrasting “Trickle-Down America”, which is to say politically liberal urban America, with “Stagnant America”, which is to say politically conservative rural America.
Relatively urban areas tend to be politically liberal because liberal politics in the US is associated with more activist government. Relatively rural areas, the opposite. In high population density areas, it makes more sense to do things through public effort, because the critical mass is there to make it relatively more efficient to do them that way.
If there’s more to say about than that, I’m not aware of it.
To my eye, the article is claptrap, and is harmful on top of it, because it furthers the agenda of dividing the nation on an urban/rural basis.
Which, in turn, is the primary engine of the freaking culture war in this country.
I didn’t really see much culture-warring in that article.
ok, really?
Trickle-Down America’s affluent professionals find themselves in a sweet spot, which surely accounts for some of Clinton’s triumphalism. The food is better. Beautiful old houses are being renovated everywhere you turn. An abundance of low-wage immigrant labor adds diversity and dynamism to cosmopolitan cities, yet the noncitizen working class isn’t in a position to press for a more egalitarian social order—one that could prove discomfiting for local elites.
“The food is better”?
“Beautiful houses are being renovated?”
It’s like everyplace is freaking Park Slope.
Who are these elites?
How do they benefit from the “urban economic divide”?
There aren’t any wealthy people outside of the cities?
What proportion of people outside the cities are wealthy, compared to the proportion who are not?
From the US Census : Quintiles of GINI index in the US by county. Blue indicates a high degree of inequality.
Proximity to oceans has bugger-all to do with it. Proximity to cities, for that matter, has bugger-all to do with it.
The whole piece is about contrasting “Trickle-Down America”, which is to say politically liberal urban America, with “Stagnant America”, which is to say politically conservative rural America.
Relatively urban areas tend to be politically liberal because liberal politics in the US is associated with more activist government. Relatively rural areas, the opposite. In high population density areas, it makes more sense to do things through public effort, because the critical mass is there to make it relatively more efficient to do them that way.
If there’s more to say about than that, I’m not aware of it.
To my eye, the article is claptrap, and is harmful on top of it, because it furthers the agenda of dividing the nation on an urban/rural basis.
Which, in turn, is the primary engine of the freaking culture war in this country.
shorter me:
I’m tired of arguing about the cartoon version. Can we please talk about the realities.
People who have a lot of money, relative to whatever it costs to live wherever they happen to live, have it pretty good. Quite often they like it that way, and want to keep it that way.
People who don’t have a lot of money, relative to whatever it costs to live where they live, don’t always have it so good. Quite often they aren’t that happy about it, and would like things to change if they can.
The distribution of wealth and income in this country are highly unequal, such that a fairly small number of people have a whole lot of money – really, truly, a lot, more than they will ever be able to make use of in any way that will make a meaningful difference in their own lives. And, probably 10 to 20 percent of the population is going pretty good, by which I mean they are basically financially secure. And everyone else is somewhere between just about keeping up and not really keeping up at all.
How do we change that, so that the wealth that is created in this country gets spread around more evenly.
Let’s talk about that.
Not about city vs rural, or red vs blue, or whether you like NASCAR or opera.
Let’s talk about that spreading the money around thing.
Thanks
shorter me:
I’m tired of arguing about the cartoon version. Can we please talk about the realities.
People who have a lot of money, relative to whatever it costs to live wherever they happen to live, have it pretty good. Quite often they like it that way, and want to keep it that way.
People who don’t have a lot of money, relative to whatever it costs to live where they live, don’t always have it so good. Quite often they aren’t that happy about it, and would like things to change if they can.
The distribution of wealth and income in this country are highly unequal, such that a fairly small number of people have a whole lot of money – really, truly, a lot, more than they will ever be able to make use of in any way that will make a meaningful difference in their own lives. And, probably 10 to 20 percent of the population is going pretty good, by which I mean they are basically financially secure. And everyone else is somewhere between just about keeping up and not really keeping up at all.
How do we change that, so that the wealth that is created in this country gets spread around more evenly.
Let’s talk about that.
Not about city vs rural, or red vs blue, or whether you like NASCAR or opera.
