Awfully quiet around here.
In case you’re bored and you feel like going on a treasure hunt, some dictionary has lost its definition of sanctimony. It was last seen roaming around the countryside in the guise of a tall guy with a self-satisfied smile on his face.
Geez, what an asshole.
[Hat tip to Anne Laurie at BJ.]
[Edited to correct the link.]
I think he may have a point. If the Democrats go far enough left, it would help Trump and his supporters — if nothing else by leaving some moderates feeling like neither alternative is tolerable. At the moment, and especially given the need to win a substantial popular vote victory in order to break even in Congressional races, the Democrats need every vote they can get.
How far is “far enough left” is, of course, a matter of opinion. And the worse Trump gets** the further the threshold moves. But in principle, sanctimonious or not, Comey has got a point.
** And Trump’s ability to get ever worse shows no signs of having a limit.
I think he may have a point. If the Democrats go far enough left, it would help Trump and his supporters — if nothing else by leaving some moderates feeling like neither alternative is tolerable. At the moment, and especially given the need to win a substantial popular vote victory in order to break even in Congressional races, the Democrats need every vote they can get.
How far is “far enough left” is, of course, a matter of opinion. And the worse Trump gets** the further the threshold moves. But in principle, sanctimonious or not, Comey has got a point.
** And Trump’s ability to get ever worse shows no signs of having a limit.
first, the number of candidates for national office running to the “socialist left” is, by my count, two:
Sanders
Ocasio Cortez
they are from, respectively, Vermont and a corner of the Bronx and Queens, NYC NY. They are as representative of their constituencies as, for example, Dave Brat is of the 7th in VA.
maybe more so.
why isn’t Comey offering the (R)’s his helpful advice to not go rushing off to the RWNJ crypto-Christian faux-originalist free-market-cultist right?
that horse is out of the barn, anyway.
comey has a point. so do the DSOC folks. I’m completely sure that folks like Sanders and Ocasio Cortez will be this year’s boogiemen.
(R)’s have their own boogiemen. Want a list?
See you on election day.
And yeah, Comey’s 15 minutes are up. Time to STFU and enjoy his retirement. There’s probably a fat consulting gig somewhere with his name on it.
first, the number of candidates for national office running to the “socialist left” is, by my count, two:
Sanders
Ocasio Cortez
they are from, respectively, Vermont and a corner of the Bronx and Queens, NYC NY. They are as representative of their constituencies as, for example, Dave Brat is of the 7th in VA.
maybe more so.
why isn’t Comey offering the (R)’s his helpful advice to not go rushing off to the RWNJ crypto-Christian faux-originalist free-market-cultist right?
that horse is out of the barn, anyway.
comey has a point. so do the DSOC folks. I’m completely sure that folks like Sanders and Ocasio Cortez will be this year’s boogiemen.
(R)’s have their own boogiemen. Want a list?
See you on election day.
And yeah, Comey’s 15 minutes are up. Time to STFU and enjoy his retirement. There’s probably a fat consulting gig somewhere with his name on it.
wj, if you and Mr. Sanctimony know so much about how to influence political parties to do the right thing, why don’t you concentrate on your own?
Because it is your and his party, not just “this president’s.” It’s the Republican Party. There’s only one.
Mr. S. has no coherent point, especially given that “left” in this country apparently means public fncking libraries. I’d say he’s trolling, but given what he did in late October 2016, that would be much too complimentary.
wj, if you and Mr. Sanctimony know so much about how to influence political parties to do the right thing, why don’t you concentrate on your own?
Because it is your and his party, not just “this president’s.” It’s the Republican Party. There’s only one.
Mr. S. has no coherent point, especially given that “left” in this country apparently means public fncking libraries. I’d say he’s trolling, but given what he did in late October 2016, that would be much too complimentary.
But in principle, sanctimonious or not, Comey has got a point.
Absolutely not. For some reason, only “left wing” Democrats are subjected to such one sided analysis. Only Democrats can get hurt by going “too far” from the middle. The GOP has gone some far to the right that I defy you to even define what “the middle” consists of, and if that sweet spot keeps moving right, why on earth should voters chase it?
Bottom line, Dems need to increase turnout. Period.
But in principle, sanctimonious or not, Comey has got a point.
Absolutely not. For some reason, only “left wing” Democrats are subjected to such one sided analysis. Only Democrats can get hurt by going “too far” from the middle. The GOP has gone some far to the right that I defy you to even define what “the middle” consists of, and if that sweet spot keeps moving right, why on earth should voters chase it?
Bottom line, Dems need to increase turnout. Period.
…if nothing else by leaving some moderates feeling like neither alternative is tolerable.
We actually had a national election in 2016 that pretty much destroyed this hypothesis. Where are all these so-called ‘moderates’?
…if nothing else by leaving some moderates feeling like neither alternative is tolerable.
We actually had a national election in 2016 that pretty much destroyed this hypothesis. Where are all these so-called ‘moderates’?
Janie, I’d say Russell asked and answered that above:
That the advice not to “go rushing off to the RWNJ crypto-Christian faux-originalist free-market-cultist right” would be good advice can be seen in the descent of the GOP into permanent minority status. If it wasn’t for extensive exploitation of culture wars/racial anxiety, it would already have happened. But it’s unavoidable at this point . . . even though a race to the left by the Democrats could keep the current RWNJs going for a while longer.
Janie, I’d say Russell asked and answered that above:
That the advice not to “go rushing off to the RWNJ crypto-Christian faux-originalist free-market-cultist right” would be good advice can be seen in the descent of the GOP into permanent minority status. If it wasn’t for extensive exploitation of culture wars/racial anxiety, it would already have happened. But it’s unavoidable at this point . . . even though a race to the left by the Democrats could keep the current RWNJs going for a while longer.
If it wasn’t for extensive exploitation of culture wars/racial anxiety, it would already have happened.
If stoking the culture wars is all that is keeping the GOP afloat, then who cares if Dems make noise about Medicare for all and a jobs guarantee?
Right?
You are not making a whole lot of sense here, wj.
If it wasn’t for extensive exploitation of culture wars/racial anxiety, it would already have happened.
If stoking the culture wars is all that is keeping the GOP afloat, then who cares if Dems make noise about Medicare for all and a jobs guarantee?
Right?
You are not making a whole lot of sense here, wj.
The whole far-left/sensible middle thing seems like it breaks down if you squint at it hard enough, or, say, look at the actual policies being proposed.
I mean, the operative markers of ‘far left’ seems to be stuff like Medicare-for-all, some kind of college financing that won’t put graduates in debt for the first 3 decades of their working life, and a minimum wage that’s high enough to pay the rent and maybe gets adjusted to match the actual cost of living at least every couple of decades of or so.
The line between those being ‘liberal’ proposals and ‘good old-fashioned common-sense American can do spirit’ proposals seems pretty thin. And, dare I say, maybe slightly artificially maintained…
The whole far-left/sensible middle thing seems like it breaks down if you squint at it hard enough, or, say, look at the actual policies being proposed.
I mean, the operative markers of ‘far left’ seems to be stuff like Medicare-for-all, some kind of college financing that won’t put graduates in debt for the first 3 decades of their working life, and a minimum wage that’s high enough to pay the rent and maybe gets adjusted to match the actual cost of living at least every couple of decades of or so.
The line between those being ‘liberal’ proposals and ‘good old-fashioned common-sense American can do spirit’ proposals seems pretty thin. And, dare I say, maybe slightly artificially maintained…
what is laughable in all of this, is what qualifies as the “socialist left”.
extend medicare for all
subsidize public college tuition
define a liveable minimum wage
to the barricades!!
either harry truman or dwight eisenhower would have been comfortable running on all of those points.
Ocasio Cortez throws in housing assistance and abolish ICE. Because her constituents are, to a degree highly disproportionate to the rest of the nation, immigrants, and working poor people living in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation.
In other words, she’s representing her constituents.
Among the reasons that Hillary Clinton is not the POTUS right now, and Donald Trump is, is the fact that (D)’s have neglected their traditional base – working people – for a generation or more.
Comey appears to be believe that they should continue on that path. Comey is not a reliable authority on what the (D)’s should or should not do.
When (R)’s clean their own house, they can feel free to tell the rest of us what policies to support.
If, given the choice between Donald J Trump and any other imaginable candidate, moderates can’t figure out who the hell to vote for, there is damned little the (D)’s can do to win them over.
(R)’s at the national level are breaking the nation. My appeal to moderates is this: don’t vote for people who break stuff. Vote for the other person. If the other person seems unpalatable, hold your nose. Just quit voting for people who break stuff.
IF you can’t do that, guess what? You’re not a moderate.
Enough is enough. We’re well past the “let’s find middle ground” stage.
What does “middle ground” even look like?
what is laughable in all of this, is what qualifies as the “socialist left”.
extend medicare for all
subsidize public college tuition
define a liveable minimum wage
to the barricades!!
either harry truman or dwight eisenhower would have been comfortable running on all of those points.
Ocasio Cortez throws in housing assistance and abolish ICE. Because her constituents are, to a degree highly disproportionate to the rest of the nation, immigrants, and working poor people living in one of the most expensive housing markets in the nation.
In other words, she’s representing her constituents.
Among the reasons that Hillary Clinton is not the POTUS right now, and Donald Trump is, is the fact that (D)’s have neglected their traditional base – working people – for a generation or more.
Comey appears to be believe that they should continue on that path. Comey is not a reliable authority on what the (D)’s should or should not do.
When (R)’s clean their own house, they can feel free to tell the rest of us what policies to support.
If, given the choice between Donald J Trump and any other imaginable candidate, moderates can’t figure out who the hell to vote for, there is damned little the (D)’s can do to win them over.
(R)’s at the national level are breaking the nation. My appeal to moderates is this: don’t vote for people who break stuff. Vote for the other person. If the other person seems unpalatable, hold your nose. Just quit voting for people who break stuff.
IF you can’t do that, guess what? You’re not a moderate.
Enough is enough. We’re well past the “let’s find middle ground” stage.
What does “middle ground” even look like?
sorry, posted before I saw jack lecou’s comment.
sorry, posted before I saw jack lecou’s comment.
Janie, I’d say Russell asked and answered that above:
No, he didn’t. Because the question still applies to how your party got to where it is now. You don’t get off the hook by saying “it’s too late.” Where was your and Mr. S’s wisdom when your party was going off the rails? (Mr. S’s wisdom was busy in 10/16 helping “this president” get into power, let us now forget.) And since that wisdom failed so spectacularly with the Republicans, why should it be of any use to the Democrats for the purpose you and Mr. S. want it to serve?
Which is related to this: the descent of the GOP into permanent minority status — funny how the permanent minority now holds all branches of government and is solidifying its long-term stranglehold on the judiciary even as we speak. Heaven forbid the Democrats should move further away from the center and suffer the same fate!
Janie, I’d say Russell asked and answered that above:
No, he didn’t. Because the question still applies to how your party got to where it is now. You don’t get off the hook by saying “it’s too late.” Where was your and Mr. S’s wisdom when your party was going off the rails? (Mr. S’s wisdom was busy in 10/16 helping “this president” get into power, let us now forget.) And since that wisdom failed so spectacularly with the Republicans, why should it be of any use to the Democrats for the purpose you and Mr. S. want it to serve?
Which is related to this: the descent of the GOP into permanent minority status — funny how the permanent minority now holds all branches of government and is solidifying its long-term stranglehold on the judiciary even as we speak. Heaven forbid the Democrats should move further away from the center and suffer the same fate!
If stoking the culture wars is all that is keeping the GOP afloat, then who cares if Dems make noise about Medicare for all and a jobs guarantee?
Right?
You are not making a whole lot of sense here, wj.
In a word, yes. As in, without the culture wars the GOP is already toast.
But that’s not to say that bigotry is the only factor by any means. And since it’s not, it’s worthwhile talking about other things. Things which can, if handled correctly, pull in the non-bigots.
If stoking the culture wars is all that is keeping the GOP afloat, then who cares if Dems make noise about Medicare for all and a jobs guarantee?
Right?
You are not making a whole lot of sense here, wj.
In a word, yes. As in, without the culture wars the GOP is already toast.
But that’s not to say that bigotry is the only factor by any means. And since it’s not, it’s worthwhile talking about other things. Things which can, if handled correctly, pull in the non-bigots.
There’s no real swing voters left, and it’s been clear for a while that the moderate Republicans are happier being dragged to the right than they are saying enough is enough and voting for a Democrat.
The Democrats have been holding out for the Republicans to moderate and return to the table for two decades. It hasn’t happened. It won’t happen.
Screw the snowflake undecideds, Get out the vote.
There’s no real swing voters left, and it’s been clear for a while that the moderate Republicans are happier being dragged to the right than they are saying enough is enough and voting for a Democrat.
The Democrats have been holding out for the Republicans to moderate and return to the table for two decades. It hasn’t happened. It won’t happen.
Screw the snowflake undecideds, Get out the vote.
There’s no real swing voters left
MattY disagrees.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17575768/swing-voters-exist
There’s no real swing voters left
MattY disagrees.
https://www.vox.com/2018/7/23/17575768/swing-voters-exist
People aren’t voting in the mid-terms for a composite of all the candidates running across the country. They’re voting for the ones running in their states or districts. Talking about what “Democrats” should do generically is just not particularly on point in 2018.
People aren’t voting in the mid-terms for a composite of all the candidates running across the country. They’re voting for the ones running in their states or districts. Talking about what “Democrats” should do generically is just not particularly on point in 2018.
the operative markers of ‘far left’ seems to be stuff like Medicare-for-all, some kind of college financing that won’t put graduates in debt for the first 3 decades of their working life, and a minimum wage that’s high enough to pay the rent and maybe gets adjusted to match the actual cost of living at least every couple of decades of or so.
The line between those being ‘liberal’ proposals and ‘good old-fashioned common-sense American can do spirit’ proposals seems pretty thin. And, dare I say, maybe slightly artificially maintained…
Allow me to observe that to call those things “far left” is essentially to accept the RWNJ’s definition of terms. (Not, if an outsider may suggest it, recommended.)
OK, maybe Medicare-for-all (rather than Obamacare) qualifies as relatively further left. But the others? I’d have to say that those shouldn’t even be considered — straight out moderate would be my take. YMMV
the operative markers of ‘far left’ seems to be stuff like Medicare-for-all, some kind of college financing that won’t put graduates in debt for the first 3 decades of their working life, and a minimum wage that’s high enough to pay the rent and maybe gets adjusted to match the actual cost of living at least every couple of decades of or so.
The line between those being ‘liberal’ proposals and ‘good old-fashioned common-sense American can do spirit’ proposals seems pretty thin. And, dare I say, maybe slightly artificially maintained…
Allow me to observe that to call those things “far left” is essentially to accept the RWNJ’s definition of terms. (Not, if an outsider may suggest it, recommended.)
OK, maybe Medicare-for-all (rather than Obamacare) qualifies as relatively further left. But the others? I’d have to say that those shouldn’t even be considered — straight out moderate would be my take. YMMV
Yes, but it seems likely from MattY’s analysis that the swing is favoring the drag to the right and is more in line with being anti-establishment than it is with being competent. If the swing voters are disaffected with the status quo (as seems likely), then trying to appease them with moderation is not going to budge them. Better to rebrand around the generational values that the GOP is shitting on and come at them with it.
Yes, but it seems likely from MattY’s analysis that the swing is favoring the drag to the right and is more in line with being anti-establishment than it is with being competent. If the swing voters are disaffected with the status quo (as seems likely), then trying to appease them with moderation is not going to budge them. Better to rebrand around the generational values that the GOP is shitting on and come at them with it.
Screw the snowflake undecideds, Get out the vote.
Perhaps this should be a both/and rather than an either/or. Especially given the historical weakness of this in the midterms.
Just a thought.
Screw the snowflake undecideds, Get out the vote.
Perhaps this should be a both/and rather than an either/or. Especially given the historical weakness of this in the midterms.
Just a thought.
I mean, the operative markers of ‘far left’ seems to be…
Allow me to observe that to call those things “far left” is essentially to accept the RWNJ’s definition of terms.
jack lecou can speak up, but what else did you think putting the phrase in qutoes in the original comment was meant to imply?
I mean, the operative markers of ‘far left’ seems to be…
Allow me to observe that to call those things “far left” is essentially to accept the RWNJ’s definition of terms.
jack lecou can speak up, but what else did you think putting the phrase in qutoes in the original comment was meant to imply?
Or what the rest of the comment was meant to make explicit…
Or what the rest of the comment was meant to make explicit…
sorry, posted before I saw jack lecou’s comment.
Great minds think alike.
I think we could all wish for some genuinely far-left socialist stuff to come into play. If nothing else, it would help if ‘moderate’ politicians could have someone else to point to and say, “I just have some common sense, middle of the road proposals to get rent under control and fund college tuition. It’s not like I’m a crazy socialist like that guy over there.”
Overton Window being a thing and all. (Or is at least as far as satisfying dummy ‘centrist’ pundits is concerned.)
sorry, posted before I saw jack lecou’s comment.
Great minds think alike.
I think we could all wish for some genuinely far-left socialist stuff to come into play. If nothing else, it would help if ‘moderate’ politicians could have someone else to point to and say, “I just have some common sense, middle of the road proposals to get rent under control and fund college tuition. It’s not like I’m a crazy socialist like that guy over there.”
Overton Window being a thing and all. (Or is at least as far as satisfying dummy ‘centrist’ pundits is concerned.)
Things which can, if handled correctly, pull in the non-bigots.
Please provide an example, sir!
Things which can, if handled correctly, pull in the non-bigots.
Please provide an example, sir!
In 2008, did some Americans who had previously voted for Dubya “swing” to Obama? Were they the same people who “swung” to He, Trump in 2016? Were they the WhiteWorkingClass(TM) or the SoccerMoms(TM) or who?
Of course “swing voters” exist. Some of them are thoughtful, informed voters with consistent principles. Some of them are the consistently fickle morons who account for America’s proclivity to re-elect incumbent presidents and then give the White House to the other party. I have no idea which group is bigger. But I suspect that you can’t win both groups with the same “message”.
Oh, and: Comey was a Republican shill two years ago, and he still is.
–TP
In 2008, did some Americans who had previously voted for Dubya “swing” to Obama? Were they the same people who “swung” to He, Trump in 2016? Were they the WhiteWorkingClass(TM) or the SoccerMoms(TM) or who?
Of course “swing voters” exist. Some of them are thoughtful, informed voters with consistent principles. Some of them are the consistently fickle morons who account for America’s proclivity to re-elect incumbent presidents and then give the White House to the other party. I have no idea which group is bigger. But I suspect that you can’t win both groups with the same “message”.
Oh, and: Comey was a Republican shill two years ago, and he still is.
–TP
straight out moderate would be my take
Then the moderates should be all good, and Comey can go jump in a lake.
straight out moderate would be my take
Then the moderates should be all good, and Comey can go jump in a lake.
Perhaps this should be a both/and rather than an either/or. Especially given the historical weakness of this in the midterms.
Both/and isn’t a viable rhetorical strategy. What the Democrats need — individually and collectively — is a strong, simple articulation of what they stand for and why it is better for their voters than what the Republicans are doing. And it must be a message that aims at redefining the center and drags that center back to the left rather than re-triangulating on the ever rightward drifting center. Identify what is and what isn’t up for debate and force the other guy to reconfigure around the new center.
Perhaps this should be a both/and rather than an either/or. Especially given the historical weakness of this in the midterms.
Both/and isn’t a viable rhetorical strategy. What the Democrats need — individually and collectively — is a strong, simple articulation of what they stand for and why it is better for their voters than what the Republicans are doing. And it must be a message that aims at redefining the center and drags that center back to the left rather than re-triangulating on the ever rightward drifting center. Identify what is and what isn’t up for debate and force the other guy to reconfigure around the new center.
Both/and isn’t a viable rhetorical strategy.
Whyever not? If a clear articulation on policy (of whatever kind) is somehow an impediment to a strong get out the vote effort, I’m just not seeing it.
Both/and isn’t a viable rhetorical strategy.
Whyever not? If a clear articulation on policy (of whatever kind) is somehow an impediment to a strong get out the vote effort, I’m just not seeing it.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-considering-revoking-security-clearances-for-comey-brennan-2018-07-23?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Try to act normal. Don’t show emotion. Don’t lose your minds. You see a rabid dog with the head of a fascist conservative feeding on liberal carrion, go about your business. Do not rush. Outrage will only make them come after YOU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxyQYSJ3zQg
They can be fooled …. right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Da57kvilG0
Go to sleep.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-considering-revoking-security-clearances-for-comey-brennan-2018-07-23?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Try to act normal. Don’t show emotion. Don’t lose your minds. You see a rabid dog with the head of a fascist conservative feeding on liberal carrion, go about your business. Do not rush. Outrage will only make them come after YOU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxyQYSJ3zQg
They can be fooled …. right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Da57kvilG0
Go to sleep.
If you’re looking at policies that will move the country in the direction you want, without being too explicit about doing so (for fear of backlash), you might be interested in this
Of course, it’s a finding that can work both ways. And it appears, from the enthusiasm for home schooling, that some groups have happened upon it without the research….
If you’re looking at policies that will move the country in the direction you want, without being too explicit about doing so (for fear of backlash), you might be interested in this
Of course, it’s a finding that can work both ways. And it appears, from the enthusiasm for home schooling, that some groups have happened upon it without the research….
Whyever not? If a clear articulation on policy (of whatever kind) is somehow an impediment to a strong get out the vote effort, I’m just not seeing it.
Because the Trump/Obama swing voters are not motivated by policy and the things which do motivate them are going to alienate the voters you are aiming to motivate on the left.
The right-leaning swing voter will hold her nose and vote R as a matter of identity and loyalty when conflicted. The younger progressive voter will just as likely either not show or will vote third party. Chasing the one (who is just as likely to revert to voting R) bleeds off the other.
It’s not about chasing moderate votes with rational policy articulation. That’s not how those people decide to vote.
The Dems need a set of principles to fight for and a convincing argument about what that fight will look like.
Climate Change and the Environment? Immigrants and the American Dream? Grow wages, not productivity and profits?
Hammer it. If the swings don’t respond to that, then they are part of the problem.
Whyever not? If a clear articulation on policy (of whatever kind) is somehow an impediment to a strong get out the vote effort, I’m just not seeing it.
Because the Trump/Obama swing voters are not motivated by policy and the things which do motivate them are going to alienate the voters you are aiming to motivate on the left.
The right-leaning swing voter will hold her nose and vote R as a matter of identity and loyalty when conflicted. The younger progressive voter will just as likely either not show or will vote third party. Chasing the one (who is just as likely to revert to voting R) bleeds off the other.
It’s not about chasing moderate votes with rational policy articulation. That’s not how those people decide to vote.
The Dems need a set of principles to fight for and a convincing argument about what that fight will look like.
Climate Change and the Environment? Immigrants and the American Dream? Grow wages, not productivity and profits?
Hammer it. If the swings don’t respond to that, then they are part of the problem.
And just to highlight a potential problem with Democrat’s attracting enough younger voters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-millennials/exclusive-democrats-lose-ground-with-millennials-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1I10YH
And just to highlight a potential problem with Democrat’s attracting enough younger voters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-millennials/exclusive-democrats-lose-ground-with-millennials-reuters-ipsos-poll-idUSKBN1I10YH
take a less than welcoming cultural attitude to pluralism
a comment about “pluralism”.
the assumption always seems to be that the “regular” people are the mostly-white, mostly-christian, mostly-non-urban, mostly-straight ones who live in places that are, likewise, mostly all of those things.
and the assumption is also that it is somehow their prerogative to tolerate the presence of people who aren’t mostly all of those things, or not.
and the name we give for tolerating those not-mostly-those-things is “pluralism”.
it really isn’t anybody’s prerogative to “tolerate” the existence of other people, or not. people who aren’t like you do not require any justification to exist. not even to exist in your country, or your state, or your town, or your neighborhood.
people get to live wherever they want, and they get to be themselves wherever it is they decide they want to live.
as far as I can tell, “pluralism” just means accepting the fact that you and people like you aren’t the only ones on the planet.
if that’s going to be the stumbling block, we aren’t going to get very far.
if for no reason other than that there are a lot of the other-than-mostly-whatevers, and they’re not going anywhere.
i’m not sure how it became the job of people like me to make sure that nobody else has to be afraid of people who aren’t just like them.
it’s not a job i really asked for, or want.
take a less than welcoming cultural attitude to pluralism
a comment about “pluralism”.
the assumption always seems to be that the “regular” people are the mostly-white, mostly-christian, mostly-non-urban, mostly-straight ones who live in places that are, likewise, mostly all of those things.
and the assumption is also that it is somehow their prerogative to tolerate the presence of people who aren’t mostly all of those things, or not.
and the name we give for tolerating those not-mostly-those-things is “pluralism”.
it really isn’t anybody’s prerogative to “tolerate” the existence of other people, or not. people who aren’t like you do not require any justification to exist. not even to exist in your country, or your state, or your town, or your neighborhood.
people get to live wherever they want, and they get to be themselves wherever it is they decide they want to live.
as far as I can tell, “pluralism” just means accepting the fact that you and people like you aren’t the only ones on the planet.
if that’s going to be the stumbling block, we aren’t going to get very far.
if for no reason other than that there are a lot of the other-than-mostly-whatevers, and they’re not going anywhere.
i’m not sure how it became the job of people like me to make sure that nobody else has to be afraid of people who aren’t just like them.
it’s not a job i really asked for, or want.
it really isn’t anybody’s prerogative to “tolerate” the existence of other people, or not. people who aren’t like you do not require any justification to exist. not even to exist in your country, or your state, or your town, or your neighborhood.
While this is certainly true, those who aren’t “regular” people (per your definition) typically aren’t in need of teaching on the need to tolerate those who are different. They may not like having to tolerate those (including “regular people”) who are different, but they are clear that it’s not optional in the real world.
So “pluralism” as a concept is actually about providing, or at least trying to provide, a way for those who have previously been able to avoid tolerance (if they wished, and many did) to wrap their heads around the idea. Before we reach to point where it’s no longer optional. A matter of winning over as many as possible by persuasion, so as to make the transition less fraught.
it really isn’t anybody’s prerogative to “tolerate” the existence of other people, or not. people who aren’t like you do not require any justification to exist. not even to exist in your country, or your state, or your town, or your neighborhood.
While this is certainly true, those who aren’t “regular” people (per your definition) typically aren’t in need of teaching on the need to tolerate those who are different. They may not like having to tolerate those (including “regular people”) who are different, but they are clear that it’s not optional in the real world.
So “pluralism” as a concept is actually about providing, or at least trying to provide, a way for those who have previously been able to avoid tolerance (if they wished, and many did) to wrap their heads around the idea. Before we reach to point where it’s no longer optional. A matter of winning over as many as possible by persuasion, so as to make the transition less fraught.
The challenge people put in front of (D) candidates is to present their point of view without watering it down, but also without offending or upsetting anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
Which seems like an agenda for either a kindergarten teacher, or a hostage negotiator.
But if that’s what is needed, hopefully there are some folks with the patience and the stomach for it.
In the end, folks are going to run in particular places, which have particular political cultures. Hopefully they’ll know what will work, in the environment they need to run in.
As long as they win, it’s all fine with me.
(R)’s are breaking everything they can get their hands on. If they weren’t doing so before, they sure as hell are doing so now. I want them the hell out.
The challenge people put in front of (D) candidates is to present their point of view without watering it down, but also without offending or upsetting anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
Which seems like an agenda for either a kindergarten teacher, or a hostage negotiator.
But if that’s what is needed, hopefully there are some folks with the patience and the stomach for it.
In the end, folks are going to run in particular places, which have particular political cultures. Hopefully they’ll know what will work, in the environment they need to run in.
As long as they win, it’s all fine with me.
(R)’s are breaking everything they can get their hands on. If they weren’t doing so before, they sure as hell are doing so now. I want them the hell out.
Which seems like an agenda for either a kindergarten teacher, or a hostage negotiator.
Forgive me if I offer up another Both. 😉
Which seems like an agenda for either a kindergarten teacher, or a hostage negotiator.
Forgive me if I offer up another Both. 😉
Perhaps on point.
Perhaps on point.
Here is the message.
Here is the message.
and the name we give for tolerating those not-mostly-those-things is “pluralism”.
Though I agree with most of what you’ve written here, I think this is quite wrong.
Pluralism to me means that no one system or point of view has all the answers. It’s not about tolerating the other, but rather valuing the existence of all sorts of others, or other ideas, which in some contexts have more validity than you, or your ideas might have.
and the name we give for tolerating those not-mostly-those-things is “pluralism”.
Though I agree with most of what you’ve written here, I think this is quite wrong.
Pluralism to me means that no one system or point of view has all the answers. It’s not about tolerating the other, but rather valuing the existence of all sorts of others, or other ideas, which in some contexts have more validity than you, or your ideas might have.
Rather Off Topic, and folks here may not be the ones to ask, but Russell’s link peripherally raised a question. Why do folks on the left routinely use the Koch brothers as a standard example of self-interested wealth making the world worse for the rest of us?
Not that I’m a fan, but it seems to me that the Mercers do significantly more harm. I’m I wrong on that?
Rather Off Topic, and folks here may not be the ones to ask, but Russell’s link peripherally raised a question. Why do folks on the left routinely use the Koch brothers as a standard example of self-interested wealth making the world worse for the rest of us?
Not that I’m a fan, but it seems to me that the Mercers do significantly more harm. I’m I wrong on that?
wj, I don’t know whether you’re right about relative harm, but my sense of it is that the Kochs have been in the public eye for a long time, the Mercers only within the last few years. Whether my sense of it has anything to do with reality is another story.
In my personal awareness: the Kochs’ father co-founded the John Birch Society, which was quite prominent when I was a kid. I heard/saw it mentioned quite a lot, probably mostly in newspaper and magazine articles. My family was anything but political, so a topic would have had to be oft-mentioned in public contexts for me to know about it.
However – personal history might also skew my awareness. Three of the four Koch brothers went to MIT and one is a Life Member Emeritus of the MIT Corporation (the thing that normal organizations call the board… ;-).
Their father, like Clickbait’s, was “Fred.” There must be something about that name…..
wj, I don’t know whether you’re right about relative harm, but my sense of it is that the Kochs have been in the public eye for a long time, the Mercers only within the last few years. Whether my sense of it has anything to do with reality is another story.
In my personal awareness: the Kochs’ father co-founded the John Birch Society, which was quite prominent when I was a kid. I heard/saw it mentioned quite a lot, probably mostly in newspaper and magazine articles. My family was anything but political, so a topic would have had to be oft-mentioned in public contexts for me to know about it.
However – personal history might also skew my awareness. Three of the four Koch brothers went to MIT and one is a Life Member Emeritus of the MIT Corporation (the thing that normal organizations call the board… ;-).
Their father, like Clickbait’s, was “Fred.” There must be something about that name…..
Mercers it is. The Kochs are old industrial money is perhaps why.
There are maybe on average two of three very wealthy right-wing families in each state in the Union who give big bucks and support the most radical policies of the GOP.
We wouldn’t recognize the names. Many are second and third generation offspring of corporate titans.
I’ve been meaning to make a hit list.
Mercers it is. The Kochs are old industrial money is perhaps why.
There are maybe on average two of three very wealthy right-wing families in each state in the Union who give big bucks and support the most radical policies of the GOP.
We wouldn’t recognize the names. Many are second and third generation offspring of corporate titans.
I’ve been meaning to make a hit list.
Funny this should come up. My son asked me recently about public attitudes during the anti-communist hysteria in the McCarthy era. I was too young then to have any awareness, although I’m pretty sure I remember McCarthy’s name in the news, and newsreels of HUAC’s proceedings. (The John Birch Society, says wikipedia, wasn’t founded until 1958, which I find interestingly late in comparison.)
I asked my mom what she remembered, but she doesn’t remember much. Granted, she’s 94 and slowly failing, but she remembers a ton of stuff about WWII, the Roosevelts, etc., so it’s not like she has lost all that history yet. But as I said, we weren’t a political family.
Funny this should come up. My son asked me recently about public attitudes during the anti-communist hysteria in the McCarthy era. I was too young then to have any awareness, although I’m pretty sure I remember McCarthy’s name in the news, and newsreels of HUAC’s proceedings. (The John Birch Society, says wikipedia, wasn’t founded until 1958, which I find interestingly late in comparison.)
I asked my mom what she remembered, but she doesn’t remember much. Granted, she’s 94 and slowly failing, but she remembers a ton of stuff about WWII, the Roosevelts, etc., so it’s not like she has lost all that history yet. But as I said, we weren’t a political family.
The only thing I know of the John Birch Society is the Chad Mitchell Trio song.
Which is fun.
It gives the impression they were an object of ridicule rather than fear.
The only thing I know of the John Birch Society is the Chad Mitchell Trio song.
Which is fun.
It gives the impression they were an object of ridicule rather than fear.
I don’t remember them as an object of either fear or any kind of widespread ridicule. More bemusement, perhaps, or just indifference except insofar as they involved themselves in electoral politics (Goldwater).
Folksingers were hardly barometers of the general public mood.
I don’t remember them as an object of either fear or any kind of widespread ridicule. More bemusement, perhaps, or just indifference except insofar as they involved themselves in electoral politics (Goldwater).
Folksingers were hardly barometers of the general public mood.
But it’s weird to look back with nostalgia at a time when the far right lunatic fringe was actually told to get lost by the Republican Party.
The far right lunatic fringe obviously didn’t take it to heart, too bad for us.
But it’s weird to look back with nostalgia at a time when the far right lunatic fringe was actually told to get lost by the Republican Party.
The far right lunatic fringe obviously didn’t take it to heart, too bad for us.
It’s not about tolerating the other, but rather valuing the existence of all sorts of others
yes, that is what pluralism *should* mean.
It’s not about tolerating the other, but rather valuing the existence of all sorts of others
yes, that is what pluralism *should* mean.
“It gives the impression they were an object of ridicule rather than fear.”
I thought John Cleese’s funny walk put the Nazis to bed permanently too.
But here we are with a President who does a cracking good Mussolini on a daily basis along with a Jewish sidekick, and I don’t mean Jerry Lewis and Mel Brooks, who can do Martin Bormann to a T.
Boris and Natasha have made a comeback too from the scrapheap of satire.
Rocky and Bullwinkle received the Novichok treatment. Have you seen THEM lately?
The right wing in America practices cultural relativism with the best of them. The only Europeans they admire are the genocidal ones.
It’s like one big fascist costume party. All sadistic cackling and swivel chairs.
Have you noticed how few of these louts wear eyeglasses, other than Bolton?
They share at least a vain, cosmetic hatred of eye wear in the Other, much like Pol Pot.
“It gives the impression they were an object of ridicule rather than fear.”
I thought John Cleese’s funny walk put the Nazis to bed permanently too.
But here we are with a President who does a cracking good Mussolini on a daily basis along with a Jewish sidekick, and I don’t mean Jerry Lewis and Mel Brooks, who can do Martin Bormann to a T.
Boris and Natasha have made a comeback too from the scrapheap of satire.
Rocky and Bullwinkle received the Novichok treatment. Have you seen THEM lately?
The right wing in America practices cultural relativism with the best of them. The only Europeans they admire are the genocidal ones.
It’s like one big fascist costume party. All sadistic cackling and swivel chairs.
Have you noticed how few of these louts wear eyeglasses, other than Bolton?
They share at least a vain, cosmetic hatred of eye wear in the Other, much like Pol Pot.
Russell, whether income inequality is a thing for most people is an open question in my mind. That said, I would like to see the Dems run Sanders/Warren or Warren/Sanders type ticket. The hard right has Trump, so a face off might be instructive. I’ll submit the far right gets more votes than the far left, but my crystal ball is well under .500, and let’s put “far” in quotes for balance.
If that is the Dem ticket, I’ll be on the sidelines (again) FWIW.
Since we can’t rule out an indictment or a stroke, one realistic scenario is the Dem lefties vs a Pence-led right wing team. I’d sit that one out, too.
Russell, whether income inequality is a thing for most people is an open question in my mind. That said, I would like to see the Dems run Sanders/Warren or Warren/Sanders type ticket. The hard right has Trump, so a face off might be instructive. I’ll submit the far right gets more votes than the far left, but my crystal ball is well under .500, and let’s put “far” in quotes for balance.
If that is the Dem ticket, I’ll be on the sidelines (again) FWIW.
Since we can’t rule out an indictment or a stroke, one realistic scenario is the Dem lefties vs a Pence-led right wing team. I’d sit that one out, too.
Russell, whether income inequality is a thing for most people is an open question in my mind
Please say more. Do you mean to say that you aren’t sure that most people are aware of it, or that most people are not concerned about it, or that most people are not harmed by it? Or are you saying something else entirely which is escaping me due to the terseness of the formulation?
Russell, whether income inequality is a thing for most people is an open question in my mind
Please say more. Do you mean to say that you aren’t sure that most people are aware of it, or that most people are not concerned about it, or that most people are not harmed by it? Or are you saying something else entirely which is escaping me due to the terseness of the formulation?
Income inequality gets framed as the forgotten (white) working class. But it’s not the fault of the people taking a larger and larger share of national income. It’s China and immigrants from Latin America who are to blame. Regulations, too. Can’t forget them.
Income inequality gets framed as the forgotten (white) working class. But it’s not the fault of the people taking a larger and larger share of national income. It’s China and immigrants from Latin America who are to blame. Regulations, too. Can’t forget them.
Who can the Democratic Party run to attract your vote?
More to the point, even if John Kasich ran as the Democratic candidate, the mp/republican juggernaut will lie, cheat, and steal the election from him.
Regarding income inequality as a thing or not, many conservatives recognize it exists big time, on their way to approving of it:
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2017/11/13/conservatives-income-inequality-rigged-rich/
Other cites:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-truth-about-income-inequality-in-america/252892/
https://news.wsu.edu/2017/11/15/researchers-chart-rising-inequality-across-millennia/
I can tell income inequality is a real cause for alarm, because some of them thats got, no Marxists there, have been breaking a sweat about it or awhile, like so many cousins of the Czar at another historical flash point.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2014/09/09/business-leaders-worry-about-income-inequality-and-revolution/
Regarding an indictment or stroke, why can’t we have both?
But mp will go the thug gangster route …. after the indictments, he will hold up at Mar-a-Lago, Russian agents biding their time lounging with mai tai’s by the infinity pool, and he will emerge like the old Mafia chieftains would after their final cornering .. in a wheelchair with an oxygen tank and a sippy cup prop, faking a rictus on one side of his face and various palsies.
His raft of ratfucker conservative attorneys will bend over him to hear his faked whispered answers and convey them to the Judge, probably a conservative whose family will have to be placed under federal protection because of thousands of death threats from conservative/republican filth across the country.
Putin will visit to pay his respects to the beleaguered fellow humanitarian.
Steve Bannon, fresh from violently overthrowing European governments, will fly in at low altitude on Air Force One, sent for him, to rally the 60 million.
mp’s 60-million strong wailing for liberal blood.
Tucker Carlson and Maria Bartiromo and a cast of scripted villains nightly pleading: “How can the Deep State, meaning queers, blacks, immigrants and commie liberals, treat the President like this, the poor soul. We’ll get you for this!”
This guy and his sidemen are not going out with a quiet blood clot.
He’s taking it all with him in an explosion.
I’m accused of having a rich imagination. I imagined early on in the republican primary as a dozen or so other conservatives were demonized as rotten liberals that mp would be President and that NO republican, regardless of their disgust with mp, would vote for Clinton, all of them having roughly the same opinion of Clinton as the Kremlin.
It looked perfectly plausible to me, but then I’m just a dreamer.
I’m the fool that owns Amazon stock.
Who can the Democratic Party run to attract your vote?
More to the point, even if John Kasich ran as the Democratic candidate, the mp/republican juggernaut will lie, cheat, and steal the election from him.
Regarding income inequality as a thing or not, many conservatives recognize it exists big time, on their way to approving of it:
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2017/11/13/conservatives-income-inequality-rigged-rich/
Other cites:
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/the-truth-about-income-inequality-in-america/252892/
https://news.wsu.edu/2017/11/15/researchers-chart-rising-inequality-across-millennia/
I can tell income inequality is a real cause for alarm, because some of them thats got, no Marxists there, have been breaking a sweat about it or awhile, like so many cousins of the Czar at another historical flash point.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2014/09/09/business-leaders-worry-about-income-inequality-and-revolution/
Regarding an indictment or stroke, why can’t we have both?
But mp will go the thug gangster route …. after the indictments, he will hold up at Mar-a-Lago, Russian agents biding their time lounging with mai tai’s by the infinity pool, and he will emerge like the old Mafia chieftains would after their final cornering .. in a wheelchair with an oxygen tank and a sippy cup prop, faking a rictus on one side of his face and various palsies.
His raft of ratfucker conservative attorneys will bend over him to hear his faked whispered answers and convey them to the Judge, probably a conservative whose family will have to be placed under federal protection because of thousands of death threats from conservative/republican filth across the country.
Putin will visit to pay his respects to the beleaguered fellow humanitarian.
Steve Bannon, fresh from violently overthrowing European governments, will fly in at low altitude on Air Force One, sent for him, to rally the 60 million.
mp’s 60-million strong wailing for liberal blood.
Tucker Carlson and Maria Bartiromo and a cast of scripted villains nightly pleading: “How can the Deep State, meaning queers, blacks, immigrants and commie liberals, treat the President like this, the poor soul. We’ll get you for this!”
This guy and his sidemen are not going out with a quiet blood clot.
He’s taking it all with him in an explosion.
I’m accused of having a rich imagination. I imagined early on in the republican primary as a dozen or so other conservatives were demonized as rotten liberals that mp would be President and that NO republican, regardless of their disgust with mp, would vote for Clinton, all of them having roughly the same opinion of Clinton as the Kremlin.
It looked perfectly plausible to me, but then I’m just a dreamer.
I’m the fool that owns Amazon stock.
Many conservatives and libertarians recognize vast income inequality as the perfect good, rather than denying it exists.
It’s the fulfillment of their favorite texts. Entire think tanks bend over backwards to celebrate income inequality and prevent any amelioration of it, besides selling expensive bootstraps to those who can’t afford them.
May we wear those boots to work? Uh, no, see the dress code.
https://ari.aynrand.org/media-center/press-releases/2013/05/14/ayn-rand-hits-a-million-again
As an aside, the other night I was talking with a female friend and she said she re-read “Atlas Shrugged” once a year.
She hates mp.
Unlike my persona here, I’m polite to my friends.
I decided not to say I re-read Walker Percy’s “The Moviegoer” once a year, for fear of appearing a snob, which I am.
She hastened to add that she highly disapproved of Rand’s politics and economic “theories”.
What she LIKES is the character development therein.
Myself, I detect more character development in the carnivorous potted plant in “Little Shop of Horrors”, though much the same appetite for human flesh.
Many conservatives and libertarians recognize vast income inequality as the perfect good, rather than denying it exists.
It’s the fulfillment of their favorite texts. Entire think tanks bend over backwards to celebrate income inequality and prevent any amelioration of it, besides selling expensive bootstraps to those who can’t afford them.
May we wear those boots to work? Uh, no, see the dress code.
https://ari.aynrand.org/media-center/press-releases/2013/05/14/ayn-rand-hits-a-million-again
As an aside, the other night I was talking with a female friend and she said she re-read “Atlas Shrugged” once a year.
She hates mp.
Unlike my persona here, I’m polite to my friends.
I decided not to say I re-read Walker Percy’s “The Moviegoer” once a year, for fear of appearing a snob, which I am.
She hastened to add that she highly disapproved of Rand’s politics and economic “theories”.
What she LIKES is the character development therein.
Myself, I detect more character development in the carnivorous potted plant in “Little Shop of Horrors”, though much the same appetite for human flesh.
Birchers were pretty ubiquitous out here in the manly manly West what with their penchant for erecting “Impeach Earl Warren” billboards and railing against the evils of chlorinated drinking water. Buckley might have thought he threw them out of the conservative movement, but they were all in on Goldwater and are the precursors of what we now know as the Tea Party.
Have you noticed how few of these louts wear eyeglasses, other than Bolton?
The present penumbra of the ebbing waves of the history of right wing hate on Nelson Rockefeller.
I’m the fool that owns Amazon stock.
Amazon could be the embodiment of Marx’s prediction that the falling rate of profit would be the precursor of the working class rising up and seizing the means of production. After all, if you can’t make any money off it, who needs it?
One can only hope.
Pluralism: It’s OK if you are different from me, I can respect that, as long as you do what I tell you to do.
Birchers were pretty ubiquitous out here in the manly manly West what with their penchant for erecting “Impeach Earl Warren” billboards and railing against the evils of chlorinated drinking water. Buckley might have thought he threw them out of the conservative movement, but they were all in on Goldwater and are the precursors of what we now know as the Tea Party.
Have you noticed how few of these louts wear eyeglasses, other than Bolton?
The present penumbra of the ebbing waves of the history of right wing hate on Nelson Rockefeller.
I’m the fool that owns Amazon stock.
Amazon could be the embodiment of Marx’s prediction that the falling rate of profit would be the precursor of the working class rising up and seizing the means of production. After all, if you can’t make any money off it, who needs it?
One can only hope.
Pluralism: It’s OK if you are different from me, I can respect that, as long as you do what I tell you to do.
Russell, whether income inequality is a thing for most people is an open question in my mind
the issue is less income inequality per se, and more that a hell of a lot of people struggle, a lot, in a very rich economy.
i’d also say that (a) inequality and (b) a lot of people struggling are not unrelated phenomena. but i’m not that invested in making sure that nobody has “too much money”, whatever that means. i’m interested in everybody having enough. because there is certainly enough to go around.
median household income is about $60K. that is ‘median’, meaning half the households make less, and ‘household’, meaning all income from all earners.
lots of folks on shaky ground.
it’s still the economy, stupid. the ‘stupid’ there is a reference to the clinton mantra, not a reference to mck.
Russell, whether income inequality is a thing for most people is an open question in my mind
the issue is less income inequality per se, and more that a hell of a lot of people struggle, a lot, in a very rich economy.
i’d also say that (a) inequality and (b) a lot of people struggling are not unrelated phenomena. but i’m not that invested in making sure that nobody has “too much money”, whatever that means. i’m interested in everybody having enough. because there is certainly enough to go around.
median household income is about $60K. that is ‘median’, meaning half the households make less, and ‘household’, meaning all income from all earners.
lots of folks on shaky ground.
it’s still the economy, stupid. the ‘stupid’ there is a reference to the clinton mantra, not a reference to mck.
a pretty good us income breakdown.
note the discrepancy between median and average household income.
note the percentage of households with an adjusted gross income under $15K. if you don’t want to click through, it’s 24%.
a quarter of households.
the article is ca. 2016, so things are a bit better now, maybe, but no more than a bit.
where’s the money, lebowski?
a pretty good us income breakdown.
note the discrepancy between median and average household income.
note the percentage of households with an adjusted gross income under $15K. if you don’t want to click through, it’s 24%.
a quarter of households.
the article is ca. 2016, so things are a bit better now, maybe, but no more than a bit.
where’s the money, lebowski?
I assume the ‘stroke’ part referred to Sanders not The Donald.
I think the Dems’ main problem is that they are seen as wishy-washy and too likely to go GOP light when elected. Compromised for too much compromising (which these days amounts to outright capitulating unconditionally and still getting rejected).
I assume the ‘stroke’ part referred to Sanders not The Donald.
I think the Dems’ main problem is that they are seen as wishy-washy and too likely to go GOP light when elected. Compromised for too much compromising (which these days amounts to outright capitulating unconditionally and still getting rejected).
note the percentage of households with an adjusted gross income under $15K. if you don’t want to click through, it’s 24%.
one slightly brighter note: that group almost certainly includes a lot of young, single people – ages 15-24 have the lowest mean income. they’re probably working crap jobs, living with roommates, while in school or fresh out of school or the military or whatever, and will grow into better paying jobs in the future.
note the percentage of households with an adjusted gross income under $15K. if you don’t want to click through, it’s 24%.
one slightly brighter note: that group almost certainly includes a lot of young, single people – ages 15-24 have the lowest mean income. they’re probably working crap jobs, living with roommates, while in school or fresh out of school or the military or whatever, and will grow into better paying jobs in the future.
I think the Dems’ main problem is that they are seen as wishy-washy and too likely to go GOP light when elected. Compromised for too much compromising (which these days amounts to outright capitulating unconditionally and still getting rejected).
This is how they are perceived on the progressive left, and on the contrary they are being caricatured as dangerous lefties on the RWNJ right, which is affecting the perception of them on the rest of the centre/right due to the fucking Overton Window. That’s the whole point of this discussion, to work out what they can do (if anything) to escape the twin horns of this ridiculous pincer dilemma (if you will forgive the mixed metaphor) …..
I think the Dems’ main problem is that they are seen as wishy-washy and too likely to go GOP light when elected. Compromised for too much compromising (which these days amounts to outright capitulating unconditionally and still getting rejected).
This is how they are perceived on the progressive left, and on the contrary they are being caricatured as dangerous lefties on the RWNJ right, which is affecting the perception of them on the rest of the centre/right due to the fucking Overton Window. That’s the whole point of this discussion, to work out what they can do (if anything) to escape the twin horns of this ridiculous pincer dilemma (if you will forgive the mixed metaphor) …..
note the percentage of households with an adjusted gross income under $15K. if you don’t want to click through, it’s 24%.
one slightly brighter note: that group almost certainly includes a lot of young, single people – ages 15-24 have the lowest mean income.
Also oldsters. Our household lives a comfortable retired middle-class lifestyle. Our AGI last year was $11,588. Under current rules, until your gross income reaches a pretty substantial level, none of Social Security goes into AGI.
note the percentage of households with an adjusted gross income under $15K. if you don’t want to click through, it’s 24%.
one slightly brighter note: that group almost certainly includes a lot of young, single people – ages 15-24 have the lowest mean income.
Also oldsters. Our household lives a comfortable retired middle-class lifestyle. Our AGI last year was $11,588. Under current rules, until your gross income reaches a pretty substantial level, none of Social Security goes into AGI.
If you have a disability pension, depending on how it’s figured (generally, if your compensation has nothing to do with years of service), it’s treated like a form of workman’s compensation. I know this from doing my deceased father’s taxes.
Without looking at the forms, I’m assuming that means my father’s AGI was zero, since neither his SS nor his pension was taxable, even in the complete absence of deductions and exemptions.
If you have a disability pension, depending on how it’s figured (generally, if your compensation has nothing to do with years of service), it’s treated like a form of workman’s compensation. I know this from doing my deceased father’s taxes.
Without looking at the forms, I’m assuming that means my father’s AGI was zero, since neither his SS nor his pension was taxable, even in the complete absence of deductions and exemptions.
Income is all well and good, but wealth is where financial security and its attendant freedom (not to mention power) comes from.
McKinney questions whether “inequality is a thing for most people”. Okay, it’s hard to know what “most people” think. But McKinney, like the rest of us, presumably knows what he himself thinks, so I’d like to know McKinney’s own answers to the following:
What percentage of total US wealth is owned by
1) the richest 20%?
2) the middle 60% ?
4) the poorest 20%?
It’s an open-book quiz, but it might be fun and instructive to take a guess before looking it up.
–TP
Income is all well and good, but wealth is where financial security and its attendant freedom (not to mention power) comes from.
McKinney questions whether “inequality is a thing for most people”. Okay, it’s hard to know what “most people” think. But McKinney, like the rest of us, presumably knows what he himself thinks, so I’d like to know McKinney’s own answers to the following:
What percentage of total US wealth is owned by
1) the richest 20%?
2) the middle 60% ?
4) the poorest 20%?
It’s an open-book quiz, but it might be fun and instructive to take a guess before looking it up.
–TP
What percentage of total US wealth is owned by…
Well, without looking, I know the poorest 20% has a negative net worth. I’d guess the middle 60% have a zero net worth. So, the richest 20% have it all (more than all if you assume the debt owed by the bottom group is held by those at the top).
What percentage of total US wealth is owned by…
Well, without looking, I know the poorest 20% has a negative net worth. I’d guess the middle 60% have a zero net worth. So, the richest 20% have it all (more than all if you assume the debt owed by the bottom group is held by those at the top).
I know this: the bottom 20% is in the red. They own a negative percentage of total US wealth.
At least they don’t have to worry about estate taxes!
(They’ll also reap the benefits of financial deregulation, since predatory lenders will be better able to put them even further into debt. Always looking out for the little guy, those GOPers.)
I know this: the bottom 20% is in the red. They own a negative percentage of total US wealth.
At least they don’t have to worry about estate taxes!
(They’ll also reap the benefits of financial deregulation, since predatory lenders will be better able to put them even further into debt. Always looking out for the little guy, those GOPers.)
I won’t directly give away the results of my brief search for an answer to Tony’s question, but right off the bat I think it’s misleading to take the wealthiest 20% in a lump, as if all the people in that quintile were sort of equivalent.
If you look here, there’s a pie chart that shows that the people in the 80-90th percentile in wealth hold 12% of the total net worth, the only decile (?) where that holds remotely close to true. The top 20% is skewed by the staggeringly out of whack percentages at the very very top. The graph, in fact, would look a lot like the graph of incomes I’ve been harping about for ten years. To even it out significantly for those at the bottom wouldn’t require touching the 80-90% people.
I won’t directly give away the results of my brief search for an answer to Tony’s question, but right off the bat I think it’s misleading to take the wealthiest 20% in a lump, as if all the people in that quintile were sort of equivalent.
If you look here, there’s a pie chart that shows that the people in the 80-90th percentile in wealth hold 12% of the total net worth, the only decile (?) where that holds remotely close to true. The top 20% is skewed by the staggeringly out of whack percentages at the very very top. The graph, in fact, would look a lot like the graph of incomes I’ve been harping about for ten years. To even it out significantly for those at the bottom wouldn’t require touching the 80-90% people.
Civics class:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sessions-joins-chants-lock-her-up
Snowflakes in schools should be armed in case sniveling, racist little republican cucks find their way thru security
Civics class:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sessions-joins-chants-lock-her-up
Snowflakes in schools should be armed in case sniveling, racist little republican cucks find their way thru security
Also, russell said something recently (and I can’t find it, but don’t have a ton of time to search) about how he isn’t focused on how much wealth people accumulate at the top, he just thinks the people at the bottom should have enough to live on decently. (Obviously, I’m paraphrasing.)
My hammering on the percentiles of income and wealth at the top may make it seem like something personal concerning the wealthiest. That isn’t really *my* point either, but if people are going to be paid a living wage, and have decent health care and good public education etc., the money is going to have to come from somewhere. Or to put it a different way, some of the wealth that’s currently a flowing to the top is going to have to start flowing…elsewhere.
Also, russell said something recently (and I can’t find it, but don’t have a ton of time to search) about how he isn’t focused on how much wealth people accumulate at the top, he just thinks the people at the bottom should have enough to live on decently. (Obviously, I’m paraphrasing.)
My hammering on the percentiles of income and wealth at the top may make it seem like something personal concerning the wealthiest. That isn’t really *my* point either, but if people are going to be paid a living wage, and have decent health care and good public education etc., the money is going to have to come from somewhere. Or to put it a different way, some of the wealth that’s currently a flowing to the top is going to have to start flowing…elsewhere.
The job of the bottom 98% is to refund all of their money to the top 2%, to mollify the suits:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/07/23/tesla-suppliers-refunds-profits/817740002/
No different than fast food schleppers forced to pay for their tacky dumb-looking uniforms out of their windfall hourly wages.
The next car Musk launches into eternal orbit in space, he needs to be at the wheel with the top down.
Have some cake, losers.
The job of the bottom 98% is to refund all of their money to the top 2%, to mollify the suits:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/07/23/tesla-suppliers-refunds-profits/817740002/
No different than fast food schleppers forced to pay for their tacky dumb-looking uniforms out of their windfall hourly wages.
The next car Musk launches into eternal orbit in space, he needs to be at the wheel with the top down.
Have some cake, losers.
I think the Dems’ main problem is that they are seen as wishy-washy and too likely to go GOP light when elected
As Janie says, that’s the view on the “progressive left”. The point of the discussion is, how much does it help the Democrats’ electoral prospects to be regarded as “less wishy-washy”? Vs how much does it help to be seen as “GOP lite”?
After all, there is a big chunk of the country which, while we have no use for the RWNJs, aren’t exactly fans of the progressive left either. Personally, I’ll vote for a progressive left candidate over much of what the GOP puts up these days. (Especially in a Congressional election this year). But somehow I think I’m a bit more flexible on that front that some.
I think the Dems’ main problem is that they are seen as wishy-washy and too likely to go GOP light when elected
As Janie says, that’s the view on the “progressive left”. The point of the discussion is, how much does it help the Democrats’ electoral prospects to be regarded as “less wishy-washy”? Vs how much does it help to be seen as “GOP lite”?
After all, there is a big chunk of the country which, while we have no use for the RWNJs, aren’t exactly fans of the progressive left either. Personally, I’ll vote for a progressive left candidate over much of what the GOP puts up these days. (Especially in a Congressional election this year). But somehow I think I’m a bit more flexible on that front that some.
Janie,
Of course it’s misleading to lump the top 20% all together, since it’s a fair bet that McKinneyTexas and Jeff Bezos are both in it, and only one of them owns a newspaper or a space rocket.
BTW, McKinney may have a higher “earned income” than Bezos, and therefore be paying a higher marginal rate in taxes. If so, there’s only one GOP-acceptable policy response: cut Bezos’s taxes.
–TP
Janie,
Of course it’s misleading to lump the top 20% all together, since it’s a fair bet that McKinneyTexas and Jeff Bezos are both in it, and only one of them owns a newspaper or a space rocket.
BTW, McKinney may have a higher “earned income” than Bezos, and therefore be paying a higher marginal rate in taxes. If so, there’s only one GOP-acceptable policy response: cut Bezos’s taxes.
–TP
As Janie says, that’s the view on the “progressive left”.
I know we all look alike, but I do believe you mean GftNc…. 😉
As Janie says, that’s the view on the “progressive left”.
I know we all look alike, but I do believe you mean GftNc…. 😉
Here are the numbers from JanieM’s link. The second set of percentages in parentheses are mine, to imagine a hypothetical wealth distribution which still allows for people to be staggeringly wealthy, with people at the top holding twenty times what they would in an even wealth distribution, but doesn’t leave others fighting to survive on a daily basis.
Fewer billionaires and more millionaires, and way fewer desperately poor.
Here are the numbers from JanieM’s link. The second set of percentages in parentheses are mine, to imagine a hypothetical wealth distribution which still allows for people to be staggeringly wealthy, with people at the top holding twenty times what they would in an even wealth distribution, but doesn’t leave others fighting to survive on a daily basis.
Fewer billionaires and more millionaires, and way fewer desperately poor.
I know we all look alike, but I do believe you mean GftNc…. 😉
Yeah, from California the difference between England and New England gets kinda vague…. 😉
I know we all look alike, but I do believe you mean GftNc…. 😉
Yeah, from California the difference between England and New England gets kinda vague…. 😉
Fewer billionaires and more millionaires, and way fewer desperately poor.
So, from desperately poor to desperately dependent.
Fewer billionaires and more millionaires, and way fewer desperately poor.
So, from desperately poor to desperately dependent.
CharlesWT: So, from desperately poor to desperately dependent.
That’s quite a leap. hairshirt didn’t write one single word about how he imagines such a reapportionment might occur. russell has said, and I cited him a few comments ago, that ideally it should come by way of the people at the bottom getting paid a living wage.
So I’m going to make my own leap. You’re saying, in effect, that earning a living wage makes you desperately dependent. Indeed, I think that’s been one of the goals of our economic system for a long time. The sainted job creators, doncha know, and everyone else can take the crumbs.
Just as a footnote, there are plenty of people who *can’t* work, and are by definition “desperately dependent.” Children, some of the disabled, many of the very elderly. Sneer away, though. I’d say it’s not a good look, but all the evidence says you don’t care.
CharlesWT: So, from desperately poor to desperately dependent.
That’s quite a leap. hairshirt didn’t write one single word about how he imagines such a reapportionment might occur. russell has said, and I cited him a few comments ago, that ideally it should come by way of the people at the bottom getting paid a living wage.
So I’m going to make my own leap. You’re saying, in effect, that earning a living wage makes you desperately dependent. Indeed, I think that’s been one of the goals of our economic system for a long time. The sainted job creators, doncha know, and everyone else can take the crumbs.
Just as a footnote, there are plenty of people who *can’t* work, and are by definition “desperately dependent.” Children, some of the disabled, many of the very elderly. Sneer away, though. I’d say it’s not a good look, but all the evidence says you don’t care.
“So, from desperately poor to desperately dependent.”
Beats desperately violent, at both ends of the income scale.
“So, from desperately poor to desperately dependent.”
Beats desperately violent, at both ends of the income scale.
…, that ideally it should come by way of the people at the bottom getting paid a living wage.
I can’t comprehend how a “living wage” could possibly work.
…, that ideally it should come by way of the people at the bottom getting paid a living wage.
I can’t comprehend how a “living wage” could possibly work.
So, from desperately poor to desperately dependent.
What JaineM said. Plus:
You’d think the people at the top don’t depend on things to get and stay there. They’re just full of virtue, is all. They aren’t dependent on any institutional advantages, right? (Or on their parents … or their parents’ parents, and so on.)
So, from desperately poor to desperately dependent.
What JaineM said. Plus:
You’d think the people at the top don’t depend on things to get and stay there. They’re just full of virtue, is all. They aren’t dependent on any institutional advantages, right? (Or on their parents … or their parents’ parents, and so on.)
I can’t comprehend how a “living wage” could possibly work.
You and a lot of other people apparently. Therein lies the problem.
I can’t comprehend how a “living wage” could possibly work.
You and a lot of other people apparently. Therein lies the problem.
And another thing! Even if the desperately poor became dependent but not poor, where would the “desperately” part come in?
And another thing! Even if the desperately poor became dependent but not poor, where would the “desperately” part come in?
Sorry for the serial comments, but I’m just feeling apocalyptic today.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/biblical-disaster-greek-official-wildfires-killed-50/story?id=56774845
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/flash-flooding-sweeps-across-country-record-heat-hits-132903470–abc-news-topstories.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/a-global-heat-wave-has-set-the-arctic-circle-on-fire.html
Sorry for the serial comments, but I’m just feeling apocalyptic today.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/biblical-disaster-greek-official-wildfires-killed-50/story?id=56774845
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/flash-flooding-sweeps-across-country-record-heat-hits-132903470–abc-news-topstories.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/07/a-global-heat-wave-has-set-the-arctic-circle-on-fire.html
CharlesWT,
Just to nail down our definitions: if The Guvmint mandates a minimum wage, does that make minimum-wage workers “dependent”?
Would your answer be different if the minimum wage were set at $5/hr or $15/hr?
–TP
CharlesWT,
Just to nail down our definitions: if The Guvmint mandates a minimum wage, does that make minimum-wage workers “dependent”?
Would your answer be different if the minimum wage were set at $5/hr or $15/hr?
–TP
What constitutes a living wage would vary from person-to-person, place-to-place. Who gets to define what it is and how it will be implemented?
What constitutes a living wage would vary from person-to-person, place-to-place. Who gets to define what it is and how it will be implemented?
What constitutes a living wage would vary from person-to-person, place-to-place. Who gets to define what it is and how it will be implemented?
Well, if we don’t know how to get it just perfect, we should probably do nothing.
What constitutes a living wage would vary from person-to-person, place-to-place. Who gets to define what it is and how it will be implemented?
Well, if we don’t know how to get it just perfect, we should probably do nothing.
Working out of the office. Will reply to Nous and TP later this evening. Hopefully.
Working out of the office. Will reply to Nous and TP later this evening. Hopefully.
Working out of the office. Will reply to Nous and TP later this evening. Hopefully.
Working out of the office. Will reply to Nous and TP later this evening. Hopefully.
What lack of wealth means, as a practical matter.
I can’t comprehend how a “living wage” could possibly work.
it works like this:
not hard to understand
What lack of wealth means, as a practical matter.
I can’t comprehend how a “living wage” could possibly work.
it works like this:
not hard to understand
“Who gets to define what it is and how it will be implemented?”
Different people than the ones defining it as what accidentally trickles down now.
“Who gets to define what it is and how it will be implemented?”
Different people than the ones defining it as what accidentally trickles down now.
So, from desperately poor to desperately dependent.
Nothing beats the pleasure of sleeping in doorways with members of the Walton family.
I can’t comprehend how a “living wage” could possibly work.
but, but, but….libertarians can apparently comprehend selling yourself into slavery, owning the air above your house, spending most of your time in court suing others for infringing on your ‘liberty’, etc.
So, from desperately poor to desperately dependent.
Nothing beats the pleasure of sleeping in doorways with members of the Walton family.
I can’t comprehend how a “living wage” could possibly work.
but, but, but….libertarians can apparently comprehend selling yourself into slavery, owning the air above your house, spending most of your time in court suing others for infringing on your ‘liberty’, etc.
CharlesWT,
I did not ask you about a “living wage”. I asked you to clarify what you mean by “dependent”.
Does a government-mandated minimum wage OF ANY AMOUNT make minimum-wage workers “dependent”?
Are you so libertarian that defining a word you yourself use would stifle your freedom or something?
–TP
CharlesWT,
I did not ask you about a “living wage”. I asked you to clarify what you mean by “dependent”.
Does a government-mandated minimum wage OF ANY AMOUNT make minimum-wage workers “dependent”?
Are you so libertarian that defining a word you yourself use would stifle your freedom or something?
–TP
“Who gets to define what it is and how it will be implemented?”
Not the Governor of Kentucky, whose definition of which desperate people get to keep their teeth changes weekly:
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/395155-kentucky-governor-cancels-medicaid-dental-vision-benefits-after-losing
Is it safe?
Depends how desperate you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzw1_2b-I7A
“Who gets to define what it is and how it will be implemented?”
Not the Governor of Kentucky, whose definition of which desperate people get to keep their teeth changes weekly:
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/395155-kentucky-governor-cancels-medicaid-dental-vision-benefits-after-losing
Is it safe?
Depends how desperate you are.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzw1_2b-I7A
Would your answer be different if the minimum wage were set at $5/hr or $15/hr?
The minimum wage should be $0/hr. But $5/hr would be better than the current nation/local rates.
$15/hr tells employers that they shouldn’t bother creating a job unless its value to them is greater than $15/hr plus benefits and other job expenses.
Unless their skill and efforts are worth more than $15/hr plus benefits and other job expenses, it would be illegal for a person to have a job. An employer can’t pay them less and won’t hire them otherwise.
The first minimum wage laws at the turn of the last century were intended to price women, children, and social undesirables like minorities and the physically and mentally challenged out of the labor markets. Do they somehow work differently now?
Would your answer be different if the minimum wage were set at $5/hr or $15/hr?
The minimum wage should be $0/hr. But $5/hr would be better than the current nation/local rates.
$15/hr tells employers that they shouldn’t bother creating a job unless its value to them is greater than $15/hr plus benefits and other job expenses.
Unless their skill and efforts are worth more than $15/hr plus benefits and other job expenses, it would be illegal for a person to have a job. An employer can’t pay them less and won’t hire them otherwise.
The first minimum wage laws at the turn of the last century were intended to price women, children, and social undesirables like minorities and the physically and mentally challenged out of the labor markets. Do they somehow work differently now?
Well, if we don’t know how to get it just perfect, we should probably do nothing.
Yes.
Well, if we don’t know how to get it just perfect, we should probably do nothing.
Yes.
Democrats, please don’t lose your minds because the only alternative is this nest of sociopathic, ruthless, malignant vipers:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-goes-to-war-against-its-own-kimberly-guilfoyle?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
Democrats, please don’t lose your minds because the only alternative is this nest of sociopathic, ruthless, malignant vipers:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-goes-to-war-against-its-own-kimberly-guilfoyle?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning
Does a government-mandated minimum wage OF ANY AMOUNT make minimum-wage workers “dependent”?
It makes them dependent on family, friends, relatives, government, somebody if they’re not qualified for a minimum wage job.
Does a government-mandated minimum wage OF ANY AMOUNT make minimum-wage workers “dependent”?
It makes them dependent on family, friends, relatives, government, somebody if they’re not qualified for a minimum wage job.
Yes.
Is what we have now perfect? I’m guessing not, because there’s a minimum wage.
$15/hr tells employers that they shouldn’t bother creating a job unless its value to them is greater than $15/hr plus benefits and other job expenses.
What does it tell an employer if no one can afford to buy their goods/services?
The first minimum wage laws at the turn of the last century were intended to price women, children, and social undesirables like minorities and the physically and mentally challenged out of the labor markets. Do they somehow work differently now?
Yes.
Yes.
Is what we have now perfect? I’m guessing not, because there’s a minimum wage.
$15/hr tells employers that they shouldn’t bother creating a job unless its value to them is greater than $15/hr plus benefits and other job expenses.
What does it tell an employer if no one can afford to buy their goods/services?
The first minimum wage laws at the turn of the last century were intended to price women, children, and social undesirables like minorities and the physically and mentally challenged out of the labor markets. Do they somehow work differently now?
Yes.
“What does it tell an employer if no one can afford to buy their goods/services?”
If they are Burberry, it tells them they are on the right track.
“What does it tell an employer if no one can afford to buy their goods/services?”
If they are Burberry, it tells them they are on the right track.
It makes them dependent on family, friends, relatives, government, somebody if they’re not qualified for a minimum wage job.
If only they could be paid $2/hr legally, they wouldn’t be dependent on anybody.
It makes them dependent on family, friends, relatives, government, somebody if they’re not qualified for a minimum wage job.
If only they could be paid $2/hr legally, they wouldn’t be dependent on anybody.
“The first minimum wage laws at the turn of the last century were intended to price women, children, and social undesirables like minorities and the physically and mentally challenged out of the labor markets. Do they somehow work differently now?”
I expect so. Otherwise, conservatives/republicans would be all for a $20 minimum wage.
Fi dollah? The sun don’t shine where that gets stuck.
Next, you’ll be canvassing for the $100 per month rental unit.