Let’s talk about that spreading the money around thing.
Thanks
How do we change that, so that the wealth that is created in this country gets spread around more evenly.
One thing we shouldn’t do is, of course what the Trump administration is allowing, to create racially discriminatory effects in public programs.
How do we change that, so that the wealth that is created in this country gets spread around more evenly.
One thing we shouldn’t do is, of course what the Trump administration is allowing, to create racially discriminatory effects in public programs.
Let’s talk about that spreading the money around thing.
I AM IN!!!!! You have any? 😉
I know bobm has a honed sneer for the Jonathan Chaits of the world, and Chait has been hippie punching for decades.
THAT is what I would like to see stop.
The country is sorting out into more or less definable ideological groups….like it or not.
Go with the flow. Pick a side. Like the old Wall St. adage: Bulls make money. Bears make money. Pigs get slaughtered.
The Dem Party, as actually constituted, is further left today then it has been since the 60’s. The Green Party, as actually constituted, is a sick joke.
The GOP is well down the ethno-nationalist aggrieved white power road.
Currently, the Dems are going in the right direction. Fer christ’s sake, there is widespread discussion about ‘medicare for all’, free university education, universal child care, UBI, jobs guarantee….holy shitsky, batman.
Let’s push them to go further.
Let’s talk about that spreading the money around thing.
I AM IN!!!!! You have any? 😉
I know bobm has a honed sneer for the Jonathan Chaits of the world, and Chait has been hippie punching for decades.
THAT is what I would like to see stop.
The country is sorting out into more or less definable ideological groups….like it or not.
Go with the flow. Pick a side. Like the old Wall St. adage: Bulls make money. Bears make money. Pigs get slaughtered.
The Dem Party, as actually constituted, is further left today then it has been since the 60’s. The Green Party, as actually constituted, is a sick joke.
The GOP is well down the ethno-nationalist aggrieved white power road.
Currently, the Dems are going in the right direction. Fer christ’s sake, there is widespread discussion about ‘medicare for all’, free university education, universal child care, UBI, jobs guarantee….holy shitsky, batman.
Let’s push them to go further.
The food is better”?
“Beautiful houses are being renovated?”
It’s like everyplace is freaking Park Slope.
Or like lots of places in large cities are similar to Park Slope. Even Fishtown in Philly’s getting to be … well … nice! That place was a dump 20 years ago.
Proximity to cities, for that matter, has bugger-all to do with it.
Being within cities has something to do with it. The difference on your by-county Gini Index map between cities and the other dark blue areas is that the cities stand out from their surroundings. You have high indices in larger swaths in poor parts of the country, but the counties don’t stand out much relative to the others around them. On the other hand, I can say, “Oh, there’s Cleveland. There’s Seattle. There’s Pittsburgh. There’s San Fran. There’s Minneapolis.”
If you want to solve inequality, the solutions might be different in different places with different dynamics.
That aside, if the article was anything, it was Clinton-bashing more so than a general take-down of liberal coastal elites. There was little mention of urban people generally looking down on rural America (or eating arugula). This was about it (emphasis mine):
The thing about it for me is that the points Reihan Salam (who I admit comes off like an a$$hole to me most of the time) is making is that they’re not really anything like the crap that Trump and his base are always whining about.
Where are the “real Americans”? Where are the “traditional values”? Where’s the “hard work” and “personal responsibility” and “taking care of families”? (All those things they claim to be theirs.)
That’s the culture-war crap that goes up my keester. The stuff wonkie wrote a great comment on not long ago (which I might take the time to find).
The food is better”?
“Beautiful houses are being renovated?”
It’s like everyplace is freaking Park Slope.
Or like lots of places in large cities are similar to Park Slope. Even Fishtown in Philly’s getting to be … well … nice! That place was a dump 20 years ago.
Proximity to cities, for that matter, has bugger-all to do with it.
Being within cities has something to do with it. The difference on your by-county Gini Index map between cities and the other dark blue areas is that the cities stand out from their surroundings. You have high indices in larger swaths in poor parts of the country, but the counties don’t stand out much relative to the others around them. On the other hand, I can say, “Oh, there’s Cleveland. There’s Seattle. There’s Pittsburgh. There’s San Fran. There’s Minneapolis.”