So desperate dependency isn’t such a bad thing after all?
“The first minimum wage laws at the turn of the last century were intended to price women, children, and social undesirables like minorities and the physically and mentally challenged out of the labor markets. Do they somehow work differently now?”
I expect so. Otherwise, conservatives/republicans would be all for a $20 minimum wage.
Fi dollah? The sun don’t shine where that gets stuck.
Next, you’ll be canvassing for the $100 per month rental unit.
So desperate dependency isn’t such a bad thing after all?
“women, children, and social undesirables like minorities and the physically and mentally challenged out of the labor markets.”
Papa John is a conflicted man.
“women, children, and social undesirables like minorities and the physically and mentally challenged out of the labor markets.”
Papa John is a conflicted man.
To supplement JanieM’s pie chart, there also this graph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Wealth_distribution.png
Just something to keep in mind while having these abstract arguments about how our economic system should work as though we’re in a vacuum divorced from an actual reality.
To supplement JanieM’s pie chart, there also this graph:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Wealth_distribution.png
Just something to keep in mind while having these abstract arguments about how our economic system should work as though we’re in a vacuum divorced from an actual reality.
“and the physically and mentally challenged out.”
You could do that too by getting rid of OSHA and their mandated ramps and spacious toilet stalls.
Why limit ourselves?
There are so many paths to fucking freedom and independence for the desperate.
The Second Amendment, as defined by the same idiots, might become an unregulated option for the desperate as well.
You can make more money holding up a KFC at gunpoint than schlepping the extra crispy at fo dollah an hour.
“and the physically and mentally challenged out.”
You could do that too by getting rid of OSHA and their mandated ramps and spacious toilet stalls.
Why limit ourselves?
There are so many paths to fucking freedom and independence for the desperate.
The Second Amendment, as defined by the same idiots, might become an unregulated option for the desperate as well.
You can make more money holding up a KFC at gunpoint than schlepping the extra crispy at fo dollah an hour.
The question is, when we replace all conservatives and libertarians with robots, will the talk get any cheaper?
The question is, when we replace all conservatives and libertarians with robots, will the talk get any cheaper?
The first minimum wage laws at the turn of the last century were intended to price women, children, and social undesirables like minorities and the physically and mentally challenged out of the labor markets.
I hadn’t known that. Do you have a reference, so I can learn more?
The first minimum wage laws at the turn of the last century were intended to price women, children, and social undesirables like minorities and the physically and mentally challenged out of the labor markets.
I hadn’t known that. Do you have a reference, so I can learn more?
Well, if we don’t know how to get it just perfect, we should probably do nothing.
CharlesWT: Yes.
From this it logically follows that, since we don’t know what the perfect tax rates should be, we should do nothing, i.e. never cut them. Good to know.
Well, if we don’t know how to get it just perfect, we should probably do nothing.
CharlesWT: Yes.
From this it logically follows that, since we don’t know what the perfect tax rates should be, we should do nothing, i.e. never cut them. Good to know.
Instead of trying to shave off the top and sprinkle on the bottom, more effort should go into allowing people at the bottom to take more control over their lives.
• Decriminalize victimless crimes.
• Stop send most non-violent criminals to prison.
It’s difficult to grow personal wealth while sitting in prison. It’s difficult to get a good job after prison. Plus society has to pay for the person’s room and board and loses their productivity.
• Stop policing for profit.
• Greatly reduce the number of occupations that require a government approved licenses.
• Stop taking away people’s driver and occupation licenses for reasons unrelated to driving and occupation.
• Give people more choice in education. Most public education seems to be two tracks: Go to college or go to hell.
Just a few things off the top of my head.
Instead of trying to shave off the top and sprinkle on the bottom, more effort should go into allowing people at the bottom to take more control over their lives.
• Decriminalize victimless crimes.
• Stop send most non-violent criminals to prison.
It’s difficult to grow personal wealth while sitting in prison. It’s difficult to get a good job after prison. Plus society has to pay for the person’s room and board and loses their productivity.
• Stop policing for profit.
• Greatly reduce the number of occupations that require a government approved licenses.
• Stop taking away people’s driver and occupation licenses for reasons unrelated to driving and occupation.
• Give people more choice in education. Most public education seems to be two tracks: Go to college or go to hell.
Just a few things off the top of my head.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0405-leonard-minimum-wage-20160405-story.html
This is slightly different in the particulars, but even among the elite and well-paid, employers, mostly white males, will cheat everyone else and lie about it.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/23/how-the-bbc-women-are-working-toward-equal-pay
Regardless of the laws, regardless of century, regardless of political persuasion (BBC, called liberal elites by the American conservative guttersnipes, who don’t realize when it comes to policy, the same people get screwed again and again) every fucker in charge is a fucker in charge.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0405-leonard-minimum-wage-20160405-story.html
This is slightly different in the particulars, but even among the elite and well-paid, employers, mostly white males, will cheat everyone else and lie about it.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/07/23/how-the-bbc-women-are-working-toward-equal-pay
Regardless of the laws, regardless of century, regardless of political persuasion (BBC, called liberal elites by the American conservative guttersnipes, who don’t realize when it comes to policy, the same people get screwed again and again) every fucker in charge is a fucker in charge.
I like the some of the ideas at 2:13pm off the top of Charles WT’s head better than the ones dealt from the bottom of the deck.
I like the some of the ideas at 2:13pm off the top of Charles WT’s head better than the ones dealt from the bottom of the deck.
Now, now, wj,
The perfect tax rate is zero, of course. DoD, CDC, EPA, the USPTO and local public libraries should all be funded by voluntary contributions. Imagine how profitable USPS will become from all the fundraising mail.
–TP
Now, now, wj,
The perfect tax rate is zero, of course. DoD, CDC, EPA, the USPTO and local public libraries should all be funded by voluntary contributions. Imagine how profitable USPS will become from all the fundraising mail.
–TP
I hadn’t known that. Do you have a reference, so I can learn more?
The Eugenics Plot of the Minimum Wage: There really was a white male scheme to exterminate African Americans
Minimum wages were first designed to keep women and minorities out of jobs
I hadn’t known that. Do you have a reference, so I can learn more?
The Eugenics Plot of the Minimum Wage: There really was a white male scheme to exterminate African Americans
Minimum wages were first designed to keep women and minorities out of jobs
Instead of trying to shave off the top and sprinkle on the bottom, more effort should go into allowing people at the bottom to take more control over their lives.
If you noticed, what I presented were percentages of national income. In a better functioning economy, one might imagine that those at the top wouldn’t lose a single dollar, but that those at the bottom would have a larger share of an even larger national income, and therefore a lot more money than they now do.
Even if we were talking about an economy of the same size, your suggestions might simply result in a more even distribution of wealth, CharlesWT, such that he people in the lower percentiles ended up with more and those at the top less as a matter of course and not as a matter of any “shaving” (which I take to mean something involving taxation or confiscation).
What seems to be implicit in any discussion of how things might be, rather than how things are, is that somehow the way things are is the natural order without artificial “distortion” and, as such, things are somehow “right” (because that’s how they ended up).
Instead of trying to shave off the top and sprinkle on the bottom, more effort should go into allowing people at the bottom to take more control over their lives.
If you noticed, what I presented were percentages of national income. In a better functioning economy, one might imagine that those at the top wouldn’t lose a single dollar, but that those at the bottom would have a larger share of an even larger national income, and therefore a lot more money than they now do.
Even if we were talking about an economy of the same size, your suggestions might simply result in a more even distribution of wealth, CharlesWT, such that he people in the lower percentiles ended up with more and those at the top less as a matter of course and not as a matter of any “shaving” (which I take to mean something involving taxation or confiscation).
What seems to be implicit in any discussion of how things might be, rather than how things are, is that somehow the way things are is the natural order without artificial “distortion” and, as such, things are somehow “right” (because that’s how they ended up).
Minimum wages were first designed to keep women and minorities out of jobs.
Yes.
And, at this point in history, reducing or eliminating the minimum wage will keep them out to, if they have any pride whatsoever as they stay home.
I guarantee you too, that if there is no minimum wage and discrimination laws are loosened in employment (see the libertarian Paul family) white makes will make $2 dollars an hour and women and minorities will make $1 dollar an hour.
The dividends on my McDonald’s equity, not presently owned, will soar, however, so from my vantage point, it’s all coming up roses.
Minimum wages were first designed to keep women and minorities out of jobs.
Yes.
And, at this point in history, reducing or eliminating the minimum wage will keep them out to, if they have any pride whatsoever as they stay home.
I guarantee you too, that if there is no minimum wage and discrimination laws are loosened in employment (see the libertarian Paul family) white makes will make $2 dollars an hour and women and minorities will make $1 dollar an hour.
The dividends on my McDonald’s equity, not presently owned, will soar, however, so from my vantage point, it’s all coming up roses.
white “makes” will make
Leave it; it fits.
white “makes” will make
Leave it; it fits.
fwiw, I have no issue with anything in charles’ 2:13.
a little more clarity about which jobs that currently require a license would no longer require a license would be good, but that’s a quibble.
the world only needs so many hairdressers.
i’m not interested in “sprinkling on the bottom”. i’d love to see every form of public assistance wither away on the vine.
ain’t gonna happen until people get paid more.
fwiw, I have no issue with anything in charles’ 2:13.
a little more clarity about which jobs that currently require a license would no longer require a license would be good, but that’s a quibble.
the world only needs so many hairdressers.
i’m not interested in “sprinkling on the bottom”. i’d love to see every form of public assistance wither away on the vine.
ain’t gonna happen until people get paid more.
The horror .. the horror:
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/07/24/daily-caller-writer-recounts-her-horror-going-ocasio-cortez-rally-they-talk-about-things-everybody/220765
The horror .. the horror:
https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2018/07/24/daily-caller-writer-recounts-her-horror-going-ocasio-cortez-rally-they-talk-about-things-everybody/220765
from Eschaton:
http://thehill.com/media/398290-nyts-haberman-trump-often-tells-the-truth
Read the whole thing. You can’t stick your fingers far enough down your throats to disgorge this tapeworm that is consuming everything.
from Eschaton:
http://thehill.com/media/398290-nyts-haberman-trump-often-tells-the-truth
Read the whole thing. You can’t stick your fingers far enough down your throats to disgorge this tapeworm that is consuming everything.
So much for personal responsibility:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/398637-trump-to-stop-policy-ordering-developers-to-pay-for-damage-to
Now that there is some socialism.
I’m not paying for the damage. You send yer revenuers over to me and see what happens when they ask me to pay for damage I didn’t cause.
I’ll shoot them right in their republican faces.
Now, if you’ll scuse me, I have fires to set.
So much for personal responsibility:
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/398637-trump-to-stop-policy-ordering-developers-to-pay-for-damage-to
Now that there is some socialism.
I’m not paying for the damage. You send yer revenuers over to me and see what happens when they ask me to pay for damage I didn’t cause.
I’ll shoot them right in their republican faces.
Now, if you’ll scuse me, I have fires to set.
From the count’s link about the Daily Caller thing:
Sorry for the long quote.
Look, either you think it’s legitimate and reasonable for the government to provide, or help provide, things like health care and education, or you don’t.
If you don’t, you should vote (R), because they don’t either.
If you do, you should vote (D), because they do.
Take your pick.
People will say, “well they both really want the same thing, the arguments are just about the details”.
I think that’s false. They don’t want the same things. They want different, incompatible things. Which is why the nation has become ungovernable.
IMO it is quite simply fine for the government to be involved in making health care and education available for the people who live in this country. You can go down the whole list of talking points – health care, education, environmental regulation, regulation of financial markets and interstate commerce, blah blah blah. All of it. I think it’s all perfectly good.
And I think it’s fine for government to assess taxes on all of us to pay for it. Because it makes it available to us. All of us. Not just those of us who can afford to pay out of pocket for 4 years of undergraduate college, or a new set of kidneys, or what have you.
It makes all of those good things accessible to all of us.
I completely support that agenda. I think it’s bloody well great.
The (D) message is, or should be, really simple:
Do you think we should all chip in to make things like schools, health care, basic infrastructure, libraries, public health and safety, etc. available to everyone?
Or do you think we should all go get those things for ourselves?
And they should follow up with pictures and stories about what life was like before we had those things. And/or, what life is like now, right now, for people who don’t have those things. Working people, hard-working people.
We all chip in so everyone can have it. Or, we all go get it for ourselves, and if you can’t do that, you’re SOL.
(D) or (R)
Take your pick
The people at the rally *are focused on what they can do to change it*. They’re focused on voting anti-social greed-head (R)’s the hell out of office.
I applaud them.
From the count’s link about the Daily Caller thing:
Sorry for the long quote.
Look, either you think it’s legitimate and reasonable for the government to provide, or help provide, things like health care and education, or you don’t.
If you don’t, you should vote (R), because they don’t either.
If you do, you should vote (D), because they do.
Take your pick.
People will say, “well they both really want the same thing, the arguments are just about the details”.
I think that’s false. They don’t want the same things. They want different, incompatible things. Which is why the nation has become ungovernable.
IMO it is quite simply fine for the government to be involved in making health care and education available for the people who live in this country. You can go down the whole list of talking points – health care, education, environmental regulation, regulation of financial markets and interstate commerce, blah blah blah. All of it. I think it’s all perfectly good.
And I think it’s fine for government to assess taxes on all of us to pay for it. Because it makes it available to us. All of us. Not just those of us who can afford to pay out of pocket for 4 years of undergraduate college, or a new set of kidneys, or what have you.
It makes all of those good things accessible to all of us.
I completely support that agenda. I think it’s bloody well great.
The (D) message is, or should be, really simple:
Do you think we should all chip in to make things like schools, health care, basic infrastructure, libraries, public health and safety, etc. available to everyone?
Or do you think we should all go get those things for ourselves?
And they should follow up with pictures and stories about what life was like before we had those things. And/or, what life is like now, right now, for people who don’t have those things. Working people, hard-working people.
We all chip in so everyone can have it. Or, we all go get it for ourselves, and if you can’t do that, you’re SOL.
(D) or (R)
Take your pick
The people at the rally *are focused on what they can do to change it*. They’re focused on voting anti-social greed-head (R)’s the hell out of office.
I applaud them.
There’s one flaw in what you wrote, russell. We simply can’t afford to buy everyone a yacht and send them on two-week vacations to five-star resorts in the south of France every year. We can’t buy everyone an E-Class Mercedes. We can’t put people up in penthouse apartments overlooking Central Park. The money just isn’t there.
Oh, wait. You didn’t write anything like that. Never mind.
There’s one flaw in what you wrote, russell. We simply can’t afford to buy everyone a yacht and send them on two-week vacations to five-star resorts in the south of France every year. We can’t buy everyone an E-Class Mercedes. We can’t put people up in penthouse apartments overlooking Central Park. The money just isn’t there.
Oh, wait. You didn’t write anything like that. Never mind.
Look, either you think it’s legitimate and reasonable for the government to provide, or help provide, things like health care and education, or you don’t.
If you don’t, you should vote (R), because they don’t either.
But wait! Here is the (Republican) Trump administration putting up a program for the government to provide things like food. OK really just subsidies for farmers hurt by a stupid trade war. But still.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-readies-plan-for-12-billion-in-emergency-aid-to-farmers-caught-in-trumps-escalating-trade-war/2018/07/24/7bec9af4-8f4d-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html
Look, either you think it’s legitimate and reasonable for the government to provide, or help provide, things like health care and education, or you don’t.
If you don’t, you should vote (R), because they don’t either.
But wait! Here is the (Republican) Trump administration putting up a program for the government to provide things like food. OK really just subsidies for farmers hurt by a stupid trade war. But still.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-readies-plan-for-12-billion-in-emergency-aid-to-farmers-caught-in-trumps-escalating-trade-war/2018/07/24/7bec9af4-8f4d-11e8-b769-e3fff17f0689_story.html
Re CWT’s 2:13: I’m curious about the “most” in the second bullet. Financial (and environmental) crimes tend to be “nonviolent” and are often perpetrated by corporate personhood-type criminals. The sting from those run long and deep, and usually affect the already-desperate.
Re CWT’s 2:13: I’m curious about the “most” in the second bullet. Financial (and environmental) crimes tend to be “nonviolent” and are often perpetrated by corporate personhood-type criminals. The sting from those run long and deep, and usually affect the already-desperate.
I know we all look alike, but I do believe you mean GftNc…. 😉
Yeah, from California the difference between England and New England gets kinda vague…. 😉
😉
Been out all day with old friends from the US, being told that the younger one (undergraduate at the University of Florida), and a complete RWNJ Trump idolator, is called by other students on his PoliSci course a RINO (because he comes from Calif and is a “commie”). Eeek. WTF is happening in the US, is there something in the water post-Pruitt turning everyone into flesh-eating zombies?
I know we all look alike, but I do believe you mean GftNc…. 😉
Yeah, from California the difference between England and New England gets kinda vague…. 😉
😉
Been out all day with old friends from the US, being told that the younger one (undergraduate at the University of Florida), and a complete RWNJ Trump idolator, is called by other students on his PoliSci course a RINO (because he comes from Calif and is a “commie”). Eeek. WTF is happening in the US, is there something in the water post-Pruitt turning everyone into flesh-eating zombies?
Been out all day with old friends from the US, being told that the younger one (undergraduate at the University of Florida), and a complete RWNJ Trump idolator, is called by other students on his PoliSci course a RINO (because he comes from Calif and is a “commie”).
And people tell me I’m crazy when I say that regional divides are a growing thing…
Been out all day with old friends from the US, being told that the younger one (undergraduate at the University of Florida), and a complete RWNJ Trump idolator, is called by other students on his PoliSci course a RINO (because he comes from Calif and is a “commie”).
And people tell me I’m crazy when I say that regional divides are a growing thing…
We all chip in so everyone can have it. Or, we all go get it for ourselves, and if you can’t do that, you’re SOL.
This was an interesting, and depressing, read about the Kochs’ favorite economist. I don’t understand how this view can be justified by anyone who isn’t a sociopath. But that seems to be what we now have as the prevailing philosophy.
We all chip in so everyone can have it. Or, we all go get it for ourselves, and if you can’t do that, you’re SOL.
This was an interesting, and depressing, read about the Kochs’ favorite economist. I don’t understand how this view can be justified by anyone who isn’t a sociopath. But that seems to be what we now have as the prevailing philosophy.
I don’t understand how this view can be justified by anyone who isn’t a sociopath.
But being a sociopath isn’t as socially abhorrent as it once was. You just have to call it “libertarian”. Although, since most libertarians are less extreme, LNJ* might be more accurate.
** LNJ: Libertarian Nut Job (trademark pending)
I don’t understand how this view can be justified by anyone who isn’t a sociopath.
But being a sociopath isn’t as socially abhorrent as it once was. You just have to call it “libertarian”. Although, since most libertarians are less extreme, LNJ* might be more accurate.
** LNJ: Libertarian Nut Job (trademark pending)
sapient, I just received “Democracy In Chains” from Amazon last week.
I’ll move it up on the reading queue.
sapient, I just received “Democracy In Chains” from Amazon last week.
I’ll move it up on the reading queue.
I’ll move it up on the reading queue.
You have a stronger stomach than I do, Count.
I’ll move it up on the reading queue.
You have a stronger stomach than I do, Count.
I bet Charles is wishing he just posted a wry link. Strange thing is when I first say that, I thought he wrote ‘desperately despondent’ and was wondering how all that worked.
still, since he won’t post one, I’ll give it a try
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/23/tech-industry-wealth-futurism-transhumanism-singularity
I bet Charles is wishing he just posted a wry link. Strange thing is when I first say that, I thought he wrote ‘desperately despondent’ and was wondering how all that worked.
still, since he won’t post one, I’ll give it a try
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/23/tech-industry-wealth-futurism-transhumanism-singularity
sapient, I just received “Democracy In Chains” from Amazon last week.
If you want to save a few bucks, you can find the book at a government library in the section for historical fiction.
From those RWNJs at Vox:
Even the intellectual left is drawn to conspiracy theories about the right. Resist them.: How not to write about “radical” libertarians.
sapient, I just received “Democracy In Chains” from Amazon last week.
If you want to save a few bucks, you can find the book at a government library in the section for historical fiction.
From those RWNJs at Vox:
Even the intellectual left is drawn to conspiracy theories about the right. Resist them.: How not to write about “radical” libertarians.
I knew as soon as I saw lj’s link that it would mention Ray Kurzweil.
But you know what? An eye roll will suffice.
I knew as soon as I saw lj’s link that it would mention Ray Kurzweil.
But you know what? An eye roll will suffice.
Nancy MacLean answers her critics, including Farrell and Teles, in an interview in The Chronicle for Higher Education.
Nancy MacLean answers her critics, including Farrell and Teles, in an interview in The Chronicle for Higher Education.
Good read at your link, sapient. Her tone in her response is clearly different from that of many of her critics. I wonder why (or maybe I don’t).
Good read at your link, sapient. Her tone in her response is clearly different from that of many of her critics. I wonder why (or maybe I don’t).
Thanks, sapient. In that article MacLean makes this unremarkable observation:
Economic inequality has now advanced to the point that several hundred incredibly wealthy donors, who are hostile to our democracy as it currently operates and are led by a messianic multibillionaire, have contributed vast amounts of dark money to fund dozens upon dozens of ostensibly separate but actually connected organizations that are exploiting what Buchanan’s team taught about “the rules of the game” of modern governance in a cold-eyed bid to bend our institutions and policies to goals they know most voters do not share (such as the repeal of Obamacare without replacement).
This is largely true. See also Jane Mayers Dark Money. It is not a conspiracy.* It is a group that has and is using its vast financial wealth to bend democracy to adopt rules that would essentially end it. This is what you get when you set up a society that funnels outlandish amounts of wealth to the few.
It is not just about fairness.
They want to rule.
They have the means to make it so.
Most of us will loath the result if they get their way.
We are in a new Gilded Age. Look around you. These fuckers are winning.
They must be stopped.
*for us oldies, it starts with Veblen, Galbraith, CW Mills, and here we are with Piketty, Galbraith’s kid, Reich, Stiglitz, et al. You don’t have to be some kind of stone marxist reading esoteric stuff recommended by bob mcmannus to understand what’s going on here.
Thanks, sapient. In that article MacLean makes this unremarkable observation:
Economic inequality has now advanced to the point that several hundred incredibly wealthy donors, who are hostile to our democracy as it currently operates and are led by a messianic multibillionaire, have contributed vast amounts of dark money to fund dozens upon dozens of ostensibly separate but actually connected organizations that are exploiting what Buchanan’s team taught about “the rules of the game” of modern governance in a cold-eyed bid to bend our institutions and policies to goals they know most voters do not share (such as the repeal of Obamacare without replacement).
This is largely true. See also Jane Mayers Dark Money. It is not a conspiracy.* It is a group that has and is using its vast financial wealth to bend democracy to adopt rules that would essentially end it. This is what you get when you set up a society that funnels outlandish amounts of wealth to the few.
It is not just about fairness.
They want to rule.
They have the means to make it so.
Most of us will loath the result if they get their way.
We are in a new Gilded Age. Look around you. These fuckers are winning.
They must be stopped.
*for us oldies, it starts with Veblen, Galbraith, CW Mills, and here we are with Piketty, Galbraith’s kid, Reich, Stiglitz, et al. You don’t have to be some kind of stone marxist reading esoteric stuff recommended by bob mcmannus to understand what’s going on here.
I knew as soon as I saw lj’s link that it would mention Ray Kurzweil.
people who think money is going to let them escape nature are going to end up feeding worms, just like the rest of us.
all things considered, there are worse fates. consider tithonus.
worms gotta eat, too.
i don’t really care if my disembodied ‘consciousness’ gets uploaded to the cloud so it can persist on into some approximation of eternity. if i can’t taste a fresh peach on a nice summer day, count me out.
i’ve had my fun. i’ll feed a worm.
How not to write about “radical” libertarians.
to me, libertarianism is nostalgia for locke’s state of nature.
we don’t live in locke’s state of nature. nobody ever did. locke made it up, to make a point. which libertarians seem to miss.
the whole public choice thing sounds like an interesting lens for analyzing public behavior. as a normative model, it seems kind of lacking.
people are quite often motivted by things other than their own personal upside. believe it or not.
I knew as soon as I saw lj’s link that it would mention Ray Kurzweil.
people who think money is going to let them escape nature are going to end up feeding worms, just like the rest of us.
all things considered, there are worse fates. consider tithonus.
worms gotta eat, too.
i don’t really care if my disembodied ‘consciousness’ gets uploaded to the cloud so it can persist on into some approximation of eternity. if i can’t taste a fresh peach on a nice summer day, count me out.
i’ve had my fun. i’ll feed a worm.
How not to write about “radical” libertarians.
to me, libertarianism is nostalgia for locke’s state of nature.
we don’t live in locke’s state of nature. nobody ever did. locke made it up, to make a point. which libertarians seem to miss.
the whole public choice thing sounds like an interesting lens for analyzing public behavior. as a normative model, it seems kind of lacking.
people are quite often motivted by things other than their own personal upside. believe it or not.
I also liked sapient’s link.
One point MacLean makes which needs to be made more often— the phrase “ conspiracy theory” is overused to dismiss claims even when there is evidence for them. Some conspiracy theories are whacky because they are implausible and there is no evidence for them. But I think it was Adam Smith who warned us about businessmen getting together and plotting against the public interest. Crazy conspiracy theorist.
I also liked sapient’s link.
One point MacLean makes which needs to be made more often— the phrase “ conspiracy theory” is overused to dismiss claims even when there is evidence for them. Some conspiracy theories are whacky because they are implausible and there is no evidence for them. But I think it was Adam Smith who warned us about businessmen getting together and plotting against the public interest. Crazy conspiracy theorist.
We are in a new Gilded Age. Look around you. These fuckers are winning.
They must be stopped.
The excellent news is, we’ve been down this road before. The experience of the first Gilded Age tells us that they can, indeed, be stopped and we can emerge intact from this. Indeed, not only intact but in better case than we went in.
Not to say that success will be easy. But it is good to have hope. Especially hope with a real basis in experience.
We are in a new Gilded Age. Look around you. These fuckers are winning.
They must be stopped.
The excellent news is, we’ve been down this road before. The experience of the first Gilded Age tells us that they can, indeed, be stopped and we can emerge intact from this. Indeed, not only intact but in better case than we went in.
Not to say that success will be easy. But it is good to have hope. Especially hope with a real basis in experience.
The rather less excellent news is that took a couple of decades…
The rather less excellent news is that took a couple of decades…
I’m glad you enjoyed the article. Even if sociopathic, the desire to accumulate massive wealth I understand. What I don’t get is the desire to ruin the environment and trash the world in so many other ways. The only think that explains that, to me, is cleek’s law.
I’m glad you enjoyed the article. Even if sociopathic, the desire to accumulate massive wealth I understand. What I don’t get is the desire to ruin the environment and trash the world in so many other ways. The only think that explains that, to me, is cleek’s law.
Punch a hippie with a fist full of dollars.
Punch a hippie with a fist full of dollars.
Headline: “The latest Trump scandal would have destroyed any other president”
Ya think?
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/25/trump-scandal-president
Headline: “The latest Trump scandal would have destroyed any other president”
Ya think?
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/25/trump-scandal-president
i can’t even tell you what the latest Trump scandal is.
his whole Presidency is a roiling cauldron of scandal.
i can’t even tell you what the latest Trump scandal is.
his whole Presidency is a roiling cauldron of scandal.
Further to the discussion of the Intellectual Dark Web, in an article which I posted from the NYT a few weeks ago (to much justified derision), there is an interesting post up at Crooked Timber about a recent article on it (the IDW) in the LA Review of Books. The link to the article, for anyone who is interested and doesn’t look at CT, is here:
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-intellectual-dark-web-is-nothing-new/
but the post at CT, called The Enrightenment, by Henry (who says he disagrees with some of the conclusions of the LARB piece) excerpts this, which puts it well:
I thought this was roughly on-thread about the intellectual underpinnings of what is going on around us.
Further to the discussion of the Intellectual Dark Web, in an article which I posted from the NYT a few weeks ago (to much justified derision), there is an interesting post up at Crooked Timber about a recent article on it (the IDW) in the LA Review of Books. The link to the article, for anyone who is interested and doesn’t look at CT, is here:
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-intellectual-dark-web-is-nothing-new/
but the post at CT, called The Enrightenment, by Henry (who says he disagrees with some of the conclusions of the LARB piece) excerpts this, which puts it well:
I thought this was roughly on-thread about the intellectual underpinnings of what is going on around us.
An interesting op-ed on the topic of Senate representation, which we discussed recently:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/24/democrats-senate-constitution-219033
Seems fairly sensible (apart from the deeply irritating use of “whining”, which is a rhetorical development to be regretted).
Although what would be wrong in granting Puerto Rico statehood, given they have voted for it ?
An interesting op-ed on the topic of Senate representation, which we discussed recently:
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/07/24/democrats-senate-constitution-219033
Seems fairly sensible (apart from the deeply irritating use of “whining”, which is a rhetorical development to be regretted).
Although what would be wrong in granting Puerto Rico statehood, given they have voted for it ?
Fake news conspiracy theories win elections.
Most of the RNC budget, the Kremlin’s foreign elections budget, and the right-wing fake news budgets are allocated to fake news conspiracy theories.
Hillary Clinton died of AIDS-related pneumonia in October 2016.
The true conspiracy theories don’t gain much traction.
There is no rule of law in America.
What laws are left, which serve only to protect conservatives, break and break hard.
Fake news conspiracy theories win elections.
Most of the RNC budget, the Kremlin’s foreign elections budget, and the right-wing fake news budgets are allocated to fake news conspiracy theories.
Hillary Clinton died of AIDS-related pneumonia in October 2016.
The true conspiracy theories don’t gain much traction.
There is no rule of law in America.
What laws are left, which serve only to protect conservatives, break and break hard.
Ben Shapiro would be wise to avoid interactions with me.
Ben Shapiro would be wise to avoid interactions with me.
The latest Trump scandal would have destroyed any other president
won’t make a dent. his people love him.
he wasn’t kidding about the shooting somebody on 5th ave thing.
this – the trump presidency and all of the attendant crap – is going to be a long, drawn-out mess.
The latest Trump scandal would have destroyed any other president
won’t make a dent. his people love him.
he wasn’t kidding about the shooting somebody on 5th ave thing.
this – the trump presidency and all of the attendant crap – is going to be a long, drawn-out mess.
what appears to be systemic inequality is actually the result of individual choices or behavior. Christina Hoff Sommers argues, for example, that the gender wage gap is a result of women’s choices to work jobs that pay less, while Ben Shapiro believes the problem of police brutality could be solved by people — presumably African Americans — simply “avoiding interactions with the cops.”
This completely begs the question. An “individual choice” is a selection from available options. Unless you take those into account the claim that something results from individual choices is meaningless.
what appears to be systemic inequality is actually the result of individual choices or behavior. Christina Hoff Sommers argues, for example, that the gender wage gap is a result of women’s choices to work jobs that pay less, while Ben Shapiro believes the problem of police brutality could be solved by people — presumably African Americans — simply “avoiding interactions with the cops.”
This completely begs the question. An “individual choice” is a selection from available options. Unless you take those into account the claim that something results from individual choices is meaningless.
An “individual choice” is a selection from available options.
The greater women’s options are, the fewer of them who will choose STEM careers than men.
An “individual choice” is a selection from available options.
The greater women’s options are, the fewer of them who will choose STEM careers than men.
The greater women’s options are, the fewer of them who will choose STEM careers than men.
Answer #1: That assumes that the climate for women in STEM careers — a climate that must have *something* to do with whether women choose those careers or not — is eternal and immutable.
Speaking as someone who started college in a class of 900, of whom all of 60 were women, and who has done work in a STEM field for my entire adult life, I have some firsthand experience with these “options.”
Answewr #2: So what?
The greater women’s options are, the fewer of them who will choose STEM careers than men.
Answer #1: That assumes that the climate for women in STEM careers — a climate that must have *something* to do with whether women choose those careers or not — is eternal and immutable.
Speaking as someone who started college in a class of 900, of whom all of 60 were women, and who has done work in a STEM field for my entire adult life, I have some firsthand experience with these “options.”
Answewr #2: So what?
P.S. That gender ratio for an entering class is now almost exactly even.
Imagine that. When the culture changed, the options changed.
P.S. That gender ratio for an entering class is now almost exactly even.
Imagine that. When the culture changed, the options changed.
Ben Shapiro believes the problem of police brutality could be solved by people — presumably African Americans — simply “avoiding interactions with the cops.”
what a dope.
Ben Shapiro believes the problem of police brutality could be solved by people — presumably African Americans — simply “avoiding interactions with the cops.”
what a dope.
what appears to be systemic inequality is actually the result of individual choices or behavior. Christina Hoff Sommers argues, for example, that the gender wage gap is a result of women’s choices to work jobs that pay less, while Ben Shapiro believes the problem of police brutality could be solved by people — presumably African Americans — simply “avoiding interactions with the cops.”
We have a serious fondness (we can discuss why) for simple, not to mention simplistic, answers.
As noted, part of the reason for the inequality is which options society makes available to different groups. Also, part really is about choices that members of groups make, even when they are not constrained. And yet another part is simple biology*.
Any time someone stands up and claims that the reason something happens is…, it’s time for massive skepticism. There may, occasionally, be something with a really simple cause. But overall, that’s not the smart way to bet.
* For instance, women who have children are going to lose time out of their careers. You can argue that we ought to supply maternity leave and childcare, but that’s a different issue. (Note that we don’t offer paternity leave either.) This one is simply that women get pregnant and men don’t, which isn’t a human artifact.
what appears to be systemic inequality is actually the result of individual choices or behavior. Christina Hoff Sommers argues, for example, that the gender wage gap is a result of women’s choices to work jobs that pay less, while Ben Shapiro believes the problem of police brutality could be solved by people — presumably African Americans — simply “avoiding interactions with the cops.”
We have a serious fondness (we can discuss why) for simple, not to mention simplistic, answers.
As noted, part of the reason for the inequality is which options society makes available to different groups. Also, part really is about choices that members of groups make, even when they are not constrained. And yet another part is simple biology*.
Any time someone stands up and claims that the reason something happens is…, it’s time for massive skepticism. There may, occasionally, be something with a really simple cause. But overall, that’s not the smart way to bet.
* For instance, women who have children are going to lose time out of their careers. You can argue that we ought to supply maternity leave and childcare, but that’s a different issue. (Note that we don’t offer paternity leave either.) This one is simply that women get pregnant and men don’t, which isn’t a human artifact.
Christina Hoff Sommers argues, for example, that the gender wage gap is a result of women’s choices to work jobs that pay less…
Funny how that is framed. Does she think that a woman choosing a lower paying vocation would change careers if the pay were to increase too much? All this really means is that we do not monetize the sort of work that women find rewarding the same way that we monetize “masculine” work.
What societal structures make that sort of difference happen? What narratives are built around them to perpetuate this set of circumstances?
Christina Hoff Sommers argues, for example, that the gender wage gap is a result of women’s choices to work jobs that pay less…
Funny how that is framed. Does she think that a woman choosing a lower paying vocation would change careers if the pay were to increase too much? All this really means is that we do not monetize the sort of work that women find rewarding the same way that we monetize “masculine” work.
What societal structures make that sort of difference happen? What narratives are built around them to perpetuate this set of circumstances?
All this really means is that we do not monetize the sort of work that women find rewarding…
it might also be work that men won’t do because it’s been labelled ‘women’s work’.
All this really means is that we do not monetize the sort of work that women find rewarding…
it might also be work that men won’t do because it’s been labelled ‘women’s work’.
What societal structures make that sort of difference happen? What narratives are built around them to perpetuate this set of circumstances?
The tritest possible example: I found my freshman calculus book in the attic a while back. The preface talked at length about the student, as in “he” will see this and “he” will do that and “he” will learn the other thing. Over and over and over again.
It was jarring to be reminded of those days, and also have to remember that at the time I (along with almost everyone else) didn’t blink an eye at the assumption that “he” was the default human.
I grew up in a world where girls were not supposed to love math. I loved math. I suspect it was that dynamic, far more than the dynamic of being gay, that set the stage for a lifetime of not giving much of a fnck about what other people thought I “should” be doing.
What societal structures make that sort of difference happen? What narratives are built around them to perpetuate this set of circumstances?
The tritest possible example: I found my freshman calculus book in the attic a while back. The preface talked at length about the student, as in “he” will see this and “he” will do that and “he” will learn the other thing. Over and over and over again.
It was jarring to be reminded of those days, and also have to remember that at the time I (along with almost everyone else) didn’t blink an eye at the assumption that “he” was the default human.
I grew up in a world where girls were not supposed to love math. I loved math. I suspect it was that dynamic, far more than the dynamic of being gay, that set the stage for a lifetime of not giving much of a fnck about what other people thought I “should” be doing.
it might also be work that men won’t do because it’s been labelled ‘women’s work’.
Yes, but that only explains why women end up doing it, not why we find it normal that such work is paid less than ‘men’s work’ (or at least ‘not just women’s work.’
it might also be work that men won’t do because it’s been labelled ‘women’s work’.
Yes, but that only explains why women end up doing it, not why we find it normal that such work is paid less than ‘men’s work’ (or at least ‘not just women’s work.’
it might also be work that men won’t do because it’s been labelled ‘women’s work’.
“Women’s work” becomes men’s work when the pay goes up, though. See nursing, for example. And even there, men on average get paid more.
Which brings me back to this idiocy: the gender wage gap is a result of women’s choices to work jobs that pay less… If that’s meant to refer to entire fields, what is she going to say about the overall pattern that women get paid less than men even for the same jobs….?
it might also be work that men won’t do because it’s been labelled ‘women’s work’.
“Women’s work” becomes men’s work when the pay goes up, though. See nursing, for example. And even there, men on average get paid more.
Which brings me back to this idiocy: the gender wage gap is a result of women’s choices to work jobs that pay less… If that’s meant to refer to entire fields, what is she going to say about the overall pattern that women get paid less than men even for the same jobs….?
Yes, but that only explains why women end up doing it, not why we find it normal that such work is paid less than ‘men’s work’
if it paid well, men would do it. in other words: men have claimed the good-paying jobs for themselves.
and it reinforces itself: men take the good jobs, leaving women to do jobs that don’t pay as much. those already-lower-paying jobs then become “women’s work”. then “women’s work” becomes a synonym for necessary but low-paying work that men won’t do. and then future men won’t do jobs that are called “women’s work”.
Yes, but that only explains why women end up doing it, not why we find it normal that such work is paid less than ‘men’s work’
if it paid well, men would do it. in other words: men have claimed the good-paying jobs for themselves.
and it reinforces itself: men take the good jobs, leaving women to do jobs that don’t pay as much. those already-lower-paying jobs then become “women’s work”. then “women’s work” becomes a synonym for necessary but low-paying work that men won’t do. and then future men won’t do jobs that are called “women’s work”.
I’m often driven a little nuts by the sort of simplistic cause-effect reasoning that’s employed when discussing large-scale-demographic social behavior. These aren’t questions of a cue balls hitting eight balls.
Yes, sometimes people make a worse choice than they otherwise could, even when constrained to a number of bad choices by circumstance. Sometimes they make the best available choice, though it’s still not a particularly good one – or at least not as good as the choices available to people in other circumstances. Sometimes, when faced with a seemingly endless series of bad options at every turn, the stress confounds one’s ability to discern what the best choice is.
Trying to give people better options is often taken as excusing sub-optimal choices (even when the optimal choices still aren’t very good). Some people expect heroism from people who are born into whatever degree of bad circumstances. Exceptional people overcome bad circumstances, but that’s what makes them exceptional.
It’s easier to think people are bad when they fail, even if the odds are against them. This way, you can feel better about yourself in relative terms (i.e. morally superior) and you don’t have to do anything about the bad odds other people face (you’re absolved!). It’s a very convenient way of thinking.
Everyone’s choices shape society. Society influences everyone’s choices. Neither is a bat, and neither is a ball, yet both are both bat and ball.
I’m often driven a little nuts by the sort of simplistic cause-effect reasoning that’s employed when discussing large-scale-demographic social behavior. These aren’t questions of a cue balls hitting eight balls.
Yes, sometimes people make a worse choice than they otherwise could, even when constrained to a number of bad choices by circumstance. Sometimes they make the best available choice, though it’s still not a particularly good one – or at least not as good as the choices available to people in other circumstances. Sometimes, when faced with a seemingly endless series of bad options at every turn, the stress confounds one’s ability to discern what the best choice is.
Trying to give people better options is often taken as excusing sub-optimal choices (even when the optimal choices still aren’t very good). Some people expect heroism from people who are born into whatever degree of bad circumstances. Exceptional people overcome bad circumstances, but that’s what makes them exceptional.
It’s easier to think people are bad when they fail, even if the odds are against them. This way, you can feel better about yourself in relative terms (i.e. morally superior) and you don’t have to do anything about the bad odds other people face (you’re absolved!). It’s a very convenient way of thinking.
Everyone’s choices shape society. Society influences everyone’s choices. Neither is a bat, and neither is a ball, yet both are both bat and ball.
it might also be work that men won’t do because it’s been labelled ‘women’s work’.
Of course, basic (economic forces only) economics would predict that, if you cut the potential workforce in half, the expected pay will go UP. Leading to the suspicion that something else is going on here.
it might also be work that men won’t do because it’s been labelled ‘women’s work’.
Of course, basic (economic forces only) economics would predict that, if you cut the potential workforce in half, the expected pay will go UP. Leading to the suspicion that something else is going on here.
Exceptional people overcome bad circumstances, but that’s what makes them exceptional.
In fairness, some exceptional people also overcome good circumstances. That’s what makes them George H. W. Bush instead of Paris Hilton.
Exceptional people overcome bad circumstances, but that’s what makes them exceptional.
In fairness, some exceptional people also overcome good circumstances. That’s what makes them George H. W. Bush instead of Paris Hilton.
I’ve never been able to formulate this into a suitably pithy comeback, but I think there’s an important ‘one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic’ factor when the whole individual choices thing comes up.
On an individual, or personal, level, it’s always possible to analyze someone’s choices and see how they screwed their own lives up as compared to some theoretical optimum.
But it seems to me that reasoning breaks down somewhere in the move to the macro level. One person can make some bad choices. If 10 million people are making the same bad choices over and over again, you’ve got a systematic societal problem.
So responding to some general problem with a simplistic, “well, those people could have better lives if they just made better choices,” falls kind of short. Even if you can atomically analyze the problem as just a big pile of individual bad choices, you’re missing something. Evidently an awful lot of people keep making those bad choices for some reason.
Just pointing out that a problem would theoretically go away if everyone made perfect choices doesn’t actually do anything to make the problem go away…
I’ve never been able to formulate this into a suitably pithy comeback, but I think there’s an important ‘one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic’ factor when the whole individual choices thing comes up.
On an individual, or personal, level, it’s always possible to analyze someone’s choices and see how they screwed their own lives up as compared to some theoretical optimum.
But it seems to me that reasoning breaks down somewhere in the move to the macro level. One person can make some bad choices. If 10 million people are making the same bad choices over and over again, you’ve got a systematic societal problem.
So responding to some general problem with a simplistic, “well, those people could have better lives if they just made better choices,” falls kind of short. Even if you can atomically analyze the problem as just a big pile of individual bad choices, you’re missing something. Evidently an awful lot of people keep making those bad choices for some reason.
Just pointing out that a problem would theoretically go away if everyone made perfect choices doesn’t actually do anything to make the problem go away…
men take the good jobs, leaving women to do jobs that don’t pay as much.
Some of the relatively high-paying jobs that men have taken mostly for themselves: Electrical power and telecommunications line installation and repair; oil well drilling; structural iron and steel construction.
men take the good jobs, leaving women to do jobs that don’t pay as much.
Some of the relatively high-paying jobs that men have taken mostly for themselves: Electrical power and telecommunications line installation and repair; oil well drilling; structural iron and steel construction.
20 jobs that are dominated by women
Which industries are dominated by women, which by men?: Turns out there are clear gender divides when it comes to specific career paths. Here are the top ten male and female dominated careers, according to the 2012 U.S. Census Bureau.
20 jobs that are dominated by women
Which industries are dominated by women, which by men?: Turns out there are clear gender divides when it comes to specific career paths. Here are the top ten male and female dominated careers, according to the 2012 U.S. Census Bureau.
Just pointing out that a problem would theoretically go away if everyone made perfect choices doesn’t actually do anything to make the problem go away…
And of course hardly anyone makes the best available choices. For some the 5th best is still OK, for others near-perfection is required. Similarly, some have a substantial safety net – think George W. Bush as an extreme example – others don’t.
Just pointing out that a problem would theoretically go away if everyone made perfect choices doesn’t actually do anything to make the problem go away…
And of course hardly anyone makes the best available choices. For some the 5th best is still OK, for others near-perfection is required. Similarly, some have a substantial safety net – think George W. Bush as an extreme example – others don’t.
Most bank robbers are men. Most strippers are women.
Maybe that’s because bank robbers spend most of their loot on strippers, and reversing the gender roles would just be gross. Or maybe there’s a more high-fallutin’ reason.
The lists in CharlesWT’s links do not mention either bank robbers or strippers, but the first one does list “tax preparer” as a female-dominated occupation. That’s a new one on me, but I file my own tax returns so what do I know?
My impression is that once upon a time women were too busy cooking food, washing dishes, washing clothes, and sweeping floors to “work”. Then technology came along, and women exchanged unpaid labor for “jobs” so that families could afford microwaves, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners and so forth. On the macro level, Society replaced the work of hanging clothes out to dry with the work of making tumble dryers. Only the latter kind of work gets called a “job”, for some reason.
–TP
Most bank robbers are men. Most strippers are women.
Maybe that’s because bank robbers spend most of their loot on strippers, and reversing the gender roles would just be gross. Or maybe there’s a more high-fallutin’ reason.
The lists in CharlesWT’s links do not mention either bank robbers or strippers, but the first one does list “tax preparer” as a female-dominated occupation. That’s a new one on me, but I file my own tax returns so what do I know?
My impression is that once upon a time women were too busy cooking food, washing dishes, washing clothes, and sweeping floors to “work”. Then technology came along, and women exchanged unpaid labor for “jobs” so that families could afford microwaves, dishwashers, vacuum cleaners and so forth. On the macro level, Society replaced the work of hanging clothes out to dry with the work of making tumble dryers. Only the latter kind of work gets called a “job”, for some reason.
–TP
Only the latter kind of work gets called a “job”, for some reason.
It’s because those are the things that the sainted job creators have control over and deign to allow us peons to spend our time on.
There could be other reasons, as well. 😉
Only the latter kind of work gets called a “job”, for some reason.
It’s because those are the things that the sainted job creators have control over and deign to allow us peons to spend our time on.
There could be other reasons, as well. 😉
From CharlesWT’s second link:
Looking over the lists, it’s not surprising that the male and female dominated fields draw on the stereotypical strengths of each sex. The male dominated jobs are all very hands-on, physical jobs requiring a task be completed or something fixed. The female dominated careers are all much less physical, and are more assistive and nurturing.
Dental hygienists aren’t in a hands-on, physical job that requires a task to be completed? Lot of confirmation bias going on in that analysis.
But even if we were to agree that there are cultural gender roles at play in the division of labor that push people towards or away from a career path, all this still has an arbitrary connection to the relative monetization of those careers.
From CharlesWT’s second link:
Looking over the lists, it’s not surprising that the male and female dominated fields draw on the stereotypical strengths of each sex. The male dominated jobs are all very hands-on, physical jobs requiring a task be completed or something fixed. The female dominated careers are all much less physical, and are more assistive and nurturing.
Dental hygienists aren’t in a hands-on, physical job that requires a task to be completed? Lot of confirmation bias going on in that analysis.
But even if we were to agree that there are cultural gender roles at play in the division of labor that push people towards or away from a career path, all this still has an arbitrary connection to the relative monetization of those careers.
So women used to work really hard for no money at all. Women also used to be property. Was that a matter of “choice,” too? If not, why not? And why wouldn’t it only be a difference of degree today as far as choice goes?
So women used to work really hard for no money at all. Women also used to be property. Was that a matter of “choice,” too? If not, why not? And why wouldn’t it only be a difference of degree today as far as choice goes?
The female dominated careers are all much less physical
Try that one on any nurse you might happen to meet.
The female dominated careers are all much less physical
Try that one on any nurse you might happen to meet.
Only the latter kind of work gets called a “job”, for some reason.
It’s only a REAL job if money changes hands explicitly for doing it.
A housekeeper that you hire has a job. A family member who cleans the house “because you live here” doesn’t. Even if you get money (e.g. an allowance) or payment in kind (e.g. room and board).
Only the latter kind of work gets called a “job”, for some reason.
It’s only a REAL job if money changes hands explicitly for doing it.
A housekeeper that you hire has a job. A family member who cleans the house “because you live here” doesn’t. Even if you get money (e.g. an allowance) or payment in kind (e.g. room and board).
Oops! Left off the /sarcasm after my 1st paragraph
Oops! Left off the /sarcasm after my 1st paragraph
What russell said about nurses.
Same goes for people who would say that the work coded “male” is more dangerous.
What russell said about nurses.
Same goes for people who would say that the work coded “male” is more dangerous.
From here: Nursing employees suffer more debilitating back and other body injuries than almost any other occupation, and most of those injuries are caused by lifting and moving patients.
From here: Nursing employees suffer more debilitating back and other body injuries than almost any other occupation, and most of those injuries are caused by lifting and moving patients.
Looking at the two lists, ISTM that the female-dominated jobs demand at least as much, probably more, skill and training as the male-dominated ones, and are no less demanding (except maybe for roofers, which is a terrible job).
I wonder how the pay scales compare.
Looking at the two lists, ISTM that the female-dominated jobs demand at least as much, probably more, skill and training as the male-dominated ones, and are no less demanding (except maybe for roofers, which is a terrible job).
I wonder how the pay scales compare.
Some jobs we, today, see as typical for women were once unthinkable for them, nurse being the top of the list. Iirc it was the Crimean War that changed that. Other activities are male dominated when ‘professional’ but female when not (e.g. professional cooks are by default male while at home it used to be below the dignity of men).
A curious example was once the harvesting of sugar beets in Germany. That (backbreaking) job was reserved for women with the absurd reasoning that men had a different bone structure that did not allow them to bend in certain places that was necessary to do that specific job (no it was not the spare pair of ribs that evanglical students of medicine believe to be there due to the creation of Eve*).
*this is not a joke. These young people have actually to be told that the Holy Bible is no reliable anatomy textbook.
Some jobs we, today, see as typical for women were once unthinkable for them, nurse being the top of the list. Iirc it was the Crimean War that changed that. Other activities are male dominated when ‘professional’ but female when not (e.g. professional cooks are by default male while at home it used to be below the dignity of men).
A curious example was once the harvesting of sugar beets in Germany. That (backbreaking) job was reserved for women with the absurd reasoning that men had a different bone structure that did not allow them to bend in certain places that was necessary to do that specific job (no it was not the spare pair of ribs that evanglical students of medicine believe to be there due to the creation of Eve*).
*this is not a joke. These young people have actually to be told that the Holy Bible is no reliable anatomy textbook.
Finally had a chance to check on Charles’ links. That 2nd one is, well, interesting. Any site that would call itself “The American Genius” and subtitle it “The pulse of today’s entrepreneur” seems like a walking ad for, as hsh observed, confirmation bias.
Also, going thru the articles, my eye went to the writer bios and from there to the masthead where it lists the authors and the other ventures. While I’m sure that all of the folks are nice enough, they all appear to be people with degrees in English trying to monetize their skills. Fair enough, but it seems like their goal is writing what people want to hear. As such, I have to wonder what the point is in citing them.
Finally had a chance to check on Charles’ links. That 2nd one is, well, interesting. Any site that would call itself “The American Genius” and subtitle it “The pulse of today’s entrepreneur” seems like a walking ad for, as hsh observed, confirmation bias.
Also, going thru the articles, my eye went to the writer bios and from there to the masthead where it lists the authors and the other ventures. While I’m sure that all of the folks are nice enough, they all appear to be people with degrees in English trying to monetize their skills. Fair enough, but it seems like their goal is writing what people want to hear. As such, I have to wonder what the point is in citing them.
On the other hand, a woman’s work is never done for the republican cause:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/maria-butina-lawyer-sex-job-denial
Schlepping all of that ammo takes some upper body strength.
On the other hand, a woman’s work is never done for the republican cause:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/maria-butina-lawyer-sex-job-denial
Schlepping all of that ammo takes some upper body strength.
This seems to be an open thread, so—
This guy sounds interesting. Single payer plan for Michigan. I am giving him money.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/07/the-incredible-state-level-single-payer-plan-that-everyone-should-be-talking-about
This seems to be an open thread, so—
This guy sounds interesting. Single payer plan for Michigan. I am giving him money.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2018/07/the-incredible-state-level-single-payer-plan-that-everyone-should-be-talking-about
Indeed, Donald.
Great link.
Indeed, Donald.
Great link.
“The female dominated careers are all much less physical.”
When the word “sweatshop” is uttered, you can be sure women are the ones doing the perspiring.
https://www.kvue.com/video/syndication/veuer/keep-america-great-2020-campaign-flags-made-in-china-could-get-hit-with-trumps-tariffs-report/602-8199777
Women in the third world haul more water on their shoulders daily than all of the manly men in Texas can waste shampooing their crotches before lunch.
Women in the first world hoist the weight of more helpless old men into and out of their beds and on to commodes and into baths than the weight of the mugs of beer men in the first world hoist every day at happy hour, though it’s close.
THIS is curious, but then I thought about the women … the mothers, sisters, daughters, nieces, and grandmothers …. behind the scenes in the barrios of the Philippines physically killing themselves to support these men:
http://rejuvenationmedia.com/in-dutertes-philippines-having-a-beer-can-right-now-land-you-in-jail/
Apart from the fact that Duterte needs a bullet in the head at the earliest possible moment, I would guess that at this very moment, there are two million men drinking warm beer while shirtless throughout the islands, some of them probably constabulary who are arresting the others at Duterte’s latest fascist whim.
The entire country is a beer garden, not that I mind.
“The female dominated careers are all much less physical.”
When the word “sweatshop” is uttered, you can be sure women are the ones doing the perspiring.
https://www.kvue.com/video/syndication/veuer/keep-america-great-2020-campaign-flags-made-in-china-could-get-hit-with-trumps-tariffs-report/602-8199777
Women in the third world haul more water on their shoulders daily than all of the manly men in Texas can waste shampooing their crotches before lunch.
Women in the first world hoist the weight of more helpless old men into and out of their beds and on to commodes and into baths than the weight of the mugs of beer men in the first world hoist every day at happy hour, though it’s close.
THIS is curious, but then I thought about the women … the mothers, sisters, daughters, nieces, and grandmothers …. behind the scenes in the barrios of the Philippines physically killing themselves to support these men:
http://rejuvenationmedia.com/in-dutertes-philippines-having-a-beer-can-right-now-land-you-in-jail/
Apart from the fact that Duterte needs a bullet in the head at the earliest possible moment, I would guess that at this very moment, there are two million men drinking warm beer while shirtless throughout the islands, some of them probably constabulary who are arresting the others at Duterte’s latest fascist whim.
The entire country is a beer garden, not that I mind.
My grandmother had the forearms of a longshoreman.
My grandmother had the forearms of a longshoreman.
Nursing employees suffer more debilitating back and other body injuries than almost any other occupation, and most of those injuries are caused by lifting and moving patients.
i’ve actually worked as a roofer. among other things, it involves getting the shingles up on the roof. typically two bundles a carry, so about 60 pounds, up a ladder.
that’s hard.
my niece is a nurse. she regular lifts, shifts, and otherwise manhandles 100lb, 150lb, 200lb humans in and out of beds, gurneys, chairs, what have you.
that’s also hard.
as a bonus, she wipes their behinds and otherwise keeps them free of unwanted effluvia.
STEM and women: I don’t know what everyone else’s experience is. I’ve never worked in a shop where there wasn’t a healthy complement of women engineers, including shops that were majority women engineers. I’ve worked under women tech leads and managers. To be honest, all other thigs being equal I pretty much prefer working under women leads when that’s available.
as far as I can tell, there is no, zero, niente, zippo gender-related difference in people’s ability to do technical work.
just another data point.
Nursing employees suffer more debilitating back and other body injuries than almost any other occupation, and most of those injuries are caused by lifting and moving patients.
i’ve actually worked as a roofer. among other things, it involves getting the shingles up on the roof. typically two bundles a carry, so about 60 pounds, up a ladder.
that’s hard.
my niece is a nurse. she regular lifts, shifts, and otherwise manhandles 100lb, 150lb, 200lb humans in and out of beds, gurneys, chairs, what have you.
that’s also hard.
as a bonus, she wipes their behinds and otherwise keeps them free of unwanted effluvia.
STEM and women: I don’t know what everyone else’s experience is. I’ve never worked in a shop where there wasn’t a healthy complement of women engineers, including shops that were majority women engineers. I’ve worked under women tech leads and managers. To be honest, all other thigs being equal I pretty much prefer working under women leads when that’s available.
as far as I can tell, there is no, zero, niente, zippo gender-related difference in people’s ability to do technical work.
just another data point.
My grandmother had the forearms of a longshoreman.
Did she ever say who he was?…
My grandmother had the forearms of a longshoreman.
Did she ever say who he was?…
STEM and women: I don’t know what everyone else’s experience is. I’ve never worked in a shop where there wasn’t a healthy complement of women engineers, including shops that were majority women engineers. I’ve worked under women tech leads and managers. To be honest, all other thigs being equal I pretty much prefer working under women leads when that’s available.
as far as I can tell, there is no, zero, niente, zippo gender-related difference in people’s ability to do technical work.
I’d second most of that. I don’t know as I’d go so far as to say I’d prefer to work for a female boss. However I would definitively say that the best boss I ever had, by a fair margin, was female. (It was a tragedy that she decided to move on to real estate work. ‘Cause I would have followed her from company, she was that good.) Not to mention my boss for the last decade plus.
As Russell says, there’s no visible difference in technical ability.
STEM and women: I don’t know what everyone else’s experience is. I’ve never worked in a shop where there wasn’t a healthy complement of women engineers, including shops that were majority women engineers. I’ve worked under women tech leads and managers. To be honest, all other thigs being equal I pretty much prefer working under women leads when that’s available.
as far as I can tell, there is no, zero, niente, zippo gender-related difference in people’s ability to do technical work.
I’d second most of that. I don’t know as I’d go so far as to say I’d prefer to work for a female boss. However I would definitively say that the best boss I ever had, by a fair margin, was female. (It was a tragedy that she decided to move on to real estate work. ‘Cause I would have followed her from company, she was that good.) Not to mention my boss for the last decade plus.
As Russell says, there’s no visible difference in technical ability.
Her name was Luella, she called herself Maisie, but everyone knew her as Nanna.
Here’s hoping that in Mueller’s witch hunt, they pick up every stitch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAzTnsSgs2s
Her name was Luella, she called herself Maisie, but everyone knew her as Nanna.
Here’s hoping that in Mueller’s witch hunt, they pick up every stitch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAzTnsSgs2s
I’ve never worked in a shop where there wasn’t a healthy complement of women engineer
in my current team there are eight coders, and three of them are women. a few weeks ago, it was 4:3, and it’s about to be 6:3. but, even having three is remarkable.
I’ve never worked in a shop where there wasn’t a healthy complement of women engineer
in my current team there are eight coders, and three of them are women. a few weeks ago, it was 4:3, and it’s about to be 6:3. but, even having three is remarkable.
behold, white privilege:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/07/stand-ground-laws-new-jim-crow
behold, white privilege:
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/07/stand-ground-laws-new-jim-crow
behold, white privilege
I would go far beyond “white privilege” (a phrase I hate anyhow) to surmise that somewhere in the murky unadmitted depths of motivation, the possibility of whites killing blacks with impunity is a lot of the point of “stand your ground” laws.
behold, white privilege
I would go far beyond “white privilege” (a phrase I hate anyhow) to surmise that somewhere in the murky unadmitted depths of motivation, the possibility of whites killing blacks with impunity is a lot of the point of “stand your ground” laws.
Okay, Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler did it better:
Okay, Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler did it better:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/top-lawyer-leaving-white-house-summer
Can’t be good when the cleaners want no part of what’s coming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVBCrX-X3c8
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/top-lawyer-leaving-white-house-summer
Can’t be good when the cleaners want no part of what’s coming:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVBCrX-X3c8
Either Vince Foster gets around or there is a Russian sub off the coast of Mar-a-Lago making ballast dumps.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/decomposed-body-found-in-waters-off-trump-golf-resort
One down, 11 to go.
Either Vince Foster gets around or there is a Russian sub off the coast of Mar-a-Lago making ballast dumps.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/decomposed-body-found-in-waters-off-trump-golf-resort
One down, 11 to go.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-news-joins-outcry-cnn-reporter-ban
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pompeo-mattis-irked-bolton
You can’t pull integrity out yer butt after the sell-by date.
Execute all of them.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-news-joins-outcry-cnn-reporter-ban
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/pompeo-mattis-irked-bolton
You can’t pull integrity out yer butt after the sell-by date.
Execute all of them.
With EEO enforcement and pay equity going by the wayside for women in the current “climate” and they are told they in over their heads, maybe things need to go haywire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVnjjRKz13s
With EEO enforcement and pay equity going by the wayside for women in the current “climate” and they are told they in over their heads, maybe things need to go haywire:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVnjjRKz13s
Behold white
privilegesupremacy.Behold white
privilegesupremacy.I would go far beyond “white privilege” (a phrase I hate anyhow) to surmise that somewhere in the murky unadmitted depths of motivation, the possibility of whites killing blacks with impunity is a lot of the point of “stand your ground” laws.
Sorry, Janie, you ain’t winning any sucker bets today. (Although I think I’d go more towards “all of the point”….)
I would go far beyond “white privilege” (a phrase I hate anyhow) to surmise that somewhere in the murky unadmitted depths of motivation, the possibility of whites killing blacks with impunity is a lot of the point of “stand your ground” laws.
Sorry, Janie, you ain’t winning any sucker bets today. (Although I think I’d go more towards “all of the point”….)
Local fascist cops campaign for mp:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/07/26/shitty-cops-abuse-power-on-behalf-of-garbage-president/
Maybe they’ll be assigned to local polling places in November to make “the vote” go smoothly for filthy republicans.
Local fascist cops campaign for mp:
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/07/26/shitty-cops-abuse-power-on-behalf-of-garbage-president/
Maybe they’ll be assigned to local polling places in November to make “the vote” go smoothly for filthy republicans.
Nothing at all surprising about the “stand your ground” stats or the nature of the Daniels arrest. MAGA!!!
Nothing at all surprising about the “stand your ground” stats or the nature of the Daniels arrest. MAGA!!!
Just a quick drive-by to say I loved those Poehler/Meyer jokes Janie!
Just a quick drive-by to say I loved those Poehler/Meyer jokes Janie!
Just a quick drive-by to say I loved those Poehler/Meyer jokes Janie!
Echo!
I’m trying to stay fairly quiet, which is why I didn’t say so earlier. Brava!
Just a quick drive-by to say I loved those Poehler/Meyer jokes Janie!
Echo!
I’m trying to stay fairly quiet, which is why I didn’t say so earlier. Brava!
We could soon be waving goodbye to Scott Walker:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/26/polls-walker-wisconsin-michigan-minnesota-governors-714291
Which would be very good news.
We could soon be waving goodbye to Scott Walker:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/26/polls-walker-wisconsin-michigan-minnesota-governors-714291
Which would be very good news.
Hope so, Nigel.
Wisconsin has hugely authoritarianized itself. Not sure whether voters can overcome voter suppression.
Hope so, Nigel.
Wisconsin has hugely authoritarianized itself. Not sure whether voters can overcome voter suppression.
For the record, I didn’t watch the Meyers/Poehler clip itself, I just lifted the jokes from the write-up on I think it was boston.com. But I’m still stuck on one aspect of Comey’s BS that those jokes didn’t cover:
Comey is a Republican.
As I said earlier, it’s not “this president’s” Republican Party, it’s *the* Republican Party. There’s only one.
No one with two brain cells to rub together would believe that Comey wants a Democrat to win the presidency, so under what alternate universe circumstances would he be giving good faith advice to the Democrats? This more than anything else gives the lie to the notion that “he has a point.” (Sorry, wj.)
For the record, I didn’t watch the Meyers/Poehler clip itself, I just lifted the jokes from the write-up on I think it was boston.com. But I’m still stuck on one aspect of Comey’s BS that those jokes didn’t cover:
Comey is a Republican.
As I said earlier, it’s not “this president’s” Republican Party, it’s *the* Republican Party. There’s only one.
No one with two brain cells to rub together would believe that Comey wants a Democrat to win the presidency, so under what alternate universe circumstances would he be giving good faith advice to the Democrats? This more than anything else gives the lie to the notion that “he has a point.” (Sorry, wj.)
No one with two brain cells to rub together would believe that Comey wants a Democrat to win the presidency, so under what alternate universe circumstances would he be giving good faith advice to the Democrats?
Well it’s not really an alternative universe. But in this universe it is entirely possible to be unenthused about having a Democrat win . . . that’s a generic Democrat against a generic Republican. Except that, for the moment at least, the real world alternative to a Democrat winning is unquestionably far worse.
Comey could well have dozens of Republicans that he would be fine with as President. (Most or even all of them people you’d seriously dislike.) But as long as the Republican nomination is locked in for Trump, he could still be determined to do whatever he can** to help the Democrat win. It’s that country over party thing that we see too d*mn little of these days. But some of us do still care.
** Whether his advice turns out to be good advice is a different question. But even if he’s wrong, that doesn’t mean it was ill-intended.
No one with two brain cells to rub together would believe that Comey wants a Democrat to win the presidency, so under what alternate universe circumstances would he be giving good faith advice to the Democrats?
Well it’s not really an alternative universe. But in this universe it is entirely possible to be unenthused about having a Democrat win . . . that’s a generic Democrat against a generic Republican. Except that, for the moment at least, the real world alternative to a Democrat winning is unquestionably far worse.
Comey could well have dozens of Republicans that he would be fine with as President. (Most or even all of them people you’d seriously dislike.) But as long as the Republican nomination is locked in for Trump, he could still be determined to do whatever he can** to help the Democrat win. It’s that country over party thing that we see too d*mn little of these days. But some of us do still care.
** Whether his advice turns out to be good advice is a different question. But even if he’s wrong, that doesn’t mean it was ill-intended.
that doesn’t mean it was ill-intended
Sanctimony does seem to go hand-in-hand with a pathological lack of self-knowledge, I’ll give you that.
And right next to the sanctimony you can put the arrogance of his imagining that anyone wants his sanctimonious advice.
that doesn’t mean it was ill-intended
Sanctimony does seem to go hand-in-hand with a pathological lack of self-knowledge, I’ll give you that.
And right next to the sanctimony you can put the arrogance of his imagining that anyone wants his sanctimonious advice.
In other words, it’s either ill-intended, or it’s appallingly inappropriate. You can’t have it both ways.
In other words, it’s either ill-intended, or it’s appallingly inappropriate. You can’t have it both ways.
Actually I’ll take neither, rather than both. It’s not like those are the only options in the mess we are in. It can, for example, be inept without being inappropriate or ill-intended.
There is, to my mind at least, nothing inappropriate about wishing Trump gone, and being willing to work towards that end. Even for a Republican.
Actually I’ll take neither, rather than both. It’s not like those are the only options in the mess we are in. It can, for example, be inept without being inappropriate or ill-intended.
There is, to my mind at least, nothing inappropriate about wishing Trump gone, and being willing to work towards that end. Even for a Republican.
There is, to my mind at least, nothing inappropriate about wishing Trump gone, and being willing to work towards that end. Even for a Republican.
I’ll second that.
Trouble with what Comey said, is that he’s [again!] weighing in where he shouldn’t. Is he a Democrat? No. So, like Bernie, who is also not a Democrat, he should leave Democrats to develop their own policies and strategy.
If Bernie and Comey want to be Democrats, they should first become Democrats, then participate (including, but not exclusively, by running). Not hard.
There is, to my mind at least, nothing inappropriate about wishing Trump gone, and being willing to work towards that end. Even for a Republican.
I’ll second that.
Trouble with what Comey said, is that he’s [again!] weighing in where he shouldn’t. Is he a Democrat? No. So, like Bernie, who is also not a Democrat, he should leave Democrats to develop their own policies and strategy.
If Bernie and Comey want to be Democrats, they should first become Democrats, then participate (including, but not exclusively, by running). Not hard.
There is, to my mind at least, nothing inappropriate about wishing Trump gone, and being willing to work towards that end. Even for a Republican.
Comey giving the Democrats advice is not “working toward that end.” It is inappropriate, sanctimonious, self-serving, and tone deaf. Democrats don’t want or need his advice (they/we don’t ever want to hear his sanctimonious voice again, or see his self-satisfied face). If he doesn’t realize that, then he is too stupid to be opening his mouth in public anyhow.
But more importantly, if his own party can’t cough up a candidate that will suit him, then, as sapient says, let him become a Democrat and work (quietly and with humility for his past sins!) for the election of Democrats. Real Democrats, not fake Democrats that will make Republicans like him happy.
That’s the last from me. Silence, though, should not be construed as agreement.
There is, to my mind at least, nothing inappropriate about wishing Trump gone, and being willing to work towards that end. Even for a Republican.
Comey giving the Democrats advice is not “working toward that end.” It is inappropriate, sanctimonious, self-serving, and tone deaf. Democrats don’t want or need his advice (they/we don’t ever want to hear his sanctimonious voice again, or see his self-satisfied face). If he doesn’t realize that, then he is too stupid to be opening his mouth in public anyhow.
But more importantly, if his own party can’t cough up a candidate that will suit him, then, as sapient says, let him become a Democrat and work (quietly and with humility for his past sins!) for the election of Democrats. Real Democrats, not fake Democrats that will make Republicans like him happy.
That’s the last from me. Silence, though, should not be construed as agreement.