If you want to solve inequality, the solutions might be different in different places with different dynamics.
That aside, if the article was anything, it was Clinton-bashing more so than a general take-down of liberal coastal elites. There was little mention of urban people generally looking down on rural America (or eating arugula). This was about it (emphasis mine):
The thing about it for me is that the points Reihan Salam (who I admit comes off like an a$$hole to me most of the time) is making is that they’re not really anything like the crap that Trump and his base are always whining about.
Where are the “real Americans”? Where are the “traditional values”? Where’s the “hard work” and “personal responsibility” and “taking care of families”? (All those things they claim to be theirs.)
That’s the culture-war crap that goes up my keester. The stuff wonkie wrote a great comment on not long ago (which I might take the time to find).
One thing we shouldn’t do is, of course what the Trump administration is allowing
The list of things we shouldn’t do that Trump is allowing is bigger than my head can hold.
I AM IN!!!!! You have any? 😉
LOL
Most of what I got goes to the bank to pay off my mortgage, so I can retire before I get too old to learn to play Ornithology and Giant Steps.
🙂
One thing we shouldn’t do is, of course what the Trump administration is allowing
The list of things we shouldn’t do that Trump is allowing is bigger than my head can hold.
I AM IN!!!!! You have any? 😉
LOL
Most of what I got goes to the bank to pay off my mortgage, so I can retire before I get too old to learn to play Ornithology and Giant Steps.
🙂
, more than they will ever be able to make use of in any way that will make a meaningful difference in their own lives.
That wealth isn’t being wasted. It’s mostly invested to create more wealth for them and a lot of other people.
There’s no way Bill Gates could or would want to spend all his wealth on himself and his family. But he’s spending big chunks of it in efforts to make other people’s lives better. He doesn’t always get it right but he’s having a net positive affect on the world.
And his personal wealth is a small fraction of the overall wealth his company has created.
, more than they will ever be able to make use of in any way that will make a meaningful difference in their own lives.
That wealth isn’t being wasted. It’s mostly invested to create more wealth for them and a lot of other people.
There’s no way Bill Gates could or would want to spend all his wealth on himself and his family. But he’s spending big chunks of it in efforts to make other people’s lives better. He doesn’t always get it right but he’s having a net positive affect on the world.
And his personal wealth is a small fraction of the overall wealth his company has created.
There’s no way Bill Gates could or would want to spend all his wealth on himself and his family. But he’s spending big chunks of it in efforts to make other people’s lives better. He doesn’t always get it right but he’s having a net positive affect on the world.
Gates? Yes. Buffett? Yes.
Koch brothers? Mercers? etc. Not so much. They are spending their money in order to (to be generous) make people’s lives better by their own lights. But having a net positive effect on the world? Not that I can see.
There’s no way Bill Gates could or would want to spend all his wealth on himself and his family. But he’s spending big chunks of it in efforts to make other people’s lives better. He doesn’t always get it right but he’s having a net positive affect on the world.
Gates? Yes. Buffett? Yes.
Koch brothers? Mercers? etc. Not so much. They are spending their money in order to (to be generous) make people’s lives better by their own lights. But having a net positive effect on the world? Not that I can see.
But what’s ironic (maybe) about this quote:
is that it’s traditionally been a view more common among Republicans (what might be referred to as “Country Club Republicans” – Mitt Romney’s people, perhaps).
But what’s ironic (maybe) about this quote:
is that it’s traditionally been a view more common among Republicans (what might be referred to as “Country Club Republicans” – Mitt Romney’s people, perhaps).
That wealth isn’t being wasted. It’s mostly invested to create more wealth for them and a
lot offew other people.Fixed.
There’s no way Bill Gates could or would want to spend all his wealth on himself and his family. But he’s spending big chunks of it in efforts to make other people’s lives better.
Bill Gates is a representative example of what number of people? (Also, too, he doesn’t work in the FIRE sector. Bonus points for that.)
That wealth isn’t being wasted. It’s mostly invested to create more wealth for them and a
lot offew other people.Fixed.