I guess it’s not quite the last. It bemuses me (to put it courteously) that you (wj) think anyone would be taken in by the notion that Democrats should now start looking for candidates who will make up for the failures of Republicans. Democrats are Democrats. It’s not our job to nominate someone you’ll like because you can’t figure out how to do it yourselves.
And that really is the last.
I guess it’s not quite the last. It bemuses me (to put it courteously) that you (wj) think anyone would be taken in by the notion that Democrats should now start looking for candidates who will make up for the failures of Republicans. Democrats are Democrats. It’s not our job to nominate someone you’ll like because you can’t figure out how to do it yourselves.
And that really is the last.
Comey giving the Democrats advice is not “working toward that end.” It is inappropriate, sanctimonious, self-serving, and tone deaf.
I will certainly grant you sanctimonious and tone deaf. Unhelpful, even. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t an attempt, however inept, to “work toward that end.” You may not want his help. You may not need his help. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t trying his poor best to help.
It’s not our job to nominate someone you’ll like because you can’t figure out how to do it yourselves.
Totally agree. Which doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t want you to nominate someone who will WIN. Whether it is someone we will like, or merely someone that we will dislike far less.
P.S. I do thank you for your forbearance. These are trying times we live in.
Comey giving the Democrats advice is not “working toward that end.” It is inappropriate, sanctimonious, self-serving, and tone deaf.
I will certainly grant you sanctimonious and tone deaf. Unhelpful, even. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t an attempt, however inept, to “work toward that end.” You may not want his help. You may not need his help. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t trying his poor best to help.
It’s not our job to nominate someone you’ll like because you can’t figure out how to do it yourselves.
Totally agree. Which doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t want you to nominate someone who will WIN. Whether it is someone we will like, or merely someone that we will dislike far less.
P.S. I do thank you for your forbearance. These are trying times we live in.
wj – it doesn’t require forbearance to converse with you. I enjoy it and there’s certainly no personal ill feeling on my part. I just thought it was time [for me] to calm down and move along to something else.
🙂
wj – it doesn’t require forbearance to converse with you. I enjoy it and there’s certainly no personal ill feeling on my part. I just thought it was time [for me] to calm down and move along to something else.
🙂
JanieM: It’s not our job to nominate someone you’ll like …
This should be the motto of the Democratic Party. Also of the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Rastafarian Party if there is such a thing.
The Republican Party enjoys its current supremacy precisely BECAUSE it embraced that motto in 2016. Putin and Comey helped, of course, but “Fuck your feelings” has been the GOP’s base rallying cry for a long time.
If the Democrats want to win elections, they have to motivate THEIR OWN BASE. Will that turn off “moderates” or “independents” or other mythical segments of the US electorate? Maybe it will. Maybe it will hurt their feelings. Maybe it will make them more willing to support the party of Putin’s Little Bitch. If so, the US is already fucked.
Our friend McKinney will get to vote in the Cruz-O’Rourke senate race. When McKinney tells us that he will vote for O’Rourke if and only if O’Rourke takes Comey’s advice, then and only then will I consider Comey’s advice anything but ridiculous trolling.
–TP
JanieM: It’s not our job to nominate someone you’ll like …
This should be the motto of the Democratic Party. Also of the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Rastafarian Party if there is such a thing.
The Republican Party enjoys its current supremacy precisely BECAUSE it embraced that motto in 2016. Putin and Comey helped, of course, but “Fuck your feelings” has been the GOP’s base rallying cry for a long time.
If the Democrats want to win elections, they have to motivate THEIR OWN BASE. Will that turn off “moderates” or “independents” or other mythical segments of the US electorate? Maybe it will. Maybe it will hurt their feelings. Maybe it will make them more willing to support the party of Putin’s Little Bitch. If so, the US is already fucked.
Our friend McKinney will get to vote in the Cruz-O’Rourke senate race. When McKinney tells us that he will vote for O’Rourke if and only if O’Rourke takes Comey’s advice, then and only then will I consider Comey’s advice anything but ridiculous trolling.
–TP
I will certainly grant you sanctimonious and tone deaf. Unhelpful, even. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t an attempt, however inept, to “work toward that end.” You may not want his help. You may not need his help. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t trying his poor best to help.
wj’s comment brings out something for me that I think is kind of interesting, which is that this tweet suggests that Comey is deeply concerned with how he will appear to a certain class of nominal Republicans. In that sense, his tweet isn’t directed at Democrats (who, as any number of people have pointed out, don’t really give a f**k what Comey’s opinion is at this point) but reassuring that Republican who is turned off by Trump, but can’t oppose Trump on the grounds of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ and it would just be a bridge too far to be friends with any Democrats, even if only because he’s an enemy of Trump. I’m not going to map that on to anyone here, but if you overcome the idea that Comey is talking to Democrats and see it as a performative display to other Republicans, it suggests that Trump is still relatively safe and sound and that any turning point is still miles in the future, sad to say.
I will certainly grant you sanctimonious and tone deaf. Unhelpful, even. But that doesn’t mean that it isn’t an attempt, however inept, to “work toward that end.” You may not want his help. You may not need his help. But that doesn’t mean he isn’t trying his poor best to help.
wj’s comment brings out something for me that I think is kind of interesting, which is that this tweet suggests that Comey is deeply concerned with how he will appear to a certain class of nominal Republicans. In that sense, his tweet isn’t directed at Democrats (who, as any number of people have pointed out, don’t really give a f**k what Comey’s opinion is at this point) but reassuring that Republican who is turned off by Trump, but can’t oppose Trump on the grounds of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend’ and it would just be a bridge too far to be friends with any Democrats, even if only because he’s an enemy of Trump. I’m not going to map that on to anyone here, but if you overcome the idea that Comey is talking to Democrats and see it as a performative display to other Republicans, it suggests that Trump is still relatively safe and sound and that any turning point is still miles in the future, sad to say.
McKinney has stated several times here something along the lines that if Ted Cruz burst into flames he wouldn’t put him put by various methods, I can’t remember which ones.
Whether he votes for O’Rourke is a bunch of I’ve no idea.
Still, here’s where we are:
Conservative: You Democrats need to nominate an non-crazy someone I can vote for.
Democrat: Yah, O.K, here he or she is. We and our candidate want, like you, to throw folks with pre-existing conditions off subsidized medical insurance, tax abortion procedures, disappear all environmental and global warming data, and move the statue of Liberty to Tel Aviv. Who ya gonna vote for?
Republican: Whomever the Republican candidate is, or Sammy What’sAllepo, should he have a pulse.
Fuck all of this.
I want the absolute savage, violent death of the republican party.
I have a pragmatic side, too, of which more tomorrow, but hose off your keyboard after the sentence “Countme has a pragmatic side” and get some sleep.
McKinney has stated several times here something along the lines that if Ted Cruz burst into flames he wouldn’t put him put by various methods, I can’t remember which ones.
Whether he votes for O’Rourke is a bunch of I’ve no idea.
Still, here’s where we are:
Conservative: You Democrats need to nominate an non-crazy someone I can vote for.
Democrat: Yah, O.K, here he or she is. We and our candidate want, like you, to throw folks with pre-existing conditions off subsidized medical insurance, tax abortion procedures, disappear all environmental and global warming data, and move the statue of Liberty to Tel Aviv. Who ya gonna vote for?
Republican: Whomever the Republican candidate is, or Sammy What’sAllepo, should he have a pulse.
Fuck all of this.
I want the absolute savage, violent death of the republican party.
I have a pragmatic side, too, of which more tomorrow, but hose off your keyboard after the sentence “Countme has a pragmatic side” and get some sleep.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/07/bad-opposing-ratfucking-mccarthyism
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/07/bad-opposing-ratfucking-mccarthyism
the last 2 (D) presidents have been Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
the (D) candidate in 2016 was Hillary Clinton.
such is the (D) socialist left.
Trump supporters piss me off, because they support Trump. nuff said.
but the folks that piss me off even more are the (R)’s who are in a position to do something about POTUS Trump, but do nothing but wring their hands and bleat about Hillary. or whatever.
we’re obliged to hear from Comey because he’s got a book to sell, and apparently he likes to hear himself talk. I’m looking forward to his 15 minutes being over.
“real men nowhere, but in sparta, real boys” – Diogenes.
the last 2 (D) presidents have been Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
the (D) candidate in 2016 was Hillary Clinton.
such is the (D) socialist left.
Trump supporters piss me off, because they support Trump. nuff said.
but the folks that piss me off even more are the (R)’s who are in a position to do something about POTUS Trump, but do nothing but wring their hands and bleat about Hillary. or whatever.
we’re obliged to hear from Comey because he’s got a book to sell, and apparently he likes to hear himself talk. I’m looking forward to his 15 minutes being over.
“real men nowhere, but in sparta, real boys” – Diogenes.
I’m not sure who’s worse — the people who like public libraries, think they are socialism, and, therefore, think they’re socialists, or the people who dislike public libraries, think they are socialism, and, therefore, think they’re — whatever.
On further reflection, yes, I am sure who’s worse.
I’m not sure who’s worse — the people who like public libraries, think they are socialism, and, therefore, think they’re socialists, or the people who dislike public libraries, think they are socialism, and, therefore, think they’re — whatever.
On further reflection, yes, I am sure who’s worse.
Positively Borgesian:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel
Positively Borgesian:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Library_of_Babel
And now I hear that Cruz is asking for 5? 6? debates with Beto, which indicates that he’s worried about the polls.
Not sure how seeing Cruz on TV, or hearing his voice, will help to get people to vote for him. Sounds unlikely to me.
And now I hear that Cruz is asking for 5? 6? debates with Beto, which indicates that he’s worried about the polls.
Not sure how seeing Cruz on TV, or hearing his voice, will help to get people to vote for him. Sounds unlikely to me.
Cruz does not improve with proximity or familiarity. Count: I would not pour raw sewage on Cruz if he was on fire. Nous, public libraries are not the equivalent of Medicare for all, a guaranteed income, a 15/hr minimum wage, de facto open borders and a host of other lefty positions.
Cruz does not improve with proximity or familiarity. Count: I would not pour raw sewage on Cruz if he was on fire. Nous, public libraries are not the equivalent of Medicare for all, a guaranteed income, a 15/hr minimum wage, de facto open borders and a host of other lefty positions.
Sorry, not Nous. CJCo.
Sorry, not Nous. CJCo.
to the extent that the “de facto open borders” canard has any basis in reality it’s due to a reaction against the thuggish and immoral manner in which Trump is employing ICE.
to the extent that the “de facto open borders” canard has any basis in reality it’s due to a reaction against the thuggish and immoral manner in which Trump is employing ICE.
treat entering the country without permission in a way that is commensurate with the severity of the offense, as defined by law.
the fact that that is now a “lefty” position says everything there is to say about us immigration policy.
treat entering the country without permission in a way that is commensurate with the severity of the offense, as defined by law.
the fact that that is now a “lefty” position says everything there is to say about us immigration policy.
One lefty position has to do with medical care. This USA Today (that lefty rag) article indicates that medical care for expectant mothers is seriously deficient compared to other developed countries, resulting in over-the-top life-altering injuries and mortality. Too bad the “pro-life people” are so apathetic about saving lives of born people.
One lefty position has to do with medical care. This USA Today (that lefty rag) article indicates that medical care for expectant mothers is seriously deficient compared to other developed countries, resulting in over-the-top life-altering injuries and mortality. Too bad the “pro-life people” are so apathetic about saving lives of born people.
treat entering the country without permission in a way that is commensurate with the severity of the offense, as defined by law.
the fact that that is now a “lefty” position says everything there is to say about us immigration policy.
Also speaking volumes: the fact that the “family values” party supports kidnapping children and deporting their parents. Also, see, Christian, as in the Christmas story. Jesus is looking more and more like a lefty as we speak.
treat entering the country without permission in a way that is commensurate with the severity of the offense, as defined by law.
the fact that that is now a “lefty” position says everything there is to say about us immigration policy.
Also speaking volumes: the fact that the “family values” party supports kidnapping children and deporting their parents. Also, see, Christian, as in the Christmas story. Jesus is looking more and more like a lefty as we speak.
If you’re fine w deporting those who enter illegally, we are on the same page.
If you’re fine w deporting those who enter illegally, we are on the same page.
If you’re fine w deporting those who enter illegally, we are on the same page.
I’m not fine with deporting asylum seekers, or denying them lawful entry and then deporting them for entering “illegally”. But many
“pro-life,” “family values,” “Christians” are fine with sending born people to their deaths.
If you’re fine w deporting those who enter illegally, we are on the same page.
I’m not fine with deporting asylum seekers, or denying them lawful entry and then deporting them for entering “illegally”. But many
“pro-life,” “family values,” “Christians” are fine with sending born people to their deaths.
If you’re fine w deporting those who enter illegally, we are on the same page.
I’m fine with it up to a point. I’m not fine with it when the individual in question has been here for a number of years without causing trouble, or when she came as a minor and really has no connection with her native country.
Yes, I know. Incentives, blah, blah, blah. I don’t care. The unwillingness of Congress to pass dreamer legislation is, like ICE, a moral abomination, and it’s on the head of the GOP.
If you’re fine w deporting those who enter illegally, we are on the same page.
I’m fine with it up to a point. I’m not fine with it when the individual in question has been here for a number of years without causing trouble, or when she came as a minor and really has no connection with her native country.
Yes, I know. Incentives, blah, blah, blah. I don’t care. The unwillingness of Congress to pass dreamer legislation is, like ICE, a moral abomination, and it’s on the head of the GOP.
Republicans used to worship at the altar of ‘free market economics’. This of course was a laughable lie, especially amongst the business community who continually sought special favors from the government to capture economic rents and call the boodle “profit”.
Free market economics, in actually existing free market economic theory, posits the mobility of both capital and labor, otherwise optimum economic efficiency is not attained.
During the 19th century and a good deal of the 20th capital was spread throughout the world abetted by the force of arms (colonialism). Labor was also free to find its best return as millions crossed to oceans to the americas where labor was relatively scarce.
So-called conservatives now oppose the international migrations of peoples. Transnational capital? Not so much.
So the next time some chamber of commerce booster type tells you about ‘real economics’ just tell them they are full of real shit.
The McKinneys of the world are fine with pitting factory workers against low lost labor abroad, but if we opened our doors to free trade in litigators, he might well sing a different tune.
and what byomtov said.
Republicans used to worship at the altar of ‘free market economics’. This of course was a laughable lie, especially amongst the business community who continually sought special favors from the government to capture economic rents and call the boodle “profit”.
Free market economics, in actually existing free market economic theory, posits the mobility of both capital and labor, otherwise optimum economic efficiency is not attained.
During the 19th century and a good deal of the 20th capital was spread throughout the world abetted by the force of arms (colonialism). Labor was also free to find its best return as millions crossed to oceans to the americas where labor was relatively scarce.
So-called conservatives now oppose the international migrations of peoples. Transnational capital? Not so much.
So the next time some chamber of commerce booster type tells you about ‘real economics’ just tell them they are full of real shit.
The McKinneys of the world are fine with pitting factory workers against low lost labor abroad, but if we opened our doors to free trade in litigators, he might well sing a different tune.
and what byomtov said.
I agree w leaving folks here who’ve put down roots. I’m fine w a five year look back period. Comrade, your mind reading skills are falling short this evening.
I agree w leaving folks here who’ve put down roots. I’m fine w a five year look back period. Comrade, your mind reading skills are falling short this evening.
I have to say, McT, that I got that same implication from reading your words.
Here’s hoping the folks you work with do better mind reading from the bench.
I have to say, McT, that I got that same implication from reading your words.
Here’s hoping the folks you work with do better mind reading from the bench.
medicare for all
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/2/17468448/medicare-for-all-single-payer-health-care-2018-elections
Even before these candidates started winning, polling was showing that Medicare-for-all is really popular: 62 percent of Americans liked the sound of it in last November.
Damn that 62% minority!
medicare for all
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/7/2/17468448/medicare-for-all-single-payer-health-care-2018-elections
Even before these candidates started winning, polling was showing that Medicare-for-all is really popular: 62 percent of Americans liked the sound of it in last November.
Damn that 62% minority!
Comrade, your mind reading skills are falling short this evening.
dude, you opened with “open borders”.
pots,kettles.
fwiw, there actually is someone arguing for open borders here – charles.
Damn that 62% minority!
I blame Truman.
that guy was always trampling on our liberties. what a tyrant!
Comrade, your mind reading skills are falling short this evening.
dude, you opened with “open borders”.
pots,kettles.
fwiw, there actually is someone arguing for open borders here – charles.
Damn that 62% minority!
I blame Truman.
that guy was always trampling on our liberties. what a tyrant!
…Medicare for all, a guaranteed income, a 15/hr minimum wage, de facto open borders and a host of other lefty positions.
In every other wealthy country in the world, universal healthcare isn’t a lefty position, it’s just normal.
As to the rest, it’s time for a Universal Income, paid to all adult US citizens at around federal minimum wage levels. Say $15,000 a year for everyone tax free. Get some of the money back by increasing all federal income tax rates by 5%, leaving everyone earning under $300,000 a year immediately better off. Get some more back from the various federal assistance programmes no one now qualifies for.
Then abolish the federal minimum wage. (States can do what they want.) Now that people are no longer forced to work if they want to eat, they should be free to accept whatever pay rates they choose to work for.
And let anyone cross the border to work. Since US citizens now enjoy a big subsidy, non-citizens will not be able to undercut them for any job the US guys actually want.
Then sit back and enjoy the economic growth.
…Medicare for all, a guaranteed income, a 15/hr minimum wage, de facto open borders and a host of other lefty positions.
In every other wealthy country in the world, universal healthcare isn’t a lefty position, it’s just normal.
As to the rest, it’s time for a Universal Income, paid to all adult US citizens at around federal minimum wage levels. Say $15,000 a year for everyone tax free. Get some of the money back by increasing all federal income tax rates by 5%, leaving everyone earning under $300,000 a year immediately better off. Get some more back from the various federal assistance programmes no one now qualifies for.
Then abolish the federal minimum wage. (States can do what they want.) Now that people are no longer forced to work if they want to eat, they should be free to accept whatever pay rates they choose to work for.
And let anyone cross the border to work. Since US citizens now enjoy a big subsidy, non-citizens will not be able to undercut them for any job the US guys actually want.
Then sit back and enjoy the economic growth.
it’s time for a Universal Income
Friedman and Hayek, making Truman look like a lefty wanna-be.
It ain’t rocket science.
it’s time for a Universal Income
Friedman and Hayek, making Truman look like a lefty wanna-be.
It ain’t rocket science.
McK,
You wrote:
If you’re fine w deporting those who enter illegally, we are on the same page.
I see nothing about five-year limits, etc. If you favor something of that nature then fine, but it wasn’t clear from your comment.
As you said, my mind-reading skills are poor, so I can only go by what you actually say.
McK,
You wrote:
If you’re fine w deporting those who enter illegally, we are on the same page.
I see nothing about five-year limits, etc. If you favor something of that nature then fine, but it wasn’t clear from your comment.
As you said, my mind-reading skills are poor, so I can only go by what you actually say.
Yes, but where are the kleptoplutocrats’ guaranteed universal yachts:
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/that-money-has-to-be-somewhere-by.html
Yes, but where are the kleptoplutocrats’ guaranteed universal yachts:
https://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/that-money-has-to-be-somewhere-by.html
mp’s nazis and his cossacks renew the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
https://twitter.com/TimKarr/status/1022913160045580289/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1022913160045580289&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
mp’s nazis and his cossacks renew the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
https://twitter.com/TimKarr/status/1022913160045580289/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1022913160045580289&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
it’s time for a Universal Income, paid to all adult US citizens at around federal minimum wage levels.
If we’re going to head in that direction, we might want to start thinking about what will constitute “adult” for this purpose. 21? 18? 16? 12?* (Just to pick 4 that apply for one purpose or another currently.) Or something else?
As with lots of new ideas, making it work decently (assuming, for the sake of discussion that it’s desirable) is going to require sorting out a bunch of niggling details ahead of time.
* This one popped to mind because (in California anyway) it’s the minimum age at which you can become an emancipated minor. I.e. an adult for most legal purposes — those which don’t otherwise have an age attached.
it’s time for a Universal Income, paid to all adult US citizens at around federal minimum wage levels.
If we’re going to head in that direction, we might want to start thinking about what will constitute “adult” for this purpose. 21? 18? 16? 12?* (Just to pick 4 that apply for one purpose or another currently.) Or something else?
As with lots of new ideas, making it work decently (assuming, for the sake of discussion that it’s desirable) is going to require sorting out a bunch of niggling details ahead of time.
* This one popped to mind because (in California anyway) it’s the minimum age at which you can become an emancipated minor. I.e. an adult for most legal purposes — those which don’t otherwise have an age attached.
18 or above, unless you’re still living at home with mom and dad or other relative. or maybe 16, to account for emancipated minors.
21 or above if you’re still living at home.
how’s that?
everything requires working out niggling details, including doing nothing at all. so, to me, the “niggling detail” thing, while real, is not an argument for or against anything.
ditto the “unintended consequences” argument.
nobody knows everything that’s going to happen, and nobody can think of every edge case and contingency.
we do our best, move forward, and adjust as needed. just like every other life form on the planet.
fwiw, i’m not in favor of universal income, however i (like friedman and hayek) am in favor of guaranteed basic income. they’re not exactly the same, but both address the issue of people who don’t earn enough to live on.
18 or above, unless you’re still living at home with mom and dad or other relative. or maybe 16, to account for emancipated minors.
21 or above if you’re still living at home.
how’s that?
everything requires working out niggling details, including doing nothing at all. so, to me, the “niggling detail” thing, while real, is not an argument for or against anything.
ditto the “unintended consequences” argument.
nobody knows everything that’s going to happen, and nobody can think of every edge case and contingency.
we do our best, move forward, and adjust as needed. just like every other life form on the planet.
fwiw, i’m not in favor of universal income, however i (like friedman and hayek) am in favor of guaranteed basic income. they’re not exactly the same, but both address the issue of people who don’t earn enough to live on.
If Roe V Wade is reversed and prosecutions of women and medical personnel commence, I want legislation is all 52 states legally designating as fetuses all children from minus 48 hours old to eleven years old:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-most-dangerous-place-to-give-birth-in-developed-world-usa-today-investigation-finds/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=54760827
If Roe V Wade is reversed and prosecutions of women and medical personnel commence, I want legislation is all 52 states legally designating as fetuses all children from minus 48 hours old to eleven years old:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-most-dangerous-place-to-give-birth-in-developed-world-usa-today-investigation-finds/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=54760827
Damn. My reference to “Comrade “ was to BP. I’m using an iPhone because I’m on the road pretty much full-time. Sorry for the confusion.
Damn. My reference to “Comrade “ was to BP. I’m using an iPhone because I’m on the road pretty much full-time. Sorry for the confusion.
WTF?
An average 16-year-old would have enough brains to keep track of these people. You could do it with pen and paper, for Pete’s sake, if you didn’t have a computer handy and actually gave a shit.
And if you did have a computer the world’s simplest database system would do the trick.
Should I conclude that these people don’t have enough sense to be allowed to cross the street by themselves, or – what I actually think – that this is intentional?
Yes. They are Nazis, or as close to it as they can get today, and so is every Republican who does not renounce Trump by midnight today.
WTF?
An average 16-year-old would have enough brains to keep track of these people. You could do it with pen and paper, for Pete’s sake, if you didn’t have a computer handy and actually gave a shit.
And if you did have a computer the world’s simplest database system would do the trick.
Should I conclude that these people don’t have enough sense to be allowed to cross the street by themselves, or – what I actually think – that this is intentional?
Yes. They are Nazis, or as close to it as they can get today, and so is every Republican who does not renounce Trump by midnight today.
Thank you for speaking so forcefully and plainly, byomtov. This is an atrocity, and especially so when you read about what the people who are seeking asylum here have been through before they arrived. I don’t understand anyone who isn’t solidly on their side, much less this sadistic horror.
Elizabeth Holtzman speaks for me.
Thank you for speaking so forcefully and plainly, byomtov. This is an atrocity, and especially so when you read about what the people who are seeking asylum here have been through before they arrived. I don’t understand anyone who isn’t solidly on their side, much less this sadistic horror.
Elizabeth Holtzman speaks for me.
Damn. My reference to “Comrade “ was to BP.
“Citizen” is OK, too.
Damn. My reference to “Comrade “ was to BP.
“Citizen” is OK, too.
if you … actually gave a shit.
The penny drops.
Should I conclude that these people don’t have enough sense to be allowed to cross the street by themselves, or – what I actually think – that this is intentional?
no need to choose. their intentions are malign, and they have no fucking idea what they are doing.
i don’t know if the latter makes the former better, or worse, and i have no desire to find out.
the widowhood of every government, as the late great leonard cohen would say. signs for all to see.
here’s another lyric by a great songwriter:
it’s not going to stop
until you wise up
wise the hell up, america
if you … actually gave a shit.
The penny drops.
Should I conclude that these people don’t have enough sense to be allowed to cross the street by themselves, or – what I actually think – that this is intentional?
no need to choose. their intentions are malign, and they have no fucking idea what they are doing.
i don’t know if the latter makes the former better, or worse, and i have no desire to find out.
the widowhood of every government, as the late great leonard cohen would say. signs for all to see.
here’s another lyric by a great songwriter:
it’s not going to stop
until you wise up
wise the hell up, america
from here:
these are people who came here in the hope of making a better life for themselves. quite often at great personal risk. and we treated them like dogs.
not even, we treat dogs better than this.
one way or another, we will be held accountable for this.
from here:
these are people who came here in the hope of making a better life for themselves. quite often at great personal risk. and we treated them like dogs.
not even, we treat dogs better than this.
one way or another, we will be held accountable for this.
Perhaps an upside of Trump will be that he will make a number of bad policies so toxic that no one will dare touch them again for a long while.
Perhaps an upside of Trump will be that he will make a number of bad policies so toxic that no one will dare touch them again for a long while.
byomtov: Yes. They are Nazis, or as close to it as they can get today, and so is every Republican who does not renounce Trump by midnight today.
To “renounce Trump” is so easy, even Marty can do it.
The real proof of decency is to renounce — as in vote against — He, Trump’s enablers in the Congress EVEN IF they stand for “(Republican) policies”. Restraining Putin’s Little Bitch by turning the House and Senate over to the Democrats this fall is what a patriot would do — knowing full well that doing so would NOT result in “open borders”, “gun control”, “abortion on demand”, or (God forbid!) “higher taxes”. It MIGHT lead to impeachment of the racist, misogynist, Putin-ass-licking crook in the White House (who Marty and McKinney both profess to despise anyway), but even that is a long shot. What it WOULD do, though, is acknowledge that giving libruls the finger is less important than, say, preserving American independence. So that’s probably the deal breaker.
–TP.
byomtov: Yes. They are Nazis, or as close to it as they can get today, and so is every Republican who does not renounce Trump by midnight today.
To “renounce Trump” is so easy, even Marty can do it.
The real proof of decency is to renounce — as in vote against — He, Trump’s enablers in the Congress EVEN IF they stand for “(Republican) policies”. Restraining Putin’s Little Bitch by turning the House and Senate over to the Democrats this fall is what a patriot would do — knowing full well that doing so would NOT result in “open borders”, “gun control”, “abortion on demand”, or (God forbid!) “higher taxes”. It MIGHT lead to impeachment of the racist, misogynist, Putin-ass-licking crook in the White House (who Marty and McKinney both profess to despise anyway), but even that is a long shot. What it WOULD do, though, is acknowledge that giving libruls the finger is less important than, say, preserving American independence. So that’s probably the deal breaker.
–TP.
Aimee Mann
Aimee Mann
TP,
The real proof of decency is to renounce — as in vote against — He, Trump’s enablers in the Congress EVEN IF they stand for “(Republican) policies”.
I agree. And it is also, in the case of R’s in Congress, to abandon the party until it purges itself of Trumpism. No votes for legislation, or judges, until Trump and Pence resign. Become Independents, caucus with the D’s, or form a new one.
Never happen, of course.
You know, there is one difference between the Trumpists and Nazis. The Nazis were great at keeping records.
TP,
The real proof of decency is to renounce — as in vote against — He, Trump’s enablers in the Congress EVEN IF they stand for “(Republican) policies”.
I agree. And it is also, in the case of R’s in Congress, to abandon the party until it purges itself of Trumpism. No votes for legislation, or judges, until Trump and Pence resign. Become Independents, caucus with the D’s, or form a new one.
Never happen, of course.
You know, there is one difference between the Trumpists and Nazis. The Nazis were great at keeping records.
A couple of pieces in today’s Observer (for anyone who’s interested) about the report on Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, Russia, Brexit etc just released by a parliamentary committee which has been investigating the whole thing:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/28/dcms-report-fake-news-disinformation-brexit-facebook-russia
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/28/dcms-committee-report-finds-truth-fake-news-facebook-brexit
A couple of pieces in today’s Observer (for anyone who’s interested) about the report on Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, Russia, Brexit etc just released by a parliamentary committee which has been investigating the whole thing:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jul/28/dcms-report-fake-news-disinformation-brexit-facebook-russia
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/28/dcms-committee-report-finds-truth-fake-news-facebook-brexit
You know, there is one difference between the Trumpists and Nazis. The Nazis were great at keeping records.
It definitely seems like incompetence is the Trump folks’ “core competency”.
You know, there is one difference between the Trumpists and Nazis. The Nazis were great at keeping records.
It definitely seems like incompetence is the Trump folks’ “core competency”.
in the case of R’s in Congress, to abandon the party until it purges itself of Trumpism.
a lot of the people who they represent, and whose votes they need to remain in office, are more than happy with trumpism.
there’s an argument for national office being a platform for leadership, but it doesn’t always work that way.
there was also supposed to be some kins of ‘pace and lead’ thing on the horizon, but that is also not in evidence.
trump is who he is. lots of people – not most people, but lots – like him just the way he is. and they are perfectly happy with the immigration policies etc. and those folks tend to be represented by (R)’s.
net/net, don’t hold your breath. trump’s people are getting what they voted for. trumpism is what they want.
in the case of R’s in Congress, to abandon the party until it purges itself of Trumpism.
a lot of the people who they represent, and whose votes they need to remain in office, are more than happy with trumpism.
there’s an argument for national office being a platform for leadership, but it doesn’t always work that way.
there was also supposed to be some kins of ‘pace and lead’ thing on the horizon, but that is also not in evidence.
trump is who he is. lots of people – not most people, but lots – like him just the way he is. and they are perfectly happy with the immigration policies etc. and those folks tend to be represented by (R)’s.
net/net, don’t hold your breath. trump’s people are getting what they voted for. trumpism is what they want.
This isn’t incompetence. The competent erasure of the paper trail is the point.
Like the Mafia of old, the entire U.S. Government is now operated from a back table in a false flag red sauce joint and the commands are transmitted from a payphone booth across the street.
The Don ordered Reince Priebus to catch a fly and he did. No confirmation that the Don commanded Priebus to drop to his knees and eat the fly.
The wholly-owned garbage truck subsidiary makes regular pickups in the back alley and deposits the bodies in the landfill outside of town.
Kill the Republican Party. Kill the conservative movement. It’s a worldwide infestation.
Elections will not do. The conservative movement is a writhing, murderous snake and its venom diminishes, not one whit, but only purifies, when it is out of power.
The 2016 election was stolen. Execute it.
Kill it in Macedonia too, hat tip to cleek:
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=28198
Kill it in Britain:
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3375158-british-army-standby-brexit-emergency
Shoot it in its Moscow heads. Shoot it in its Texas heads. Shoot it dead.
This isn’t incompetence. The competent erasure of the paper trail is the point.
Like the Mafia of old, the entire U.S. Government is now operated from a back table in a false flag red sauce joint and the commands are transmitted from a payphone booth across the street.
The Don ordered Reince Priebus to catch a fly and he did. No confirmation that the Don commanded Priebus to drop to his knees and eat the fly.
The wholly-owned garbage truck subsidiary makes regular pickups in the back alley and deposits the bodies in the landfill outside of town.
Kill the Republican Party. Kill the conservative movement. It’s a worldwide infestation.
Elections will not do. The conservative movement is a writhing, murderous snake and its venom diminishes, not one whit, but only purifies, when it is out of power.
The 2016 election was stolen. Execute it.
Kill it in Macedonia too, hat tip to cleek:
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=28198
Kill it in Britain:
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3375158-british-army-standby-brexit-emergency
Shoot it in its Moscow heads. Shoot it in its Texas heads. Shoot it dead.
This isn’t incompetence. The competent erasure of the paper trail is the point.
If they (or someone) had created a paper trail and then they erased it, you’d have a point. But as far as I can see there never was a paper trail created. Not because they wanted to avoid anyone being able to find the information later, but just because nobody involved had the wit to think ahead and consider that the information might be useful.
Failure (inability?) to think past Step 1 of a task also seems to be a characteristic — over and above the inability to execute.
This isn’t incompetence. The competent erasure of the paper trail is the point.
If they (or someone) had created a paper trail and then they erased it, you’d have a point. But as far as I can see there never was a paper trail created. Not because they wanted to avoid anyone being able to find the information later, but just because nobody involved had the wit to think ahead and consider that the information might be useful.
Failure (inability?) to think past Step 1 of a task also seems to be a characteristic — over and above the inability to execute.
“But as far as I can see there never was a paper trail created.”
Bernard Yomtov brought up the Nazis and record- keeping to illustrate the utterly unmeticulous, stupid, sloppy barbarism of the mpists, among whom I include the entire republican party.
Let me expand on that. Should it happen here … the murder of six million enemies of the republican party … and there were lists and file cabinets full of the details of the carnage, the only objection from the 62 million government-hating simpletons who voted for the monstrosity surely wouldn’t be about the mass graves and the genocide itself.
That last thing is product and you give me six good salesmen and I can sell that product, any product to any half-wit and the only paperwork required is the piece of paper with my salesforce’s commissions per corpse on it.
The objections from these 62 million simpletons would be about the sheer bureaucracy, the utter inefficiency of it, all of those gummint employees sitting at their desks, taking long lunch long breaks, in between recording the horror and alphabetizing it.
Hell, Elmer .. they’ll say … privatize the whole shebang. Why, we could cut overhead, headcount, and their cushy benefits, reduce paperwork, by God, and what’s with the 5000 pages in the law itself enabling the Holocaust, you could fit all ya need on the back of a postcard and be done with it.
Too many moving parts. Too complicated. too much paper shuffling. Too many pointless feasibility and impact studies gettin ready to get ready and deciding who has pre-existing conditions and who don’t. Who gives a red-blooded American rat’s ass?
Get the product out the door.
The impacts would be that we hate those people and we’re better off without em. That’s all ya need to know.
Run this thing like a real private unionless railroad, not Amtrak. Pick em up, deliver em to Auschwitz, and march em into their graves, job done, while slashing costs, like we learned at Wharton.
But, no, all we have are warehouses full of useless records, and half those they CLAIM they killed are still running loose at thrice the cost. A typical gummint boondoggle.
We’d turn a profit with much less of a cost to the taxpayer putting the six million in the mass graves with little more than tried and true American grit and a handshake, like our daddies did it.
Yessiree, Bob.
“consider that the information might be useful.”
According to these louts, there is no information that is useful. Book burn it.
“But as far as I can see there never was a paper trail created.”
Bernard Yomtov brought up the Nazis and record- keeping to illustrate the utterly unmeticulous, stupid, sloppy barbarism of the mpists, among whom I include the entire republican party.
Let me expand on that. Should it happen here … the murder of six million enemies of the republican party … and there were lists and file cabinets full of the details of the carnage, the only objection from the 62 million government-hating simpletons who voted for the monstrosity surely wouldn’t be about the mass graves and the genocide itself.
That last thing is product and you give me six good salesmen and I can sell that product, any product to any half-wit and the only paperwork required is the piece of paper with my salesforce’s commissions per corpse on it.
The objections from these 62 million simpletons would be about the sheer bureaucracy, the utter inefficiency of it, all of those gummint employees sitting at their desks, taking long lunch long breaks, in between recording the horror and alphabetizing it.
Hell, Elmer .. they’ll say … privatize the whole shebang. Why, we could cut overhead, headcount, and their cushy benefits, reduce paperwork, by God, and what’s with the 5000 pages in the law itself enabling the Holocaust, you could fit all ya need on the back of a postcard and be done with it.
Too many moving parts. Too complicated. too much paper shuffling. Too many pointless feasibility and impact studies gettin ready to get ready and deciding who has pre-existing conditions and who don’t. Who gives a red-blooded American rat’s ass?
Get the product out the door.
The impacts would be that we hate those people and we’re better off without em. That’s all ya need to know.
Run this thing like a real private unionless railroad, not Amtrak. Pick em up, deliver em to Auschwitz, and march em into their graves, job done, while slashing costs, like we learned at Wharton.
But, no, all we have are warehouses full of useless records, and half those they CLAIM they killed are still running loose at thrice the cost. A typical gummint boondoggle.
We’d turn a profit with much less of a cost to the taxpayer putting the six million in the mass graves with little more than tried and true American grit and a handshake, like our daddies did it.
Yessiree, Bob.
“consider that the information might be useful.”
According to these louts, there is no information that is useful. Book burn it.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nyt-publisher-trump-proud-of-spreading-term-fake-news-noted-intl-bans-in-convo
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/nyt-publisher-trump-proud-of-spreading-term-fake-news-noted-intl-bans-in-convo
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/worse-and-worse
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/worse-and-worse
Republicans, the ones with the stinking, fucking guns, finally found a government they don’t want to shoot in the head.
Republicans, the ones with the stinking, fucking guns, finally found a government they don’t want to shoot in the head.
Ya remember when things were great for businesses/conservatives and the unemployed were a bunch of taxpayer-sucking layabouts who needed to get a job, the good fer nuttin 49% begging for health insurance and something more for 20-hour perweek gig shlepping hogwash.
Why, they’ll take the work and be happy for it at whatever the hourly rate.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/employers-eager-to-hire-try-a-new-policy-no-experience-necessary/ar-BBLcxkH
American conservatism is so full of shit.
Ya remember when things were great for businesses/conservatives and the unemployed were a bunch of taxpayer-sucking layabouts who needed to get a job, the good fer nuttin 49% begging for health insurance and something more for 20-hour perweek gig shlepping hogwash.
Why, they’ll take the work and be happy for it at whatever the hourly rate.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/employers-eager-to-hire-try-a-new-policy-no-experience-necessary/ar-BBLcxkH
American conservatism is so full of shit.
We were talking about excessive pharmaceutical drug prices recently. This is an interesting story which raises a few pertinent questions:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/43pngb/how-to-make-your-own-medicine-four-thieves-vinegar-collective
We were talking about excessive pharmaceutical drug prices recently. This is an interesting story which raises a few pertinent questions:
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/43pngb/how-to-make-your-own-medicine-four-thieves-vinegar-collective
And so we see that Brexit is popping up some of the same (utterly predictable) issues that Trump’s boys are managing to generate here:
“as Britain prepares to leave the E.U., bringing the era of free movement to a close, farmers have begun to panic: Who will pick the crops next spring?”
But hey, as long as we get rid of all those horrid furriners, who care if the crops rot in the fields and we starve? At least we’ll be pure!
And so we see that Brexit is popping up some of the same (utterly predictable) issues that Trump’s boys are managing to generate here:
“as Britain prepares to leave the E.U., bringing the era of free movement to a close, farmers have begun to panic: Who will pick the crops next spring?”
But hey, as long as we get rid of all those horrid furriners, who care if the crops rot in the fields and we starve? At least we’ll be pure!
Pick em up, deliver em to Auschwitz, and march em into their graves, job done
actually, that would be sobibor.
Pick em up, deliver em to Auschwitz, and march em into their graves, job done
actually, that would be sobibor.
Trump might not be a Nazi, but he is certainly enabling their modern incarnation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-white-supremacists-split-a-quiet-rust-belt-town/2018/07/28/15a7e414-85df-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html
Trump might not be a Nazi, but he is certainly enabling their modern incarnation:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-white-supremacists-split-a-quiet-rust-belt-town/2018/07/28/15a7e414-85df-11e8-8f6c-46cb43e3f306_story.html
Nous, yep. people like to crap on the south for its racism. but there’s plenty of it in the north, too.
that town is right in the heart of where my father’s family settled when they came over from Germany in the 1840s. they’re still there. i spent many summers at relatives’ houses in that area. all of the little towns in the area look just like Ulysses.
Brazil nuts weren’t called “Brazil nuts” in my grandparent’s house, and black men were always “bucks”, usually “big”, too.
of course there weren’t any black people in that part of the country in the early 70s, so i had no chance to learn anything but the stereotypes my racist redneck family laughed about.
took me some time, and moving to a place where everyone wasn’t a member of the same six families, to get a hold on reality.
Nous, yep. people like to crap on the south for its racism. but there’s plenty of it in the north, too.
that town is right in the heart of where my father’s family settled when they came over from Germany in the 1840s. they’re still there. i spent many summers at relatives’ houses in that area. all of the little towns in the area look just like Ulysses.
Brazil nuts weren’t called “Brazil nuts” in my grandparent’s house, and black men were always “bucks”, usually “big”, too.
of course there weren’t any black people in that part of the country in the early 70s, so i had no chance to learn anything but the stereotypes my racist redneck family laughed about.
took me some time, and moving to a place where everyone wasn’t a member of the same six families, to get a hold on reality.
not Nous, Nigel.
nertz!
not Nous, Nigel.
nertz!
people like to crap on the south for its racism. but there’s plenty of it in the north, too.
yep
people like to crap on the south for its racism. but there’s plenty of it in the north, too.
yep
nertz!
You all have no idea the astonishing number of new words, acronyms etc I’ve learnt here over the years!
nertz!
You all have no idea the astonishing number of new words, acronyms etc I’ve learnt here over the years!
nummers….
nummers….
Nigel, interesting link. I spent a little time trying to quantify the number of white supremacists in the US. This link seemed interesting, realizing I have no way of vouching for any part of it: https://www.reconsidermedia.com/lastestblogposts/finally-an-estimate-of-the-size-of-the-alt-right-movement-5nbxa
I’m also unfamiliar with that site, so if it turns out to be some nutcase hangout, my apologies. The link is the only thing I’ve ever seen there.
Nigel, interesting link. I spent a little time trying to quantify the number of white supremacists in the US. This link seemed interesting, realizing I have no way of vouching for any part of it: https://www.reconsidermedia.com/lastestblogposts/finally-an-estimate-of-the-size-of-the-alt-right-movement-5nbxa
I’m also unfamiliar with that site, so if it turns out to be some nutcase hangout, my apologies. The link is the only thing I’ve ever seen there.
Racism in the South was just more overt, particularly on the institutional/establishment side. People suck everywhere. Some, anyway.
Racism in the South was just more overt, particularly on the institutional/establishment side. People suck everywhere. Some, anyway.
The big difference, as noted in McKinney’s link when discussing the Alt-Right, was in how socially acceptable racism was. That is, what the opinion of the local elites was.
In the rest of the country (at least in the latter half of the 20th century) racism wasn’t quite the done thing. It happened, but it wasn’t generally something to boast about in public. Whereas in the South, overt lack of racism was not socially acceptable.**
That is one of the notable novelties of the Trump campaign and Presidency: for the first time in 3/4 of a century, we have a Northern racist center stage. The question in my mind is, how much will this turn out to have been an anomaly vs how much will we back struggling to regain the same ground all over again?
** As George Wallace learned the hard way. In 1958, he lost the race for Governor of Alabama because he was the moderate on race. (Not what would be considered moderate in the rest of the country, but the relative moderate.) He was careful not to make that mistake again.
The big difference, as noted in McKinney’s link when discussing the Alt-Right, was in how socially acceptable racism was. That is, what the opinion of the local elites was.
In the rest of the country (at least in the latter half of the 20th century) racism wasn’t quite the done thing. It happened, but it wasn’t generally something to boast about in public. Whereas in the South, overt lack of racism was not socially acceptable.**
That is one of the notable novelties of the Trump campaign and Presidency: for the first time in 3/4 of a century, we have a Northern racist center stage. The question in my mind is, how much will this turn out to have been an anomaly vs how much will we back struggling to regain the same ground all over again?
** As George Wallace learned the hard way. In 1958, he lost the race for Governor of Alabama because he was the moderate on race. (Not what would be considered moderate in the rest of the country, but the relative moderate.) He was careful not to make that mistake again.
That link of McT’s has, as the first comment, a looong list of people associated with Trump and their ‘Jewish’ background. I pass this on not to impeach the article, but just to note that there apparently can be people who are opposed to Trump who might be Neo-nazis. (cause I don’t think that he was listing them up cause he liked it)
That link of McT’s has, as the first comment, a looong list of people associated with Trump and their ‘Jewish’ background. I pass this on not to impeach the article, but just to note that there apparently can be people who are opposed to Trump who might be Neo-nazis. (cause I don’t think that he was listing them up cause he liked it)
In the rest of the country (at least in the latter half of the 20th century) racism wasn’t quite the done thing. It happened, but it wasn’t generally something to boast about in public. Whereas in the South, overt lack of racism was not socially acceptable.
I think this is right. It definitely is true of the Jim Crow south. To argue that, for example, crimes against blacks should be investigated and prosecuted just as vigorously as crimes against whites marked one as a “racial moderate” or, close to the same thing, a “n*****-lover.”
Probably 90+% of southern whites in that era would qualify as racists by most standards today.
In the rest of the country (at least in the latter half of the 20th century) racism wasn’t quite the done thing. It happened, but it wasn’t generally something to boast about in public. Whereas in the South, overt lack of racism was not socially acceptable.
I think this is right. It definitely is true of the Jim Crow south. To argue that, for example, crimes against blacks should be investigated and prosecuted just as vigorously as crimes against whites marked one as a “racial moderate” or, close to the same thing, a “n*****-lover.”
Probably 90+% of southern whites in that era would qualify as racists by most standards today.
That link of McT’s has, as the first comment, a looong list of people associated with Trump and their ‘Jewish’ background. …
There is certainly a strain if antisemetism on the left:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45014771
That link of McT’s has, as the first comment, a looong list of people associated with Trump and their ‘Jewish’ background. …
There is certainly a strain if antisemetism on the left:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45014771
Ironically, there were and are people believing that the Nazis were a Jewish front group (and Hitler likely the son of his mother’s Jewish doctor, the one he personally protected from persecution until he died of natural causes).
For that matter, I known an old lady that thinks M. Kemal Atatürk was a Jew too.
And some prominent pro-Israel US evangelicals claim that Hitler was doing G#d’s work driving the Jews back to the Holy Land to fulfill their ordained task (i.e. to start the apocalypse).
As for the Left, the idea of the bloodsucking Jewish capitalists never died. And it got mixed up with anti-colonialism (Israel is seen as a colonial power suppressing the native Palestinians).
We all ‘know’ that Hollywood is run by Jews who (depending on the observers’ individual ideology) are either cultural bolsheviks or soulless reactionary moneybags that try to infect us with their extreme Leftist or Rightist ideas. And if they are not actually Jews that must mean that they were clever enough to forge their family history.
“Tut nichts! Der Jude wird verbrannt!” (Lessing: Nathan the Wise, 4th Act, 2nd Scene)
Ironically, there were and are people believing that the Nazis were a Jewish front group (and Hitler likely the son of his mother’s Jewish doctor, the one he personally protected from persecution until he died of natural causes).
For that matter, I known an old lady that thinks M. Kemal Atatürk was a Jew too.
And some prominent pro-Israel US evangelicals claim that Hitler was doing G#d’s work driving the Jews back to the Holy Land to fulfill their ordained task (i.e. to start the apocalypse).
As for the Left, the idea of the bloodsucking Jewish capitalists never died. And it got mixed up with anti-colonialism (Israel is seen as a colonial power suppressing the native Palestinians).
We all ‘know’ that Hollywood is run by Jews who (depending on the observers’ individual ideology) are either cultural bolsheviks or soulless reactionary moneybags that try to infect us with their extreme Leftist or Rightist ideas. And if they are not actually Jews that must mean that they were clever enough to forge their family history.
“Tut nichts! Der Jude wird verbrannt!” (Lessing: Nathan the Wise, 4th Act, 2nd Scene)
The party of Trump, redux:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/31/trump-floridarepublicans-desantis-scott-751244
The party of Trump, redux:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/31/trump-floridarepublicans-desantis-scott-751244
The party of mp, redux all over again:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-governor-candidate-pulls-out-all-stops-in-flattering-trump-ad-after-endorsement
Take no comfort from subhuman republican Evil cage matching with subhuman republican Evil:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-turns-fire-on-globalist-koch-brothers
New York City didn’t fare too well either when King Kong and Godzilla knocked it all down trying to kill each other.
They are killing America.
Maybe help is on the way for those who are defenseless against subhuman republican Evil:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/1000-people-have-already-downloaded-plans-to-3-d-print-an-ar-15
The party of mp, redux all over again:
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/gop-governor-candidate-pulls-out-all-stops-in-flattering-trump-ad-after-endorsement
Take no comfort from subhuman republican Evil cage matching with subhuman republican Evil:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-turns-fire-on-globalist-koch-brothers
New York City didn’t fare too well either when King Kong and Godzilla knocked it all down trying to kill each other.
They are killing America.
Maybe help is on the way for those who are defenseless against subhuman republican Evil:
https://www.thedailybeast.com/1000-people-have-already-downloaded-plans-to-3-d-print-an-ar-15
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a22600845/trump-koch-brothers-citizens-united/
Wait a couple of years and two more right wing Supreme Court justices and bullets will be free speech as the First and Second Amendments converge in the full weaponization of both for the benefit of conservatives only.
Speaking of convergences, have you heard of the new combination sexual hookup/job search apps and internet platforms that are all the rage.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/deeply-disturbing-allegations-against-ex-fema-personnel-chief-sent-inspector-n895971
.. for when getting laid is a national emergency on account of acts of God …
and ..
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/people-are-using-tinder-and-okcupid-to-find-jobs-2018-07-26
You and get hired and screwed or fired and rejected sexually all in one easy process as America reaches for peak horseshit.
“So when can you start?”
“I’m ready any time you are, schmookins … oh, you meant the job job, not the other. Will my office have a mattress and a bidet in it?”
This of course merely formalizes the way many men bring a dual-purpose perspective to their hiring and firing duties.
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/a22600845/trump-koch-brothers-citizens-united/
Wait a couple of years and two more right wing Supreme Court justices and bullets will be free speech as the First and Second Amendments converge in the full weaponization of both for the benefit of conservatives only.
Speaking of convergences, have you heard of the new combination sexual hookup/job search apps and internet platforms that are all the rage.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/deeply-disturbing-allegations-against-ex-fema-personnel-chief-sent-inspector-n895971
.. for when getting laid is a national emergency on account of acts of God …
and ..
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/people-are-using-tinder-and-okcupid-to-find-jobs-2018-07-26
You and get hired and screwed or fired and rejected sexually all in one easy process as America reaches for peak horseshit.
“So when can you start?”
“I’m ready any time you are, schmookins … oh, you meant the job job, not the other. Will my office have a mattress and a bidet in it?”
This of course merely formalizes the way many men bring a dual-purpose perspective to their hiring and firing duties.
people-are-using-tinder-and-okcupid-to-find-jobs-2018-07-26
Boston emo-pop band Future Teens apparently recruited vocalist Amy Hoffman via Tinder.
people-are-using-tinder-and-okcupid-to-find-jobs-2018-07-26
Boston emo-pop band Future Teens apparently recruited vocalist Amy Hoffman via Tinder.
Wait a couple of years and two more right wing Supreme Court justices..
Balls to that. RBG has made it very clear she’s going nowhere.
Wait a couple of years and two more right wing Supreme Court justices..
Balls to that. RBG has made it very clear she’s going nowhere.
At her age, that might be a difficult promise to keep.
At her age, that might be a difficult promise to keep.
“RBG has made it very clear she’s going nowhere.”
I hope she’s right, but it reminds of the time my 89-year old uncle said he was purchasing XYC stock with a long term investment horizon.
“RBG has made it very clear she’s going nowhere.”
I hope she’s right, but it reminds of the time my 89-year old uncle said he was purchasing XYC stock with a long term investment horizon.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brian-klug/code-of-conduct-for-antisemitism-tale-of-two-texts
I am having trouble posting more than one link. Anyway, that is one response to the BBC article on leftist antisemitism.
I am not in Britain and don’t doubt there is some antisemitism, but if you read the background it is also clear that people are using the antisemitism charge to suppress harsh criticism of Israel. The claim is that Jews identify with Israel, so to call it a racist state is to be antisemitic and only Jews can define antisemitism, so QED. Strangely, Palestinians are never consulted on whether what was done to them constitutes racism, presumably because their views on whether Israel is a racist state are not important.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/brian-klug/code-of-conduct-for-antisemitism-tale-of-two-texts
I am having trouble posting more than one link. Anyway, that is one response to the BBC article on leftist antisemitism.
I am not in Britain and don’t doubt there is some antisemitism, but if you read the background it is also clear that people are using the antisemitism charge to suppress harsh criticism of Israel. The claim is that Jews identify with Israel, so to call it a racist state is to be antisemitic and only Jews can define antisemitism, so QED. Strangely, Palestinians are never consulted on whether what was done to them constitutes racism, presumably because their views on whether Israel is a racist state are not important.
The other link I meant to post—
https://www.opendemocracy.net/antony-lerman/why-turning-to-jewish-exceptionalism-to-fight-antisemitism-is-failing-project
Sooner or later this fight is going to pop up on this side of the Atlantic. On a tiny scale it shows up sometimes in local politics, including where I live.
The other link I meant to post—
https://www.opendemocracy.net/antony-lerman/why-turning-to-jewish-exceptionalism-to-fight-antisemitism-is-failing-project
Sooner or later this fight is going to pop up on this side of the Atlantic. On a tiny scale it shows up sometimes in local politics, including where I live.
Here is a third link to another piece by Brian Klug where he discusses the antisemitism he does see on the left.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/blog/zionism-antisemitism-left-today/
Here is a third link to another piece by Brian Klug where he discusses the antisemitism he does see on the left.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/blog/zionism-antisemitism-left-today/
Donald, over here in Germany it goes both ways. Actual antisemites cloak their hatred as ‘mere’ criticism of Israel while those in league with the RW governmnet of Israel try to supress even the slightest criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitism on the same level as the 3rd Reich. Actual (moderate) Jews are often caught in the middle and get attacked from both sides.
It should also not be forgotten that some in Israel see it as treasonous behaviour for Jews to live in Germany at all, in particular for those that have been living in Israel before that (the top of course are German Auschwitz survivors that went to Israel, did not find it to their liking and returned to Germany. Those are put under general suspicion of about anything you could imagine starting with being guilty of survival).
Donald, over here in Germany it goes both ways. Actual antisemites cloak their hatred as ‘mere’ criticism of Israel while those in league with the RW governmnet of Israel try to supress even the slightest criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitism on the same level as the 3rd Reich. Actual (moderate) Jews are often caught in the middle and get attacked from both sides.
It should also not be forgotten that some in Israel see it as treasonous behaviour for Jews to live in Germany at all, in particular for those that have been living in Israel before that (the top of course are German Auschwitz survivors that went to Israel, did not find it to their liking and returned to Germany. Those are put under general suspicion of about anything you could imagine starting with being guilty of survival).
Donald, over here in Germany it goes both ways. Actual antisemites cloak their hatred as ‘mere’ criticism of Israel while those in league with the RW governmnet of Israel try to supress even the slightest criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitism on the same level as the 3rd Reich…
I think that pretty well the case in the UK, too.
Labour’s problem is that the current party leadership has given the strong impression of not being unduly concerned about the first category.
Donald, over here in Germany it goes both ways. Actual antisemites cloak their hatred as ‘mere’ criticism of Israel while those in league with the RW governmnet of Israel try to supress even the slightest criticism of Israeli policy as antisemitism on the same level as the 3rd Reich…
I think that pretty well the case in the UK, too.
Labour’s problem is that the current party leadership has given the strong impression of not being unduly concerned about the first category.
“In the rest of the country (at least in the latter half of the 20th century) racism wasn’t quite the done thing. It happened, but it wasn’t generally something to boast about in public. Whereas in the South, overt lack of racism was not socially acceptable.”
This is utter bullshit. The northern racists were fully in place and millions of southerners were integral to the civil rights movement. This is so bad I suspect trolling for a response. Anyone who lived in Southie knows this is a ridiculous assertion.
Just stopped by, SSDD
“In the rest of the country (at least in the latter half of the 20th century) racism wasn’t quite the done thing. It happened, but it wasn’t generally something to boast about in public. Whereas in the South, overt lack of racism was not socially acceptable.”
This is utter bullshit. The northern racists were fully in place and millions of southerners were integral to the civil rights movement. This is so bad I suspect trolling for a response. Anyone who lived in Southie knows this is a ridiculous assertion.
Just stopped by, SSDD
Marty, I’ve been wondering where you were, and hoping all was well. I must say, posting This is utter bullshit and then disappearing seems like a dodgy move, when if you had been prepared to question the initial statement (by wj?) and present some evidence or at least argument to the contrary, it might have resulted in interesting discussion. Whereas this way, it just raises the temperature and paves the way for more insulting stuff, to no constuctive or interesting effect…..
Marty, I’ve been wondering where you were, and hoping all was well. I must say, posting This is utter bullshit and then disappearing seems like a dodgy move, when if you had been prepared to question the initial statement (by wj?) and present some evidence or at least argument to the contrary, it might have resulted in interesting discussion. Whereas this way, it just raises the temperature and paves the way for more insulting stuff, to no constuctive or interesting effect…..
I agree that when it came to racism, the Mason-Dixon line was a bedtime story.
When I was growing up, Ohio and Pittsburgh were just as cracker as cracker be. Even now, back there, many folks struggle to be, what’s that thing conservatives call it when they know they are going to get their mouths washed out with soap …. politically correct?
I’m not sure what “integral” means, but yes they were, depending on which side of integral they were on.
Institutionally, natch, the South went out of their way to be racist louts way past the statute of imitations.
Today, we have as many surly racist-mouthed republicans running for office in the North as the South does. Just read the other day that Stormfront’s podcast had to caution a republican candidate, who should be shot, as my grandpappy use to say about Martin Luther King, on the air about his use of the “n” word.
Stormfront, they of the modified, besuited goosestep, the Miss Manners of shitheads.
I agree that when it came to racism, the Mason-Dixon line was a bedtime story.
When I was growing up, Ohio and Pittsburgh were just as cracker as cracker be. Even now, back there, many folks struggle to be, what’s that thing conservatives call it when they know they are going to get their mouths washed out with soap …. politically correct?
I’m not sure what “integral” means, but yes they were, depending on which side of integral they were on.
Institutionally, natch, the South went out of their way to be racist louts way past the statute of imitations.
Today, we have as many surly racist-mouthed republicans running for office in the North as the South does. Just read the other day that Stormfront’s podcast had to caution a republican candidate, who should be shot, as my grandpappy use to say about Martin Luther King, on the air about his use of the “n” word.
Stormfront, they of the modified, besuited goosestep, the Miss Manners of shitheads.
racism north and south, as far as I can tell:
no shortage of racists in the north. lotsa klansmen in indiana, ohio, illinois, michigan. nazi summer camp – real honest to god no-scare-quote nazi – out on long island, back before it became unpopular to be a nazi because of ww2.
the biggest difference between racism north and south that i remember ca. mid to late 20th c. is that, in the south, white and black people actually came in contact with each other. in the north, much less so.
up here in new england, folks largely avoided the issue by simply not having many black people around, at least outside of larger cities. in larger cities, they were tolerated as long as they stayed in their own neighborhoods.
black people in the north are still mostly clustered around specific city neighborhoods. quite a lot of them are moving back to the south nowadays, it’s a more accommodating environment.
and yeah, ssdd here at obwi. we’re living in a ssdd world these days.
racism north and south, as far as I can tell:
no shortage of racists in the north. lotsa klansmen in indiana, ohio, illinois, michigan. nazi summer camp – real honest to god no-scare-quote nazi – out on long island, back before it became unpopular to be a nazi because of ww2.
the biggest difference between racism north and south that i remember ca. mid to late 20th c. is that, in the south, white and black people actually came in contact with each other. in the north, much less so.
up here in new england, folks largely avoided the issue by simply not having many black people around, at least outside of larger cities. in larger cities, they were tolerated as long as they stayed in their own neighborhoods.
black people in the north are still mostly clustered around specific city neighborhoods. quite a lot of them are moving back to the south nowadays, it’s a more accommodating environment.
and yeah, ssdd here at obwi. we’re living in a ssdd world these days.
SSDD
Had to look that up. Like it.
For my money, Texas in many respects has made huge progress, perhaps because we have always had a lot of diversity. We live and work side by side. Doing so, we find out we get along.
SSDD
Had to look that up. Like it.
For my money, Texas in many respects has made huge progress, perhaps because we have always had a lot of diversity. We live and work side by side. Doing so, we find out we get along.
“Labour’s problem is that the current party leadership has given the strong impression of not being unduly concerned about the first category.”
According to the people who wrote the links I provided (and others I didn’t provide), there are a great many critics working very hard to give that impression. In particular, the fact that the Labour Party hasn’t fallen completely into line with the IHRA’s examples of what could be considered antisemitism seems to be one of the main reasons given for the outrage against Labour. And that is all about Israel. Klug thinks there are problems with how some on the left discuss the issue, but he also very gently suggests that much of the criticism of Labour is simply wrong.
As best I can tell, there are multiple things going on. Rightwing Labourites are trying to discredit the Corbynites. Individual Corbyn supporters are accused of saying antisemitic things or of dismissing concern over it. And accusations of antisemitism are being weaponized to keep the Overton Window on Israel from shifting to the point where Palestinians are regarded as human beings who might legitimately see Israel as a racist state.
The first thing is standard ugly politics. The second issue would have to be judged on a case by case basis. My third link ( by Klug) gave a good example of this where people were definitely being antisemitic. But the last issue is the one where the discussion is most dishonest. I haven’t looked very hard, but are there articles in the mainstream or anywhere in which Palestinian views of what is going on are solicited? You can’t discuss the degree to which criticism of Israel is antisemitic without including them in the discussion, unless the unspoken assumption is that they are less important.
“Actual (moderate) Jews are often caught in the middle and get attacked from both sides.”
I am wary of this trope for multiple reasons that would turn this long comment into something even longer. Yes, there are racists and antisemites on both sides. But it is a very very wide spectrum in-between and the word “ moderate” in this context doesn’t mean much. I am very far to the left on this issue and I get attacked and do some attacking on both sides. We moderates are a surly lot and moderate- on- moderate abuse is the norm.
We have the same debates in the US, but mostly outside the political mainstream and not on a national scale. Democrats are starting to split on the subject of Israel, but most politicians and pundits would rather stay away from it. Traditionally they embraced Israel, but with the left that is becoming a less popular stance. If Israel becomes unpopular enough we will have the same battle here that Britain is having, on a national scale. It started to happen in 2016 leading up to the NY primary. It does happen on a small scale, mostly under the radar. The county legislature where I live had a debate about whether the BDS movement ( which I sympathize with) is antisemitic. The specific issue was whether the County would do business with people or companies that participated in BDS and whether this would infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of people who boycott Israel in some way. I wrote them letters arguing that the people who claim it is antisemitic are, consciously or not, anti- Palestinian racists, not because they oppose boycotts, but precisely because they claim you must be an antisemite if you support BDS. I was surprised seeing a local government arguing about this, but there are movements around the country trying to get local governments and state governments to declare BDS illegitimate.
“Labour’s problem is that the current party leadership has given the strong impression of not being unduly concerned about the first category.”
According to the people who wrote the links I provided (and others I didn’t provide), there are a great many critics working very hard to give that impression. In particular, the fact that the Labour Party hasn’t fallen completely into line with the IHRA’s examples of what could be considered antisemitism seems to be one of the main reasons given for the outrage against Labour. And that is all about Israel. Klug thinks there are problems with how some on the left discuss the issue, but he also very gently suggests that much of the criticism of Labour is simply wrong.
As best I can tell, there are multiple things going on. Rightwing Labourites are trying to discredit the Corbynites. Individual Corbyn supporters are accused of saying antisemitic things or of dismissing concern over it. And accusations of antisemitism are being weaponized to keep the Overton Window on Israel from shifting to the point where Palestinians are regarded as human beings who might legitimately see Israel as a racist state.
The first thing is standard ugly politics. The second issue would have to be judged on a case by case basis. My third link ( by Klug) gave a good example of this where people were definitely being antisemitic. But the last issue is the one where the discussion is most dishonest. I haven’t looked very hard, but are there articles in the mainstream or anywhere in which Palestinian views of what is going on are solicited? You can’t discuss the degree to which criticism of Israel is antisemitic without including them in the discussion, unless the unspoken assumption is that they are less important.
“Actual (moderate) Jews are often caught in the middle and get attacked from both sides.”
I am wary of this trope for multiple reasons that would turn this long comment into something even longer. Yes, there are racists and antisemites on both sides. But it is a very very wide spectrum in-between and the word “ moderate” in this context doesn’t mean much. I am very far to the left on this issue and I get attacked and do some attacking on both sides. We moderates are a surly lot and moderate- on- moderate abuse is the norm.
We have the same debates in the US, but mostly outside the political mainstream and not on a national scale. Democrats are starting to split on the subject of Israel, but most politicians and pundits would rather stay away from it. Traditionally they embraced Israel, but with the left that is becoming a less popular stance. If Israel becomes unpopular enough we will have the same battle here that Britain is having, on a national scale. It started to happen in 2016 leading up to the NY primary. It does happen on a small scale, mostly under the radar. The county legislature where I live had a debate about whether the BDS movement ( which I sympathize with) is antisemitic. The specific issue was whether the County would do business with people or companies that participated in BDS and whether this would infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of people who boycott Israel in some way. I wrote them letters arguing that the people who claim it is antisemitic are, consciously or not, anti- Palestinian racists, not because they oppose boycotts, but precisely because they claim you must be an antisemite if you support BDS. I was surprised seeing a local government arguing about this, but there are movements around the country trying to get local governments and state governments to declare BDS illegitimate.
same shit, different day
same shit, different day
same shit, different day
i don’t have the same values as american conservatives. ethically, socially, legally, morally, religiously, any modifier you like. i do not want what they want.
there are more people like me than people like them. nevertheless, they are driving the bus.
i don’t mind putting up with it for a limited period of time in order to not do violence to our common public institutions, but it’s getting petty damned close to time’s up.
same shit, differnt day is getting damned old.
if we can’t get along, let’s go our separate ways. if there was a convenient geographical line to draw, i’d say let’s do it today. do it and be done. i’m sick of putting up with the kind of creeps that seem, somehow, to consistently make their way to the national stage under the (R) banner, and i’m sick of the toxic anti-social policies they promote.
SSDD. truer words never spoken.
enjoy your tax cut.
same shit, different day
same shit, different day
same shit, different day
i don’t have the same values as american conservatives. ethically, socially, legally, morally, religiously, any modifier you like. i do not want what they want.
there are more people like me than people like them. nevertheless, they are driving the bus.
i don’t mind putting up with it for a limited period of time in order to not do violence to our common public institutions, but it’s getting petty damned close to time’s up.
same shit, differnt day is getting damned old.
if we can’t get along, let’s go our separate ways. if there was a convenient geographical line to draw, i’d say let’s do it today. do it and be done. i’m sick of putting up with the kind of creeps that seem, somehow, to consistently make their way to the national stage under the (R) banner, and i’m sick of the toxic anti-social policies they promote.
SSDD. truer words never spoken.
enjoy your tax cut.
A lot of this depends on how you define who is a racist. For a lot of the North, de facto segregation meant that perhaps up into the 70’s or even later, they would seldom come in contact with African-Americans. People would not be “racist” because they are never in a situation where prejudices would come into play.
Interestingly, right before Marty posted, LMG’s Eric Loomis posted about Richard Henry Pratt, who was responsible for starting the Carlisle Indian school.
In my view, Richard Henry Pratt is one of the worst Americans to ever live. His life is a testament to the very worst in Americans. So was that of people such as John Chivington, who just wanted to massacre all Natives. I choose not to say that Pratt was any more moral than Chivington. He is truly despised by Native peoples today and holds major responsibility for the disappearance of tribal languages and other traditional parts of Native culture.
This is really interesting in talking about anti-semitism, in that a lot of Americans and UKians probably have never encountered Jews. (a quick google says that Jews are 1.4% of the population). This is certainly not to say that people can’t be anti-semitic unless they have personally known someone Jewish, but it sort of brings some of the problems into focus.
A lot of this depends on how you define who is a racist. For a lot of the North, de facto segregation meant that perhaps up into the 70’s or even later, they would seldom come in contact with African-Americans. People would not be “racist” because they are never in a situation where prejudices would come into play.
Interestingly, right before Marty posted, LMG’s Eric Loomis posted about Richard Henry Pratt, who was responsible for starting the Carlisle Indian school.
In my view, Richard Henry Pratt is one of the worst Americans to ever live. His life is a testament to the very worst in Americans. So was that of people such as John Chivington, who just wanted to massacre all Natives. I choose not to say that Pratt was any more moral than Chivington. He is truly despised by Native peoples today and holds major responsibility for the disappearance of tribal languages and other traditional parts of Native culture.
This is really interesting in talking about anti-semitism, in that a lot of Americans and UKians probably have never encountered Jews. (a quick google says that Jews are 1.4% of the population). This is certainly not to say that people can’t be anti-semitic unless they have personally known someone Jewish, but it sort of brings some of the problems into focus.
Texas in many respects has made huge progress, perhaps because we have always had a lot of diversity.
TX is a big place and i suspect it encompasses a pretty wide range of attitudes toward people of color.
that said, it also has a tradition of live and let live tolerance, and houston, which is where i think you are, is by reputation exactly what you describe.
the company i work for was purchased by an outfit in the dallas/ft worth area last year. folks working for our new owners come in all colors, at all levels of responsibility.
well done.
we just don’t talk with them about trump. 🙂
Texas in many respects has made huge progress, perhaps because we have always had a lot of diversity.