There’s no way Bill Gates could or would want to spend all his wealth on himself and his family. But he’s spending big chunks of it in efforts to make other people’s lives better.
Bill Gates is a representative example of what number of people? (Also, too, he doesn’t work in the FIRE sector. Bonus points for that.)
There’s no way Bill Gates could or would want to spend all his wealth on himself and his family.
There is no way that Bill Gates should have been allowed to corner that much claim of our common future output (i.e., wealth).
Furthermore, as things are now, Bill Gates, not US gets to decide, all by himself, at his whims, what to do with it.
And the commons dies.
So we need to change the rules, hone down the inequalities.
If Bill had stopped at a billion the world would be a better place.
There’s no way Bill Gates could or would want to spend all his wealth on himself and his family.
There is no way that Bill Gates should have been allowed to corner that much claim of our common future output (i.e., wealth).
Furthermore, as things are now, Bill Gates, not US gets to decide, all by himself, at his whims, what to do with it.
And the commons dies.
So we need to change the rules, hone down the inequalities.
If Bill had stopped at a billion the world would be a better place.
New York City!!!???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooPBXfnIpYI
Arugula!!!??? Grown soon in …. Abilene, Texas??!!! .. too.
https://www.brightfarms.com/grow-local/
You got to fly over the rural arugula farms in California and elsewhere. Planes don’t land there.
http://www.growingproduce.com/vegetables/2014-top-25-vegetable-growers-west/
The entire “flyover country”, “coastal elites” “political correctness”, “city slicker” playbook is poisoned manure covering every square inch of the country ten feet deep from coast to coast and emitted by the conservative manure movement, located in your major metropolitan areas, to spread their fake news political e coli into the gut of every dupe and rube, regardless of location, out there.
If you think this New Yorker cartoon is solely making fun of the out-of-towner tourints, then you’ve been skipping the arugula and dining on America’s main course of lying republican pig manure at the source.
https://condenaststore.com/featured/and-coming-up-on-the-right-joe-dator.html
That tour bus guide was probably born and raised in Iowa.
Like Mickey Mantle, she went where the lights were brightest. Cause she’s probably good at something and didn’t want to end up playing Double-A ball.
Maybe she’ll move back to Iowa and start an arugula farm and make a mint. What are cracker conservatives, who know how to do nothing but pay others nothing to grow cotton, going to call her.
The cartoonist, Joe Dator, was born and raised in the Bronx.
Go ahead, tell a guy from the Bronx he’s an arugula-eating, coastal elitist.
Start running before you tell him. Drop the latte before you start running, snowflakes.
New York City!!!???
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooPBXfnIpYI
Arugula!!!??? Grown soon in …. Abilene, Texas??!!! .. too.
https://www.brightfarms.com/grow-local/
You got to fly over the rural arugula farms in California and elsewhere. Planes don’t land there.
http://www.growingproduce.com/vegetables/2014-top-25-vegetable-growers-west/
The entire “flyover country”, “coastal elites” “political correctness”, “city slicker” playbook is poisoned manure covering every square inch of the country ten feet deep from coast to coast and emitted by the conservative manure movement, located in your major metropolitan areas, to spread their fake news political e coli into the gut of every dupe and rube, regardless of location, out there.
If you think this New Yorker cartoon is solely making fun of the out-of-towner tourints, then you’ve been skipping the arugula and dining on America’s main course of lying republican pig manure at the source.
https://condenaststore.com/featured/and-coming-up-on-the-right-joe-dator.html
That tour bus guide was probably born and raised in Iowa.
Like Mickey Mantle, she went where the lights were brightest. Cause she’s probably good at something and didn’t want to end up playing Double-A ball.
Maybe she’ll move back to Iowa and start an arugula farm and make a mint. What are cracker conservatives, who know how to do nothing but pay others nothing to grow cotton, going to call her.
The cartoonist, Joe Dator, was born and raised in the Bronx.
Go ahead, tell a guy from the Bronx he’s an arugula-eating, coastal elitist.
Start running before you tell him. Drop the latte before you start running, snowflakes.
I take my arugula straight, no chaser.
I take my arugula straight, no chaser.