TX is a big place and i suspect it encompasses a pretty wide range of attitudes toward people of color.
that said, it also has a tradition of live and let live tolerance, and houston, which is where i think you are, is by reputation exactly what you describe.
the company i work for was purchased by an outfit in the dallas/ft worth area last year. folks working for our new owners come in all colors, at all levels of responsibility.
well done.
we just don’t talk with them about trump. 🙂
This article from TPM about getting on the gravy train of anti-immigration law
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kris-kobach-courtroom-defeats-trail
This article from TPM about getting on the gravy train of anti-immigration law
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/kris-kobach-courtroom-defeats-trail
This is really interesting in talking about anti-semitism, in that a lot of Americans and UKians probably have never encountered Jews.
I think, in this case one has to add: “or did not recognize as”. As with gays one might be surrounded by them without noticing while blacks tend to stick out. And both gays and (secular) Jews had good reasons to keep it to themselves.
As has been stated around here on several occasions, this has also served as a source of their hatred for the antis and phobes historically. The guy next to you could be a Jew/homosexual/commie/undercover Jesuit without you noticing and thus be able to do his wicked work unchallenged. Blacks were far less of a danger in that regard because they could not hide their identity.
Again, to take Germany for an example, the most rabid open antismitism and xenophobia these days can be found in regions where there are no Jews or foreigners worth talking of. Even wee kids there know that ‘you Jew’ is among the worst of insults while not knowing what a Jew actually is.
This is really interesting in talking about anti-semitism, in that a lot of Americans and UKians probably have never encountered Jews.
I think, in this case one has to add: “or did not recognize as”. As with gays one might be surrounded by them without noticing while blacks tend to stick out. And both gays and (secular) Jews had good reasons to keep it to themselves.
As has been stated around here on several occasions, this has also served as a source of their hatred for the antis and phobes historically. The guy next to you could be a Jew/homosexual/commie/undercover Jesuit without you noticing and thus be able to do his wicked work unchallenged. Blacks were far less of a danger in that regard because they could not hide their identity.
Again, to take Germany for an example, the most rabid open antismitism and xenophobia these days can be found in regions where there are no Jews or foreigners worth talking of. Even wee kids there know that ‘you Jew’ is among the worst of insults while not knowing what a Jew actually is.
This is utter bullshit. The northern racists were fully in place and millions of southerners were integral to the civil rights movement.
This is utter bullshit.
First, millions of (white) southerners were not integral to the civil rights movement. Probably not even hundreds of thousands.
Second, however many northern racists there were, and it was a lot, I do not recall lots of cases outside the south where the principal issue in a political campaign was which candidate was the bigger racist. Yes, it happened elsewhere, but it was routine in the South, where opposition to civil rights was the most important job of elected officials.
There simply is no equivalence, no matter how much you want to point to Southie and some other places. Anyone who lived in the south at that time, as I did, knows that.
This is utter bullshit. The northern racists were fully in place and millions of southerners were integral to the civil rights movement.
This is utter bullshit.
First, millions of (white) southerners were not integral to the civil rights movement. Probably not even hundreds of thousands.
Second, however many northern racists there were, and it was a lot, I do not recall lots of cases outside the south where the principal issue in a political campaign was which candidate was the bigger racist. Yes, it happened elsewhere, but it was routine in the South, where opposition to civil rights was the most important job of elected officials.
There simply is no equivalence, no matter how much you want to point to Southie and some other places. Anyone who lived in the south at that time, as I did, knows that.
Hartmut: The guy next to you could be a Jew/homosexual/commie/undercover Jesuit without you noticing …
Also a racist bigot, of course. And how would you be able to tell?
Between Jews/homosexuals/commies/Jesuits and racist/misogynist/fascist/fundamentalists, I’d worry more about the latter, myself. They’re often hard to tell apart from average people.
–TP
Hartmut: The guy next to you could be a Jew/homosexual/commie/undercover Jesuit without you noticing …
Also a racist bigot, of course. And how would you be able to tell?
Between Jews/homosexuals/commies/Jesuits and racist/misogynist/fascist/fundamentalists, I’d worry more about the latter, myself. They’re often hard to tell apart from average people.
–TP
The northern racists were fully in place and millions of southerners were integral to the civil rights movement. This is so bad I suspect trolling for a response.
It’s quite true that there were (and are) lots of northern racists. And lots of Southerns who weren’t racists.
But if you read the whole thing you will notice that what I was talking about was what was considered “the right thing” in polite society. Certainly supporting civil rights in the mid-20th century South probably wouldn’t get you lynched — at least if you weren’t black and weren’t actually doing something about it. But it wasn’t socially unacceptably to be an out and proud racist. In the North, rather a different deal.
The northern racists were fully in place and millions of southerners were integral to the civil rights movement. This is so bad I suspect trolling for a response.
It’s quite true that there were (and are) lots of northern racists. And lots of Southerns who weren’t racists.
But if you read the whole thing you will notice that what I was talking about was what was considered “the right thing” in polite society. Certainly supporting civil rights in the mid-20th century South probably wouldn’t get you lynched — at least if you weren’t black and weren’t actually doing something about it. But it wasn’t socially unacceptably to be an out and proud racist. In the North, rather a different deal.
Again, to take Germany for an example, the most rabid open antismitism and xenophobia these days can be found in regions where there are no Jews or foreigners worth talking of.
Just as, in the US, the strongest xenophobia is found in the areas with relatively few immigrants.
That was IMHO a significant part of the objection to integration of schools back when I was young: it made it harder to maintain fear of the unknown down the generations when “they” were the kids your kids played with every day. (Saw exactly that happen with my mother. East Asians, rather than blacks, but the same racist attitudes hereabouts.)
Again, to take Germany for an example, the most rabid open antismitism and xenophobia these days can be found in regions where there are no Jews or foreigners worth talking of.
Just as, in the US, the strongest xenophobia is found in the areas with relatively few immigrants.
That was IMHO a significant part of the objection to integration of schools back when I was young: it made it harder to maintain fear of the unknown down the generations when “they” were the kids your kids played with every day. (Saw exactly that happen with my mother. East Asians, rather than blacks, but the same racist attitudes hereabouts.)
Did Jim Crow laws persist in the South far longer than in the North?
Were those Jim Crow laws imposed on the tolerant and laid-back Southern states by some cabal of Northern racists?
Will the Confederates EVER give up?
–TP
Did Jim Crow laws persist in the South far longer than in the North?
Were those Jim Crow laws imposed on the tolerant and laid-back Southern states by some cabal of Northern racists?
Will the Confederates EVER give up?
–TP
quotes from a couple of people
the most rabid open antismitism and xenophobia these days can be found in regions where there are no Jews or foreigners worth talking of.
Well, this is the interesting thing. 50 years ago, the economy wasn’t as globalized as it is now, so a person from some place in the North where there were no African Americans, who had no contact with any African Americans, how would we have accused them of being ‘racist’? Is a question on a poll truly definitive? This is why people discuss how systems can be racist as opposed to people, and why you get this discourse of people being racist because they support (or participate in) a racist system.
Marty has glommed on to the false but soothing narrative often put out about how the Civil Rights movement was somehow inevitable and simply shows the fundamental good heartedness of the American people. He also adopts an interesting notion that racism, as a matter of thought, is equally distributed through the population, but because he equates racism with acts, he has to claim that millions of Southerners were working with MLK and others to support the civil rights movement.
the most rabid open antismitism and xenophobia these days can be found in regions where there are no Jews or foreigners worth talking of
These will also be the most religious areas, so they are building on 2 millennia of anti Jewish sentiment, untainted by any actual contact with Jews.
I’ve never heard of any polling done with the Confederados
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/world/americas/a-slice-of-the-confederacy-in-the-interior-of-brazil.html
but I’m not sure what actual question can get to the heart of it. How necessary is it to renounce one’s heritage in order to claim that they are free of racism? While I think it is important to understand about your ancestors and where you ‘come’ from, I know lots of people who know precious little about their ancestors, and I don’t think they determine what’s in a person’s character.
That was IMHO a significant part of the objection to integration of schools back when I was young: it made it harder to maintain fear of the unknown
Except, when the system evolved to maintain a kind of de facto segregation to maintain that. I used to play gigs in university and a yearly one was a Mardi Gras ball. When the king and the queen of the ball entered, everyone was supposed to stand and the first time I played this gig, they entered, and a few people stood up and slowly everyone else did. On a break, I asked the drummer, who had done this gig many times, what was up with that, and he said well, since desegregation, schools rarely had school assemblies so young people didn’t learn a lot of these things. In the north, you had the phenomenon of white flight, which has spilled into charter schools and vouchers. So I agree with wj that integration can make a difference, but integration doesn’t just happen, it has to overcome attempts to compensate.
I was looking at interracial marriage rates earlier
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/05/interracial-marriage-in-cities-pew-report/527217/
and this stands out
The rates were highest in Honolulu (42 percent), Las Vegas (31 percent), and Santa Barbara (30 percent). Intermarriage is rarest in metro areas in southern states (Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia and the Carolinas), as well as two metro areas in Pennsylvania. Jackson, Mississippi, and Asheville, North Carolina, tie at 3 percent for the lowest share of intermarried newlyweds.
I never know how to end these comments, but this WaPo article is interesting to consider
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/07/30/feature/majority-minority-white-workers-at-this-pennsylvania-chicken-plant-now-struggle-to-fit-in/?utm_term=.510f1160a410
quotes from a couple of people
the most rabid open antismitism and xenophobia these days can be found in regions where there are no Jews or foreigners worth talking of.
Well, this is the interesting thing. 50 years ago, the economy wasn’t as globalized as it is now, so a person from some place in the North where there were no African Americans, who had no contact with any African Americans, how would we have accused them of being ‘racist’? Is a question on a poll truly definitive? This is why people discuss how systems can be racist as opposed to people, and why you get this discourse of people being racist because they support (or participate in) a racist system.
Marty has glommed on to the false but soothing narrative often put out about how the Civil Rights movement was somehow inevitable and simply shows the fundamental good heartedness of the American people. He also adopts an interesting notion that racism, as a matter of thought, is equally distributed through the population, but because he equates racism with acts, he has to claim that millions of Southerners were working with MLK and others to support the civil rights movement.
the most rabid open antismitism and xenophobia these days can be found in regions where there are no Jews or foreigners worth talking of
These will also be the most religious areas, so they are building on 2 millennia of anti Jewish sentiment, untainted by any actual contact with Jews.
I’ve never heard of any polling done with the Confederados
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/09/world/americas/a-slice-of-the-confederacy-in-the-interior-of-brazil.html
but I’m not sure what actual question can get to the heart of it. How necessary is it to renounce one’s heritage in order to claim that they are free of racism? While I think it is important to understand about your ancestors and where you ‘come’ from, I know lots of people who know precious little about their ancestors, and I don’t think they determine what’s in a person’s character.
That was IMHO a significant part of the objection to integration of schools back when I was young: it made it harder to maintain fear of the unknown
Except, when the system evolved to maintain a kind of de facto segregation to maintain that. I used to play gigs in university and a yearly one was a Mardi Gras ball. When the king and the queen of the ball entered, everyone was supposed to stand and the first time I played this gig, they entered, and a few people stood up and slowly everyone else did. On a break, I asked the drummer, who had done this gig many times, what was up with that, and he said well, since desegregation, schools rarely had school assemblies so young people didn’t learn a lot of these things. In the north, you had the phenomenon of white flight, which has spilled into charter schools and vouchers. So I agree with wj that integration can make a difference, but integration doesn’t just happen, it has to overcome attempts to compensate.
I was looking at interracial marriage rates earlier
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/05/interracial-marriage-in-cities-pew-report/527217/
and this stands out
The rates were highest in Honolulu (42 percent), Las Vegas (31 percent), and Santa Barbara (30 percent). Intermarriage is rarest in metro areas in southern states (Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia and the Carolinas), as well as two metro areas in Pennsylvania. Jackson, Mississippi, and Asheville, North Carolina, tie at 3 percent for the lowest share of intermarried newlyweds.
I never know how to end these comments, but this WaPo article is interesting to consider
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2018/07/30/feature/majority-minority-white-workers-at-this-pennsylvania-chicken-plant-now-struggle-to-fit-in/?utm_term=.510f1160a410
You can’t discuss the degree to which criticism of Israel is antisemitic without including them in the discussion, unless the unspoken assumption is that they are less important.
Of course you can. It’s not that they are less important, it’s that their ideas about what is anti-Semitic – as opposed to their views about the destructiveness of Israeli policies – are no better than anyone else’s.
Whatever the Palestinians think, certain types of criticism and behavior are antisemitic.
And speaking of the UK, this includes the boycott of Israeli scholars, many of whom oppose Israeli policy wrt to the Palestinians. This is nonsense – and an example of what many of us regard as a double standard wrt to Israel. Where is the boycott of Chinese scholars? Where are the BDS movements for other countries?
Continuing to speak of the UK, let’s note that there are ample grounds for suspicion. British intellectual circles, after all, do not exactly have a clean record wrt to anti-semitism
You can’t discuss the degree to which criticism of Israel is antisemitic without including them in the discussion, unless the unspoken assumption is that they are less important.
Of course you can. It’s not that they are less important, it’s that their ideas about what is anti-Semitic – as opposed to their views about the destructiveness of Israeli policies – are no better than anyone else’s.
Whatever the Palestinians think, certain types of criticism and behavior are antisemitic.
And speaking of the UK, this includes the boycott of Israeli scholars, many of whom oppose Israeli policy wrt to the Palestinians. This is nonsense – and an example of what many of us regard as a double standard wrt to Israel. Where is the boycott of Chinese scholars? Where are the BDS movements for other countries?
Continuing to speak of the UK, let’s note that there are ample grounds for suspicion. British intellectual circles, after all, do not exactly have a clean record wrt to anti-semitism
Where are the BDS movements for other countries?
This.
Where are the BDS movements for other countries?
This.
Of course you can. It’s not that they are less important, it’s that their ideas about what is anti-Semitic – as opposed to their views about the destructiveness of Israeli policies – are no better than anyone else’s.
Whatever the Palestinians think, certain types of criticism and behavior are antisemitic.
I must say, this seems impeccably logical to me. I had dinner tonight with one of my closest friends, one of the founders of Jews for Justice for Palestinians and a longtime Labour supporter and activist. Obviously we discussed this issue, and he agreed with a lot of what Donald says: he says that while clearly there is plenty of antisemitism in Labour (and, as byomtov says, in the UK in general), it’s probably less than in the other parties, and that while there have been egregious individual cases and the whole situation has been handled horrendously, he doesn’t believe Corbyn is personally antisemitic and he thinks there is a kind of moral panic going on. However, despite his rather impressive credentials with regard to the rights of Palestinians, he very clearly does not think their opinions have some kind of privileged status in evaluating what is antisemitic and what is not.
Of course you can. It’s not that they are less important, it’s that their ideas about what is anti-Semitic – as opposed to their views about the destructiveness of Israeli policies – are no better than anyone else’s.
Whatever the Palestinians think, certain types of criticism and behavior are antisemitic.
I must say, this seems impeccably logical to me. I had dinner tonight with one of my closest friends, one of the founders of Jews for Justice for Palestinians and a longtime Labour supporter and activist. Obviously we discussed this issue, and he agreed with a lot of what Donald says: he says that while clearly there is plenty of antisemitism in Labour (and, as byomtov says, in the UK in general), it’s probably less than in the other parties, and that while there have been egregious individual cases and the whole situation has been handled horrendously, he doesn’t believe Corbyn is personally antisemitic and he thinks there is a kind of moral panic going on. However, despite his rather impressive credentials with regard to the rights of Palestinians, he very clearly does not think their opinions have some kind of privileged status in evaluating what is antisemitic and what is not.
This
Agreed. Israel is the only country in the world so vile it merits this unique treatment?
This
Agreed. Israel is the only country in the world so vile it merits this unique treatment?
The concept that anti civil rights was socially unacceptable in the North just isn’t correct. From wikipedia on Biston school desegregation
“After the passage of the Racial Imbalance Act, the Boston School Committee, under the leadership of Louise Day Hicks, consistently disobeyed orders from the state Board of Education, first to develop a busing plan, and then to support its implementation.”
One example of many. Were there places in the South where people were more vocal, sure, and many where it was less accepted.
The concept that anti civil rights was socially unacceptable in the North just isn’t correct. From wikipedia on Biston school desegregation
“After the passage of the Racial Imbalance Act, the Boston School Committee, under the leadership of Louise Day Hicks, consistently disobeyed orders from the state Board of Education, first to develop a busing plan, and then to support its implementation.”
One example of many. Were there places in the South where people were more vocal, sure, and many where it was less accepted.
Racism in the South manifested itself boldly because of the legacy of slavery, and because the descendants of slaveholders felt privileged in their power dynamic with regard to the descendants of slaves. The intent to institutionalize racism (and the disenfranchisement of black people) was more blatant because of lingering white resentment over the loss of slavery. The agricultural economy lent itself to exploiting slave labor, then cheap labor, prison labor, and immigrant labor (which will be, if we don’t stop it, forced labor).
Northern states always had plenty of racists, but having won the Civil War, it became part of their identity to have been the good guys. They exploited immigrants for cheap labor for factories, but social movements (including union organizing, which was a bloody fight) became prevalent, so a certain amount of “progressive” thinking took stronger hold in Northern states. The Northern midwest was a strange mix of socialist farmers and John Birchers. Sarah Kendzior has written about racism, curfews, etc. in the Midwest.
Human beings are prone to racism, bigotry, sexism – whatever makes them feel in control of their lives. Those of us who have been brought up with an attempt to appreciate an open, inclusive environment have less trouble being open and inclusive, ourselves, because “others” seem interesting and even comfortable, but even we struggle with the unfamiliar. Americans, generally, felt like the “good guys” after WWII, helping to free Europe from the Nazis. That’s not our ethic now, apparently. When given the opportunity, the “good guy” ethic goes by the wayside, it seems.
People who were brought up in an environment encouraging racism and bigotry – they are admirable if they have tried to leave that legacy behind.
But, bad transition: You know what pisses me off? The fact that we’ve violated our own norms and laws and national mythology to vilify asylum seekers, and separate asylum seeking parents from their children. We’ve created a whole new category of reasons for people to hate the United States. What a horrible thing we did to them. What a stupid, disgusting thing we’ve done to ourselves. I’m going to create a BDS movement against the United States.
Racism in the South manifested itself boldly because of the legacy of slavery, and because the descendants of slaveholders felt privileged in their power dynamic with regard to the descendants of slaves. The intent to institutionalize racism (and the disenfranchisement of black people) was more blatant because of lingering white resentment over the loss of slavery. The agricultural economy lent itself to exploiting slave labor, then cheap labor, prison labor, and immigrant labor (which will be, if we don’t stop it, forced labor).
Northern states always had plenty of racists, but having won the Civil War, it became part of their identity to have been the good guys. They exploited immigrants for cheap labor for factories, but social movements (including union organizing, which was a bloody fight) became prevalent, so a certain amount of “progressive” thinking took stronger hold in Northern states. The Northern midwest was a strange mix of socialist farmers and John Birchers. Sarah Kendzior has written about racism, curfews, etc. in the Midwest.
Human beings are prone to racism, bigotry, sexism – whatever makes them feel in control of their lives. Those of us who have been brought up with an attempt to appreciate an open, inclusive environment have less trouble being open and inclusive, ourselves, because “others” seem interesting and even comfortable, but even we struggle with the unfamiliar. Americans, generally, felt like the “good guys” after WWII, helping to free Europe from the Nazis. That’s not our ethic now, apparently. When given the opportunity, the “good guy” ethic goes by the wayside, it seems.
People who were brought up in an environment encouraging racism and bigotry – they are admirable if they have tried to leave that legacy behind.
But, bad transition: You know what pisses me off? The fact that we’ve violated our own norms and laws and national mythology to vilify asylum seekers, and separate asylum seeking parents from their children. We’ve created a whole new category of reasons for people to hate the United States. What a horrible thing we did to them. What a stupid, disgusting thing we’ve done to ourselves. I’m going to create a BDS movement against the United States.
What a stupid, disgusting thing we’ve done to ourselves.
what the GOP did to us.
What a stupid, disgusting thing we’ve done to ourselves.
what the GOP did to us.
“Of course you can. It’s not that they are less important, it’s that their ideas about what is anti-Semitic – as opposed to their views about the destructiveness of Israeli policies – are no better than anyone else’s.”
This completely misses the point. Presumably you didn’t read the links. I am not talking about actual antisemitism in Britain and here and it should be called out. I am talking about politicized accusations of antisemitism which are meant to place limits on criticism of Israel.
The fact is that antisemitism is often conflated with what the accuser says is excessive criticism of Israel. The Labour Party did not endorse all the examples given in an IHRA document about what constitutes antisemitism. The four examples they did not endorse were all about Israel. One was that Israel is a racist state. You are arguing about this based on your own definition of antisemitism, but a lot of people have expanded this to include what they see as excessive criticism of Israel and that is a large part of what the debate is about.
So, yeah, you damn well ought to ask Palestinians their views when the definition of antisemitism includes both how Israel has treated them, the level of criticism that is deserved, and whether it is okay to criticize the ideology that justified Palestinian expulsion from their own homeland. There is a high level of unconscious racism in both the US and apparently Britain on this subject, because the press and others allows people to define “ excessive” criticism of Israel as antisemitism and never thinks to ask whether Palestinians might have something to say about this.
As for where is the BDS movement for other countries, yeah, ask the people in Gaza about that. America supports the blockade of Gaza, which is vastly more severe than anything BDS would do to Israel. Do Americans care? For the most part, not one shit. It only makes the news when large numbers of people are killed, mostly Palestinian, and then American politicians and various NYT pundits say Israel has the right to defend itself ( from the caged animals). Otherwise, nobody cares about the blockade. I would oppose BDS if it came anywhere close to that level of viciousness. As for the bombs Israel drops, some are made here. So it is okay to supply those weapons, but BDS is out of bounds. I would be delighted to buy Sabra hummus in exchange for our government not supporting Israeli brutality.
How about the sanctions on Iran? Sanctions always hurt the ordinary people in a country. Not the ruling elites. But, hey, they are only Iranians.
And then there is Yemen. We are way way past BDS there. Complicity in something approaching genocide. But local governments, Democrats and Republicans alike, took time out to take a stand against BDS because there was a foreign policy issue where they had to take a stand.
So cry me a river about singling out Israel when we single out other countries for blockades that imprison entire people, bomb other cities indiscriminately (Mosul and Raqqa), and have this ongoing war we support which has led to tens of thousands of children starving to death under both Obama and Trump. In comparison to the bombing and starving and blockading, how do we single out Israel? Well, we supply them with billions of dollars of aid each year and praise them and treat them as the 51st state and our freaking governments pass laws of various sorts against BDS. BDS for us? Fine with me, but that is empty rhetoric. We are the only ones who can stop us from committing war crimes, though people in Yemen know perfectly well we are largely responsible for their suffering. Britain also has bloody hands. And I am not the only one who wonders if we might pay a price for this down the road.
Okay, when we set aside the trivialities of blockades that ruin the lives of millions and war crimes that bring millions more to the edge of starvation, we can discuss the truly cosmic issue of whether BDS is unfair to some Israelis. It depends on how it is applied. There are differences of opinion. Personally I would not ever target individuals and sometimes BDS proponents deny that BDS is supposed to do this. But I know there are assholes in the pro Palestinian rights crowd who go too far and some are antisemitic. My third link, the second Klug piece, gave an example of what really was antisemitism. If we were only talking about actual cases of antisemitism and not the politicized crap, then obviously you don’t need Palestinian input. Though even here it would be good to have them chime in, and they do. There are Palestinian activists in the US who have said they don’t want antisemites polluting their movement.
“Of course you can. It’s not that they are less important, it’s that their ideas about what is anti-Semitic – as opposed to their views about the destructiveness of Israeli policies – are no better than anyone else’s.”
This completely misses the point. Presumably you didn’t read the links. I am not talking about actual antisemitism in Britain and here and it should be called out. I am talking about politicized accusations of antisemitism which are meant to place limits on criticism of Israel.
The fact is that antisemitism is often conflated with what the accuser says is excessive criticism of Israel. The Labour Party did not endorse all the examples given in an IHRA document about what constitutes antisemitism. The four examples they did not endorse were all about Israel. One was that Israel is a racist state. You are arguing about this based on your own definition of antisemitism, but a lot of people have expanded this to include what they see as excessive criticism of Israel and that is a large part of what the debate is about.
So, yeah, you damn well ought to ask Palestinians their views when the definition of antisemitism includes both how Israel has treated them, the level of criticism that is deserved, and whether it is okay to criticize the ideology that justified Palestinian expulsion from their own homeland. There is a high level of unconscious racism in both the US and apparently Britain on this subject, because the press and others allows people to define “ excessive” criticism of Israel as antisemitism and never thinks to ask whether Palestinians might have something to say about this.
As for where is the BDS movement for other countries, yeah, ask the people in Gaza about that. America supports the blockade of Gaza, which is vastly more severe than anything BDS would do to Israel. Do Americans care? For the most part, not one shit. It only makes the news when large numbers of people are killed, mostly Palestinian, and then American politicians and various NYT pundits say Israel has the right to defend itself ( from the caged animals). Otherwise, nobody cares about the blockade. I would oppose BDS if it came anywhere close to that level of viciousness. As for the bombs Israel drops, some are made here. So it is okay to supply those weapons, but BDS is out of bounds. I would be delighted to buy Sabra hummus in exchange for our government not supporting Israeli brutality.
How about the sanctions on Iran? Sanctions always hurt the ordinary people in a country. Not the ruling elites. But, hey, they are only Iranians.
And then there is Yemen. We are way way past BDS there. Complicity in something approaching genocide. But local governments, Democrats and Republicans alike, took time out to take a stand against BDS because there was a foreign policy issue where they had to take a stand.
So cry me a river about singling out Israel when we single out other countries for blockades that imprison entire people, bomb other cities indiscriminately (Mosul and Raqqa), and have this ongoing war we support which has led to tens of thousands of children starving to death under both Obama and Trump. In comparison to the bombing and starving and blockading, how do we single out Israel? Well, we supply them with billions of dollars of aid each year and praise them and treat them as the 51st state and our freaking governments pass laws of various sorts against BDS. BDS for us? Fine with me, but that is empty rhetoric. We are the only ones who can stop us from committing war crimes, though people in Yemen know perfectly well we are largely responsible for their suffering. Britain also has bloody hands. And I am not the only one who wonders if we might pay a price for this down the road.
Okay, when we set aside the trivialities of blockades that ruin the lives of millions and war crimes that bring millions more to the edge of starvation, we can discuss the truly cosmic issue of whether BDS is unfair to some Israelis. It depends on how it is applied. There are differences of opinion. Personally I would not ever target individuals and sometimes BDS proponents deny that BDS is supposed to do this. But I know there are assholes in the pro Palestinian rights crowd who go too far and some are antisemitic. My third link, the second Klug piece, gave an example of what really was antisemitism. If we were only talking about actual cases of antisemitism and not the politicized crap, then obviously you don’t need Palestinian input. Though even here it would be good to have them chime in, and they do. There are Palestinian activists in the US who have said they don’t want antisemites polluting their movement.
“Where are the BDS movements for other countries?”
You know what? I literally cannot think of another group of oppressed people who devise a nonviolent and rather traditional means of fighting for their rights who have to put up with this shit from liberals.
It was Palestinians who started the BDS movement. You know, the inferior savages who are constantly lectured about how they need to be more like MLK, turn away from terror and use nonviolent methods and what do they get? Well, the liberal citizens of the country which supports their oppressors tell them that they don’t deserve support until all other injustices are solved. Yeah, that makes sense. Why fight Jim Crow when there were Soviet prison camps. Why oppose apartheid when other African countries were run by brutal dictators?
It also presupposes that the non Palestinians in the movement have nothing to say about other issues. Let’s see, what other issue in the Middle East involving the US do I go on about?
And China. Tell me what sort of movement you propose and I will support it. I don’t like authoritarian thugs. But China is almost a reflex here. People who never say anything about the occupation of Tibet will bring it up when Palestine is brought up.
And then the “ why is Israel singled out” bit. I answered that to some extent above. It is insane. We treat other people in that region like ants that we squash when policy dictates and some people boycotting Israel is supposed to be an outrage? The subtext here is that Palestinians don’t really matter and so the only reason one could have for singling out Israel is antisemitism.
Actually, the reason is that Israel is treated as our close democratic ally and their crimes are partly our fault. We might be able to do something about them. And it is our moral obligation to pressure our politicians to stop supporting Israel since it is practicing a form of apartheid.
“Where are the BDS movements for other countries?”
You know what? I literally cannot think of another group of oppressed people who devise a nonviolent and rather traditional means of fighting for their rights who have to put up with this shit from liberals.
It was Palestinians who started the BDS movement. You know, the inferior savages who are constantly lectured about how they need to be more like MLK, turn away from terror and use nonviolent methods and what do they get? Well, the liberal citizens of the country which supports their oppressors tell them that they don’t deserve support until all other injustices are solved. Yeah, that makes sense. Why fight Jim Crow when there were Soviet prison camps. Why oppose apartheid when other African countries were run by brutal dictators?
It also presupposes that the non Palestinians in the movement have nothing to say about other issues. Let’s see, what other issue in the Middle East involving the US do I go on about?
And China. Tell me what sort of movement you propose and I will support it. I don’t like authoritarian thugs. But China is almost a reflex here. People who never say anything about the occupation of Tibet will bring it up when Palestine is brought up.
And then the “ why is Israel singled out” bit. I answered that to some extent above. It is insane. We treat other people in that region like ants that we squash when policy dictates and some people boycotting Israel is supposed to be an outrage? The subtext here is that Palestinians don’t really matter and so the only reason one could have for singling out Israel is antisemitism.
Actually, the reason is that Israel is treated as our close democratic ally and their crimes are partly our fault. We might be able to do something about them. And it is our moral obligation to pressure our politicians to stop supporting Israel since it is practicing a form of apartheid.
The BDS page says the academic boycott is supposed to be about institutions, not individuals. Personally I am not comfortable with academic boycotts of any sort and here the singling out argument makes some sense to me. Probably every major university is complicit in something ugly somewhere. OTOH what Israel does, even in the area of academic studies, to Palestinians is much worse and yet somehow when BDS comes up in mainstream circles our crimes and those of our allies crimes dwindle into comparative insignificance.
https://bdsmovement.net/faqs#collapse16251
The BDS page says the academic boycott is supposed to be about institutions, not individuals. Personally I am not comfortable with academic boycotts of any sort and here the singling out argument makes some sense to me. Probably every major university is complicit in something ugly somewhere. OTOH what Israel does, even in the area of academic studies, to Palestinians is much worse and yet somehow when BDS comes up in mainstream circles our crimes and those of our allies crimes dwindle into comparative insignificance.
https://bdsmovement.net/faqs#collapse16251
How about the sanctions on Iran? Sanctions always hurt the ordinary people in a country. Not the ruling elites.
Certainly the easiest kinds of sanctions tend to do that. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
It is possible to craft sanctions which actually do hit the elites**. That’s one of the impressive things about the Russia sanctions: they actually do hit the elites, as intended. Which makes them far more effective . . . and far more hated by the Russian elites.
** if that is what you want, of course. Our trade partners, quite reasonably, are currently creating sanctions exactly to hit the “ordinary people” — specifically the ordinary people who have been supporting Trump.
How about the sanctions on Iran? Sanctions always hurt the ordinary people in a country. Not the ruling elites.
Certainly the easiest kinds of sanctions tend to do that. But it doesn’t have to be that way.
It is possible to craft sanctions which actually do hit the elites**. That’s one of the impressive things about the Russia sanctions: they actually do hit the elites, as intended. Which makes them far more effective . . . and far more hated by the Russian elites.
** if that is what you want, of course. Our trade partners, quite reasonably, are currently creating sanctions exactly to hit the “ordinary people” — specifically the ordinary people who have been supporting Trump.
GftNC—
Your friend sounds rather like Klug. I agree there is some genuine antisemitism— see above— but the issues involving Israel are not that. Klug likes some of the people making what he considers unfair charges against Labour while recognizing that there is also some genuine antisemitism at work and so he is nuanced. I would be less nuanced, because I think false charges of antisemitism are intended to make sure that Palestinian viewpoints are kept firmly out of the circle of respectable opinion.
GftNC—
Your friend sounds rather like Klug. I agree there is some genuine antisemitism— see above— but the issues involving Israel are not that. Klug likes some of the people making what he considers unfair charges against Labour while recognizing that there is also some genuine antisemitism at work and so he is nuanced. I would be less nuanced, because I think false charges of antisemitism are intended to make sure that Palestinian viewpoints are kept firmly out of the circle of respectable opinion.
Donald,
It is not necessary to defend US policies in the Middle East to recognize that the behavior of governments is not the same as the private, oh-so high-minded BDS movement.
it’s nice to know the you do admit there is genuine anti-semitism in the world. And just as blind supporters of Israel sometimes use accusations of anti-semitism as a weapon against critics of Israel so too do anti-semites use criticism of Israel as a cover.
Donald,
It is not necessary to defend US policies in the Middle East to recognize that the behavior of governments is not the same as the private, oh-so high-minded BDS movement.
it’s nice to know the you do admit there is genuine anti-semitism in the world. And just as blind supporters of Israel sometimes use accusations of anti-semitism as a weapon against critics of Israel so too do anti-semites use criticism of Israel as a cover.
Last comment of the night, where I elaborate on something.
“Sanctions always hurt the ordinary people in a country. Not the ruling elites”
Not quite true. You could target individuals in a country. But our sanctions on Iran and our earlier sanctions on Iraq impoverish the population and are intended to do so, in the theory that this will put pressure on the elites who themselves won’t suffer. The blockade on Gaza is the same. Yemen is borderline genocide. Americans for the most part just take our right to do this for granted. We are the good guys, God’s special little wrath dispensers and we can do this as a matter of policy if we choose, though if children start dropping like flies , and they are, it might be worth mentioning now and again.
Bring up BDS, though, and now people start to care about the ethics and fairness of the movement. In the real world it functions mainly as a tool to shame the Israelis. If it inflicted one percent of the suffering that our actual blockades inflict the people responsible would be denounced as monsters and probably put in prison. We identify with Israelis as people like us and so something symbolic like BDS is taken more seriously than policies which inflict harm on innocent people on a truly massive scale.
Last comment of the night, where I elaborate on something.
“Sanctions always hurt the ordinary people in a country. Not the ruling elites”
Not quite true. You could target individuals in a country. But our sanctions on Iran and our earlier sanctions on Iraq impoverish the population and are intended to do so, in the theory that this will put pressure on the elites who themselves won’t suffer. The blockade on Gaza is the same. Yemen is borderline genocide. Americans for the most part just take our right to do this for granted. We are the good guys, God’s special little wrath dispensers and we can do this as a matter of policy if we choose, though if children start dropping like flies , and they are, it might be worth mentioning now and again.
Bring up BDS, though, and now people start to care about the ethics and fairness of the movement. In the real world it functions mainly as a tool to shame the Israelis. If it inflicted one percent of the suffering that our actual blockades inflict the people responsible would be denounced as monsters and probably put in prison. We identify with Israelis as people like us and so something symbolic like BDS is taken more seriously than policies which inflict harm on innocent people on a truly massive scale.
“Certainly the easiest kinds of sanctions tend to do that. But it doesn’t have to be that way.”
We crossposted. I realized a few minutes ago that we do have targeted sanctions on some people. Pre 9-11 there was also talk of changing the sanctions on Iraq to “ smart sanctions”.
Now going to bed.
“Certainly the easiest kinds of sanctions tend to do that. But it doesn’t have to be that way.”
We crossposted. I realized a few minutes ago that we do have targeted sanctions on some people. Pre 9-11 there was also talk of changing the sanctions on Iraq to “ smart sanctions”.
Now going to bed.
The BDS page says the academic boycott is supposed to be about institutions, not individuals. Personally I am not comfortable with academic boycotts of any sort and here the singling out argument makes some sense to me.
“Supposed to be” is not the same as “is.” When you boycott individual scholars you are acting against individuals, not institutions. You can pretend otherwise if it suits you, but that’s all you are doing.
Probably every major university is complicit in something ugly somewhere. OTOH what Israel does, even in the area of academic studies, to Palestinians is much worse and yet somehow when BDS comes up in mainstream circles our crimes and those of our allies crimes dwindle into comparative insignificance.
Someone once told me that two wrongs don’t make a right. Are you seriously defending actions against Israeli academics on the grounds that the Israeli government mistreats Palestinian academics, or that universities may be complicit in unrelated bad behavior?
Your arguments seem to me to be mostly, “Gee, it’s not as bad as all that when you consider some other misconduct.”
The BDS page says the academic boycott is supposed to be about institutions, not individuals. Personally I am not comfortable with academic boycotts of any sort and here the singling out argument makes some sense to me.
“Supposed to be” is not the same as “is.” When you boycott individual scholars you are acting against individuals, not institutions. You can pretend otherwise if it suits you, but that’s all you are doing.
Probably every major university is complicit in something ugly somewhere. OTOH what Israel does, even in the area of academic studies, to Palestinians is much worse and yet somehow when BDS comes up in mainstream circles our crimes and those of our allies crimes dwindle into comparative insignificance.
Someone once told me that two wrongs don’t make a right. Are you seriously defending actions against Israeli academics on the grounds that the Israeli government mistreats Palestinian academics, or that universities may be complicit in unrelated bad behavior?
Your arguments seem to me to be mostly, “Gee, it’s not as bad as all that when you consider some other misconduct.”
And by the way, for all the talk about Zionism being inherently racist or whatever, I’ve never heard anyone explain exactly what the Jews in Europe were supposed to do.
Recall that the fears of Herzl and other Zionists about the future of Jews in Europe were realized to a vastly greater extent than they probably imagined in their worst nightmares. And maybe some of those righteous folks in the UK could take a brief look at the role their country played in creating the I-P mess.
And by the way, for all the talk about Zionism being inherently racist or whatever, I’ve never heard anyone explain exactly what the Jews in Europe were supposed to do.
Recall that the fears of Herzl and other Zionists about the future of Jews in Europe were realized to a vastly greater extent than they probably imagined in their worst nightmares. And maybe some of those righteous folks in the UK could take a brief look at the role their country played in creating the I-P mess.
“It is not necessary to defend US policies in the Middle East to recognize that the behavior of governments is not the same as the private, oh-so high-minded BDS movement.”
Okay, one more reply.
First, do you use that snide tone about other nonviolent movements initiated by oppressed people?
Second, yeah, our actual policies initiated by our government which kill people seem more worthy of notice than the actions of stupid assholes in protest movements. You can pay attention to both but keep some perspective. And again, some ( and actually I would say more than some) of the people flinging the antisemitism charge are actually engaged in racism if they make antisemitism about criticism of Israel. The assholes on that side get away with it.
Third, if the criticism of Labour was limited to the actual acts of antisemites then I would have no criticism to make of the critics.. It’s not.
On the Israeli academics, I think it is bad if good people get unfairly targeted. But, and yeah, there is a but, I don’t judge the overall merit of the civil rights movement by the actions of, say, the Nation of Islam. I can criticize the Nation of Islam while still thinking that the oh so high minded civil rights movement and its struggle against American apartheid was more important. The same for the antiwar movement. I hate the violent crap some far lefties engaged in back then. But the crimes of the American government were much worse. So, that other misconduct I am talking about is the collective punishment of two million people in Gaza being treated as caged animals.
You probably should have read the links I provided by Klug and Lerner.
“It is not necessary to defend US policies in the Middle East to recognize that the behavior of governments is not the same as the private, oh-so high-minded BDS movement.”
Okay, one more reply.
First, do you use that snide tone about other nonviolent movements initiated by oppressed people?
Second, yeah, our actual policies initiated by our government which kill people seem more worthy of notice than the actions of stupid assholes in protest movements. You can pay attention to both but keep some perspective. And again, some ( and actually I would say more than some) of the people flinging the antisemitism charge are actually engaged in racism if they make antisemitism about criticism of Israel. The assholes on that side get away with it.
Third, if the criticism of Labour was limited to the actual acts of antisemites then I would have no criticism to make of the critics.. It’s not.
On the Israeli academics, I think it is bad if good people get unfairly targeted. But, and yeah, there is a but, I don’t judge the overall merit of the civil rights movement by the actions of, say, the Nation of Islam. I can criticize the Nation of Islam while still thinking that the oh so high minded civil rights movement and its struggle against American apartheid was more important. The same for the antiwar movement. I hate the violent crap some far lefties engaged in back then. But the crimes of the American government were much worse. So, that other misconduct I am talking about is the collective punishment of two million people in Gaza being treated as caged animals.
You probably should have read the links I provided by Klug and Lerner.
the most rabid open antismitism and xenophobia these days can be found in regions where there are no Jews or foreigners worth talking of
These will also be the most religious areas, so they are building on 2 millennia of anti Jewish sentiment, untainted by any actual contact with Jews.
For Germany that is not true anymore since the epicenter has moved from the religious SW to the most a-religious region in the NE. The seeds were laid in the former GDR where the official talk and the actual policy on race were highly contradictive and Israel was on the enemies list. In essence the people were taught to mouth the propaganda of international solidarity while getting the clear signal that it was all hogwash. Guestworkers from Eastasia were brought in but any private contact was discouraged (same with the stationed Soviet soldiers that kept the system form getting overthrown). And it was the state that tried to spread hatred against Poles (it was the secret police that disseminated racist jokes about Poles being lazy and thieves by nature). After reunification the people could simply drop the mouthing official propaganda part. The GDR may have been less antisemitic than the other Eastern Bloc countries but imo it comnpensated with the perfection of the ‘we are not anti-Jew but anti-Isreal’ shtick.
As for strong anti-Jewish prejudices, the numbers for Germany as a whole stand at about one in seven and that has been the case for a very long time (and matches the belief in witchcraft btw), it’s a question of where it can be outspoken and that is currently not in the traditional regions (the protestant enclaves of Bavaria in particular) but in the a-religious East.
the most rabid open antismitism and xenophobia these days can be found in regions where there are no Jews or foreigners worth talking of
These will also be the most religious areas, so they are building on 2 millennia of anti Jewish sentiment, untainted by any actual contact with Jews.
For Germany that is not true anymore since the epicenter has moved from the religious SW to the most a-religious region in the NE. The seeds were laid in the former GDR where the official talk and the actual policy on race were highly contradictive and Israel was on the enemies list. In essence the people were taught to mouth the propaganda of international solidarity while getting the clear signal that it was all hogwash. Guestworkers from Eastasia were brought in but any private contact was discouraged (same with the stationed Soviet soldiers that kept the system form getting overthrown). And it was the state that tried to spread hatred against Poles (it was the secret police that disseminated racist jokes about Poles being lazy and thieves by nature). After reunification the people could simply drop the mouthing official propaganda part. The GDR may have been less antisemitic than the other Eastern Bloc countries but imo it comnpensated with the perfection of the ‘we are not anti-Jew but anti-Isreal’ shtick.
As for strong anti-Jewish prejudices, the numbers for Germany as a whole stand at about one in seven and that has been the case for a very long time (and matches the belief in witchcraft btw), it’s a question of where it can be outspoken and that is currently not in the traditional regions (the protestant enclaves of Bavaria in particular) but in the a-religious East.
Are you seriously defending actions against Israeli academics on the grounds that the Israeli government mistreats Palestinian academics, or that universities may be complicit in unrelated bad behavior?
byomtov, FWIW I believe your last phrase (my bold text) is a misunderstanding of what Donald was actually trying to say. I read Probably every major university is complicit in something ugly somewhere. as a corollary to the sentence immediately preceding it, namely that Donald was uncomfortable with academic boycotts generally because (and I think he meant worldwide) Probably every major university is complicit in something ugly somewhere.
Are you seriously defending actions against Israeli academics on the grounds that the Israeli government mistreats Palestinian academics, or that universities may be complicit in unrelated bad behavior?
byomtov, FWIW I believe your last phrase (my bold text) is a misunderstanding of what Donald was actually trying to say. I read Probably every major university is complicit in something ugly somewhere. as a corollary to the sentence immediately preceding it, namely that Donald was uncomfortable with academic boycotts generally because (and I think he meant worldwide) Probably every major university is complicit in something ugly somewhere.
Hartmut,
Good point(s). I didn’t consider of how the division of Germany into East and West, which then brings in discussions of Russian and Soviet anti-semitism, factored in,, but I think it underlines how it is impossible for someone not really courant with players and politics to judge. This is not to discount what you say, but to say that my understanding of partial at best. thx
Hartmut,
Good point(s). I didn’t consider of how the division of Germany into East and West, which then brings in discussions of Russian and Soviet anti-semitism, factored in,, but I think it underlines how it is impossible for someone not really courant with players and politics to judge. This is not to discount what you say, but to say that my understanding of partial at best. thx
But I think it runs at least partially parallel with the US in that there is a certain level of racism (and related phenomena) almost everywhere that can be tapped into or not. And that level is high enough that it can dominate society when the potential gets fully used but also low enough that it can be kept at bay otherwise. But it is difficult to switch from one to the other state (in both directions) and it takes a lot of effort (and time). The US are large (and diverse)enough to have both states in stable condition in different localities. Germany is borderline, so there can be fluctuations with temporary local semistable states deviating from the general state (philo and phobo enclaves) but imo those will sooner or later either shrink and disappear or expand to reverse the general state.
But I think it runs at least partially parallel with the US in that there is a certain level of racism (and related phenomena) almost everywhere that can be tapped into or not. And that level is high enough that it can dominate society when the potential gets fully used but also low enough that it can be kept at bay otherwise. But it is difficult to switch from one to the other state (in both directions) and it takes a lot of effort (and time). The US are large (and diverse)enough to have both states in stable condition in different localities. Germany is borderline, so there can be fluctuations with temporary local semistable states deviating from the general state (philo and phobo enclaves) but imo those will sooner or later either shrink and disappear or expand to reverse the general state.
….Probably every major university is complicit in something ugly somewhere…
Which is pretty meaningless whataboutery unless you’re claiming perfection.
Probably every major institution anywhere is complicit in something ugly somewhere, including political parties of the left, right and centre.
Which is why it’s a good idea to treat issues on their own merits.
….Probably every major university is complicit in something ugly somewhere…
Which is pretty meaningless whataboutery unless you’re claiming perfection.
Probably every major institution anywhere is complicit in something ugly somewhere, including political parties of the left, right and centre.
Which is why it’s a good idea to treat issues on their own merits.
Gfntc,
Rereading, I think you are correct.
And I do agree, in general, with Donald about boycotts, sanctions, etc.
I happen to be somewhat acquainted with the situation in Cuba, for example, and will tell you that US policy towards that country is immoral, and does great damage to individual Cubans.
Gfntc,
Rereading, I think you are correct.
And I do agree, in general, with Donald about boycotts, sanctions, etc.
I happen to be somewhat acquainted with the situation in Cuba, for example, and will tell you that US policy towards that country is immoral, and does great damage to individual Cubans.
Nigel, I don’t know what point you think you are making, but GftNC read me correctly. I am uncomfortable with BDS aimed at Israeli universities because you could probably justify a similar boycott of every major university in the world if you examined them closely. “Every” might be an exaggeration, but many of them probably do research that is used for bad purposes or take funding from companies and give them the conclusions they want to hear. And boycotting or discriminating against individuals simply because they are Israeli is just wrong. I think boycotts are a legitimate tool but one that can be misapplied. In general I support BDS as a shaming tactic, but not necessarily every application of it.
Byomotov, on what Jews should have done in the first half of the 20th century there are no easy answers AFAIK. My favorite introductory book about Israel- Palestine is The Lemon Tree by Sandy Tolan, which tells the history by telling the story of two families. The Israeli family are Bulgarian refugees who survived the Holocaust. They live in the house that used to be owned by the Palestinian family. They meet. Been awhile since I read it. The point is that both sides are humanized.
I think Jews had the right to flee wherever they wanted and could not trust any country to save them. But Palestinians had the right to live in their own homeland. In the Western mainstream I think the second point is ignored. In some people on the pro Palestinian side the first point is ignored. I am going to leave it at that.
Nigel, I don’t know what point you think you are making, but GftNC read me correctly. I am uncomfortable with BDS aimed at Israeli universities because you could probably justify a similar boycott of every major university in the world if you examined them closely. “Every” might be an exaggeration, but many of them probably do research that is used for bad purposes or take funding from companies and give them the conclusions they want to hear. And boycotting or discriminating against individuals simply because they are Israeli is just wrong. I think boycotts are a legitimate tool but one that can be misapplied. In general I support BDS as a shaming tactic, but not necessarily every application of it.
Byomotov, on what Jews should have done in the first half of the 20th century there are no easy answers AFAIK. My favorite introductory book about Israel- Palestine is The Lemon Tree by Sandy Tolan, which tells the history by telling the story of two families. The Israeli family are Bulgarian refugees who survived the Holocaust. They live in the house that used to be owned by the Palestinian family. They meet. Been awhile since I read it. The point is that both sides are humanized.
I think Jews had the right to flee wherever they wanted and could not trust any country to save them. But Palestinians had the right to live in their own homeland. In the Western mainstream I think the second point is ignored. In some people on the pro Palestinian side the first point is ignored. I am going to leave it at that.
Hartmut: that level [of racism] is high enough that it can dominate society when the potential gets fully used but also low enough that it can be kept at bay otherwise. But it is difficult to switch from one to the other state (in both directions) and it takes a lot of effort (and time).
Agreed with the first sentence. But with regard to the second sentence, I’d agree that switching the level to “kept at bay” is all that difficult. But switching to “dominate” appears to be depressingly quick and easy — at least in huge swathes of the population.
Hartmut: that level [of racism] is high enough that it can dominate society when the potential gets fully used but also low enough that it can be kept at bay otherwise. But it is difficult to switch from one to the other state (in both directions) and it takes a lot of effort (and time).
Agreed with the first sentence. But with regard to the second sentence, I’d agree that switching the level to “kept at bay” is all that difficult. But switching to “dominate” appears to be depressingly quick and easy — at least in huge swathes of the population.
I think Jews had the right to flee wherever they wanted and could not trust any country to save them. But Palestinians had the right to live in their own homeland. In the Western mainstream I think the second point is ignored. In some people on the pro Palestinian side the first point is ignored.
This seems to me so eminently reasonable and humane I cannot see how any person of good faith could disagree. The devil being in the details, what follows from these two propositions is complicated and hard to reconcile with them, but nonetheless, this seems to me a decent start for objective, non-partisan consideration. Speaking for myself, I think it follows from the first part that the jews after the holocaust had a right to try to make a homeland for themselves where they could not be persecuted, but since I also think they had no right to forcibly displace another people I am at a loss to describe what they should have done or been helped to do. However, what is clear is that smearing people who oppose opression by the Israeli government and support the rights of Palestinians as antisemites by definition is not only factually wrong but unhelpful in any attempt to solve this Gordian knot.
I think Jews had the right to flee wherever they wanted and could not trust any country to save them. But Palestinians had the right to live in their own homeland. In the Western mainstream I think the second point is ignored. In some people on the pro Palestinian side the first point is ignored.
This seems to me so eminently reasonable and humane I cannot see how any person of good faith could disagree. The devil being in the details, what follows from these two propositions is complicated and hard to reconcile with them, but nonetheless, this seems to me a decent start for objective, non-partisan consideration. Speaking for myself, I think it follows from the first part that the jews after the holocaust had a right to try to make a homeland for themselves where they could not be persecuted, but since I also think they had no right to forcibly displace another people I am at a loss to describe what they should have done or been helped to do. However, what is clear is that smearing people who oppose opression by the Israeli government and support the rights of Palestinians as antisemites by definition is not only factually wrong but unhelpful in any attempt to solve this Gordian knot.
Donald,
Byomotov, on what Jews should have done in the first half of the 20th century there are no easy answers AFAIK
The problem was still there after WWII, Donald. Jews who survived were mostly DP’s. They could go back to Poland, of course – though that sometimes didn’t turn out well.
Western countries, very much including the US, were reluctant to accept many refugees – proto-Trumpism, I suppose. (I speak here from family experience.)
May I suggest that if you have no good answers to the question you should moderate your criticism of the answer that was actually chosen. It could have gone better. The 1948 war was not inevitable.
… I also think they had no right to forcibly displace another people…
Indeed. And the Arab countries had no right to forcibly expel their substantial Jewish communities. Note that Arab anti-semitism, including violence, and expulsion, predated the establishment of Israel. Do you think this hardened anti-Arab sentiment in Israel?
In addition, we might note that, in 1948, it was not so bizarre for the Israelis to fear annihilation at the hands of the Arab armies. If you want to argue that the terror tactics of Hamas, etc., are justified by the treatment of Gaza, you might ask whether some of the Israeli actions of that time were justified as well.
Gfntc,
smearing people who oppose opression by the Israeli government and support the rights of Palestinians as antisemites by definition is not only factually wrong but unhelpful in any attempt to solve this Gordian knot.
I agree. At the same time using guilt by association to smear those with no role in the policy – including many who oppose it – is also wrong and unhelpful.
Donald,
Byomotov, on what Jews should have done in the first half of the 20th century there are no easy answers AFAIK
The problem was still there after WWII, Donald. Jews who survived were mostly DP’s. They could go back to Poland, of course – though that sometimes didn’t turn out well.
Western countries, very much including the US, were reluctant to accept many refugees – proto-Trumpism, I suppose. (I speak here from family experience.)
May I suggest that if you have no good answers to the question you should moderate your criticism of the answer that was actually chosen. It could have gone better. The 1948 war was not inevitable.
… I also think they had no right to forcibly displace another people…
Indeed. And the Arab countries had no right to forcibly expel their substantial Jewish communities. Note that Arab anti-semitism, including violence, and expulsion, predated the establishment of Israel. Do you think this hardened anti-Arab sentiment in Israel?
In addition, we might note that, in 1948, it was not so bizarre for the Israelis to fear annihilation at the hands of the Arab armies. If you want to argue that the terror tactics of Hamas, etc., are justified by the treatment of Gaza, you might ask whether some of the Israeli actions of that time were justified as well.
Gfntc,
smearing people who oppose opression by the Israeli government and support the rights of Palestinians as antisemites by definition is not only factually wrong but unhelpful in any attempt to solve this Gordian knot.
I agree. At the same time using guilt by association to smear those with no role in the policy – including many who oppose it – is also wrong and unhelpful.
Excellent discussion. I’ll leave it at that for the time being.
Excellent discussion. I’ll leave it at that for the time being.
“Marty has glommed on to the false but soothing narrative often put out about how the Civil Rights movement was somehow inevitable and simply shows the fundamental good heartedness of the American people.”
I have glommed on to nothing, certainly not this. One of your worst tics is to accuse me of being incapable of independent thought, I lived in the South in the sixties and seventies. The movement wasn’t inevitable, but racism was well distributed by then.
“He also adopts an interesting notion that racism, as a matter of thought, is equally distributed through the population, but because he equates racism with acts, he has to claim that millions of Southerners were working with MLK and others to support the civil rights movement.”
Millions of Southerners supported Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement, “working with” is a little more “active” than I believe for millions of Southerners. I believe that the absence of support for racists acts was a step forward, a notion only discounted by some level of presentism.
“Marty has glommed on to the false but soothing narrative often put out about how the Civil Rights movement was somehow inevitable and simply shows the fundamental good heartedness of the American people.”
I have glommed on to nothing, certainly not this. One of your worst tics is to accuse me of being incapable of independent thought, I lived in the South in the sixties and seventies. The movement wasn’t inevitable, but racism was well distributed by then.
“He also adopts an interesting notion that racism, as a matter of thought, is equally distributed through the population, but because he equates racism with acts, he has to claim that millions of Southerners were working with MLK and others to support the civil rights movement.”
Millions of Southerners supported Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement, “working with” is a little more “active” than I believe for millions of Southerners. I believe that the absence of support for racists acts was a step forward, a notion only discounted by some level of presentism.
Millions of Southerners supported Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement, “working with” is a little more “active” than I believe for millions of Southerners. I believe that the absence of support for racists acts was a step forward, a notion only discounted by some level of presentism.
I take it you mean white southerners. I simply do not believe this. I will change my mind if you can provide some evidence, but it needs to be good.
Where were these people during the lynchings, the Freedom Rider assaults, etc.? I don’t recall hearing from them.
I will allow that there might have been state-to-state variations in attitudes. Where Iived, in Alabama, it is inconceivable that any significant number of whites supported King, and I’m confident that things were much the same in MS.
Millions of Southerners supported Dr. King and the Civil Rights movement, “working with” is a little more “active” than I believe for millions of Southerners. I believe that the absence of support for racists acts was a step forward, a notion only discounted by some level of presentism.
I take it you mean white southerners. I simply do not believe this. I will change my mind if you can provide some evidence, but it needs to be good.
Where were these people during the lynchings, the Freedom Rider assaults, etc.? I don’t recall hearing from them.
I will allow that there might have been state-to-state variations in attitudes. Where Iived, in Alabama, it is inconceivable that any significant number of whites supported King, and I’m confident that things were much the same in MS.
I believe that the absence of support for racists acts was a step forward.
I think that Marty’s got this right.
From our current perspective, it might seem very little. But at the time, it was actually a big step. Indeed, for many, a courageous leap into the unknown.
I believe that the absence of support for racists acts was a step forward.
I think that Marty’s got this right.
From our current perspective, it might seem very little. But at the time, it was actually a big step. Indeed, for many, a courageous leap into the unknown.
Were the Jim Crow laws “racist acts”?
Were they enacted in the “absence of support”?
We should all be glad that explicit racial oppression has fallen out of favor. But let’s not revise history; let’s not pretend that the ex-Confederacy was full of MLK supporters.
–TP
Were the Jim Crow laws “racist acts”?
Were they enacted in the “absence of support”?
We should all be glad that explicit racial oppression has fallen out of favor. But let’s not revise history; let’s not pretend that the ex-Confederacy was full of MLK supporters.
–TP
When most of the representatives, Senators and Representatives, elected by majorities in the South fled to the Republican Party, ostensibly beginning with Strom Thurmond and reaching momentum as the national Civil Rights legislations were passed in the 1960s and into the early 1970s as a result of Nixon’s southern strategy, who and what did they support?
Martin Luther King? As Stalin reportedly told Hitler on a snowy day in Stalingrad, don’t try to kid a kidder.
Happened to be reading a Zadie Smith short story this morning and these lines flew out at me, given this discussion:
“…. suffering has no purpose in reality. To the suffering person, suffering is solely suffering. It is only for others, as a symbol, that suffering takes on meaning and purpose. No one ever got lynched and thought, Well, at least this will lead inexorably to the civil rights movement. They just shook, suffered, and died. Pain is the least symbolic thing there is.”
When Lee Atwater said there are many ways to say the “n” word in political campaigns, who and what party was profiting from racism’s and slavery’s and Jim Crow’s legacy in America, and still are?
A person can understand the glacial movement of civil rights enlightenment among shithead human beings, but 155 years after the Civil War, why do we have so many leading the charge to turn back civil rights progress?
Why is that behavior tolerated? Why is it not met with unending savage violence, like the smoldering remnants of a catastrophic forest fire are liquidated in case the flames advance again?
Why are Nazi wanna-bees and white nationalists in this country and in Europe tolerated after the world witnessed their murderous behavior the first of many times around?
Are we curious to see how things turn out AGAIN?
Why not hunt them down and kill them? They wanna kill us. Why let such a genocidal movement once again gain a foothold in the dumbass pig minds of tens of millions of haters, who have been primed and stoked for something these many years by the so-called conservative movement, and its surely not to lead a free republic, democratic or otherwise.
cleek links to the Q-Anon phenomenon that is now a “thing”, as in right in our faces at mp’s fascist republican political rallies.
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=28223
Standard paranoid anti-Semitic and racist boilerplate, with the added feature that all employees of our government and the free press are implicated as child-molesting fiends in this worldwide conspiracy.
Apparently, on some web searches, as a result of Q-ANON’s breathless anonymous bullshit, the first half dozen links to Tom Hanks refer to his child molesting ways.
So I ask this: why shouldn’t I devote the rest of my life to hunting down Q, the individual or the group, which is embedded in the republican party and serves its purposes and which is gaining momentum among the right wing, and killing them by all means necessary to do the job.
Now. Not after they kill me.
And then start in on their supporters who show their faces at republican rallies.
Why am I asked to explain my membership in the Democratic Party and my vote for Hillary Clinton, which implicates me in nothing but a modest fucking tax increase and higher fuel standards, you cucks, and mainstream republicans are not asked to explain the republican party’s ties to Russian espionage, the neo-Nazi candidates running as “r”s, the racist fucking rhetoric of white nationalist republicans, which goddamned implicates everyone in the conservative movement who does not speak up?
Liberals need to grow a pair of hate testicles and kick these fuckers’ asses in the streets once and for all.
Still haven’t explained my pragmatic side, but events, as they say, intrude on civilized reason.
When most of the representatives, Senators and Representatives, elected by majorities in the South fled to the Republican Party, ostensibly beginning with Strom Thurmond and reaching momentum as the national Civil Rights legislations were passed in the 1960s and into the early 1970s as a result of Nixon’s southern strategy, who and what did they support?
Martin Luther King? As Stalin reportedly told Hitler on a snowy day in Stalingrad, don’t try to kid a kidder.
Happened to be reading a Zadie Smith short story this morning and these lines flew out at me, given this discussion:
“…. suffering has no purpose in reality. To the suffering person, suffering is solely suffering. It is only for others, as a symbol, that suffering takes on meaning and purpose. No one ever got lynched and thought, Well, at least this will lead inexorably to the civil rights movement. They just shook, suffered, and died. Pain is the least symbolic thing there is.”
When Lee Atwater said there are many ways to say the “n” word in political campaigns, who and what party was profiting from racism’s and slavery’s and Jim Crow’s legacy in America, and still are?
A person can understand the glacial movement of civil rights enlightenment among shithead human beings, but 155 years after the Civil War, why do we have so many leading the charge to turn back civil rights progress?
Why is that behavior tolerated? Why is it not met with unending savage violence, like the smoldering remnants of a catastrophic forest fire are liquidated in case the flames advance again?
Why are Nazi wanna-bees and white nationalists in this country and in Europe tolerated after the world witnessed their murderous behavior the first of many times around?
Are we curious to see how things turn out AGAIN?
Why not hunt them down and kill them? They wanna kill us. Why let such a genocidal movement once again gain a foothold in the dumbass pig minds of tens of millions of haters, who have been primed and stoked for something these many years by the so-called conservative movement, and its surely not to lead a free republic, democratic or otherwise.
cleek links to the Q-Anon phenomenon that is now a “thing”, as in right in our faces at mp’s fascist republican political rallies.
http://ok-cleek.com/blogs/?p=28223
Standard paranoid anti-Semitic and racist boilerplate, with the added feature that all employees of our government and the free press are implicated as child-molesting fiends in this worldwide conspiracy.
Apparently, on some web searches, as a result of Q-ANON’s breathless anonymous bullshit, the first half dozen links to Tom Hanks refer to his child molesting ways.
So I ask this: why shouldn’t I devote the rest of my life to hunting down Q, the individual or the group, which is embedded in the republican party and serves its purposes and which is gaining momentum among the right wing, and killing them by all means necessary to do the job.
Now. Not after they kill me.
And then start in on their supporters who show their faces at republican rallies.
Why am I asked to explain my membership in the Democratic Party and my vote for Hillary Clinton, which implicates me in nothing but a modest fucking tax increase and higher fuel standards, you cucks, and mainstream republicans are not asked to explain the republican party’s ties to Russian espionage, the neo-Nazi candidates running as “r”s, the racist fucking rhetoric of white nationalist republicans, which goddamned implicates everyone in the conservative movement who does not speak up?
Liberals need to grow a pair of hate testicles and kick these fuckers’ asses in the streets once and for all.
Still haven’t explained my pragmatic side, but events, as they say, intrude on civilized reason.
Marty, it may be a tic of mine, but in this case, I think you are wrong
http://time.com/5099513/martin-luther-king-day-myths/
In the 1960s, the vast majority of white people, South and North, disapproved of the movement’s tactics. In a May 1961 Gallup survey, only 22% of Americans approved of what the Freedom Riders were doing, and 57% of Americans said that the “sit-ins at lunch counters, freedom buses, and other demonstrations by Negroes were hurting the Negro’s chances of being integrated in the South.” Just before the March on Washington, Gallup found only 23% of Americans had favorable opinions of the proposed civil rights demonstration.
The Time article discusses nationwide opinion, but here’s a pdf of survey information from that period with regional divisions.
http://www.norc.org/PDFs/publications/NORCRpt_119.pdf
chapter 5 discusses regional differences
The South , in contrast , reveals a sharper ambivalence , with larger proportions saying they are now less favorable. At the same time , a similar trend toward the acceptance of integration is going on in the South. We can anticipate and do find that a small but important segment of the population admits to having become more approving as well. Since the total white population is moving in the same direction in overall terms , both southerners and northerners are caught up in the same forces although the former to a lesser degree.
a small but important segment does not equal millions.
Also, the surveys in chapter 5 of that document break down opinion in terms of educational achievement, and it surveyed 69 college educated subjects in the South versus 209 in the North, so a comparison on percentages alone will probably mislead.
Don’t want to pile on, but in case the bland numbers of a poll don’t convince
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=223098500
MARTIN: The other thing that was shocking that I learned from your book was that there were reprisal killings immediately thereafter of black people. For example, that there were two, what, 13-year-old boys who were shot by two Eagle Scouts in the wake of this. Could you talk a little bit more about that? Like…
BRANCH: Well, there were two shootings – one by the police. The one by the Eagle Scouts is a moment that just hangs there. The Eagle Scouts were at a segregationist rally that was interrupted by the word that the church had been bombed and they left. But a preacher was exhorting the people to resist integration, and these Eagle Scouts left and they saw a black boy riding by on his bicycle. And they had a pistol and they just – they said they had no idea what made them do it. They just shot at him and hit him in the head and killed him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombingham
Or Kathy Ainsworth,
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/3/31/173819/655/Front_Page/Kathy_Ainsworth_An_American_Terrorist
Be careful if you look for more, you’ll stumble on to a web of sites that insist she was set up and murdered.
I apologize if I’m being unpleasant in suggesting what motivates your (mistaken imo) assertion that millions of Southerners supported the Civil Rights movement, but it seems logical. I would also point out that you are not alone
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/149387/civility-debate-forgetting-70s
I agree with wj that you are right about
the absence of support for racists acts was a step forward. But I don’t think you should confuse the absence of support with actual support, as you seem to have.
It is comforting to think that we are on the train, slow that it may be, towards equality and justice, and I think one of the reasons you hang out here is that everyone believes this is an appropriate destination to head for. And if people are happy to be in that state without knowing the particulars of history, thinking that it was just a pleasant ride, I’m not going to disabuse them of that notion. But if you or anyone else comes here and wants to actually discuss this, I’m not going to ignore the history to make you feel better.
Marty, it may be a tic of mine, but in this case, I think you are wrong
http://time.com/5099513/martin-luther-king-day-myths/
In the 1960s, the vast majority of white people, South and North, disapproved of the movement’s tactics. In a May 1961 Gallup survey, only 22% of Americans approved of what the Freedom Riders were doing, and 57% of Americans said that the “sit-ins at lunch counters, freedom buses, and other demonstrations by Negroes were hurting the Negro’s chances of being integrated in the South.” Just before the March on Washington, Gallup found only 23% of Americans had favorable opinions of the proposed civil rights demonstration.
The Time article discusses nationwide opinion, but here’s a pdf of survey information from that period with regional divisions.
http://www.norc.org/PDFs/publications/NORCRpt_119.pdf
chapter 5 discusses regional differences
The South , in contrast , reveals a sharper ambivalence , with larger proportions saying they are now less favorable. At the same time , a similar trend toward the acceptance of integration is going on in the South. We can anticipate and do find that a small but important segment of the population admits to having become more approving as well. Since the total white population is moving in the same direction in overall terms , both southerners and northerners are caught up in the same forces although the former to a lesser degree.
a small but important segment does not equal millions.
Also, the surveys in chapter 5 of that document break down opinion in terms of educational achievement, and it surveyed 69 college educated subjects in the South versus 209 in the North, so a comparison on percentages alone will probably mislead.
Don’t want to pile on, but in case the bland numbers of a poll don’t convince
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=223098500
MARTIN: The other thing that was shocking that I learned from your book was that there were reprisal killings immediately thereafter of black people. For example, that there were two, what, 13-year-old boys who were shot by two Eagle Scouts in the wake of this. Could you talk a little bit more about that? Like…
BRANCH: Well, there were two shootings – one by the police. The one by the Eagle Scouts is a moment that just hangs there. The Eagle Scouts were at a segregationist rally that was interrupted by the word that the church had been bombed and they left. But a preacher was exhorting the people to resist integration, and these Eagle Scouts left and they saw a black boy riding by on his bicycle. And they had a pistol and they just – they said they had no idea what made them do it. They just shot at him and hit him in the head and killed him.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombingham
Or Kathy Ainsworth,
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2013/3/31/173819/655/Front_Page/Kathy_Ainsworth_An_American_Terrorist
Be careful if you look for more, you’ll stumble on to a web of sites that insist she was set up and murdered.
I apologize if I’m being unpleasant in suggesting what motivates your (mistaken imo) assertion that millions of Southerners supported the Civil Rights movement, but it seems logical. I would also point out that you are not alone
https://newrepublic.com/minutes/149387/civility-debate-forgetting-70s
I agree with wj that you are right about
the absence of support for racists acts was a step forward. But I don’t think you should confuse the absence of support with actual support, as you seem to have.
It is comforting to think that we are on the train, slow that it may be, towards equality and justice, and I think one of the reasons you hang out here is that everyone believes this is an appropriate destination to head for. And if people are happy to be in that state without knowing the particulars of history, thinking that it was just a pleasant ride, I’m not going to disabuse them of that notion. But if you or anyone else comes here and wants to actually discuss this, I’m not going to ignore the history to make you feel better.
why shouldn’t I devote the rest of my life to hunting down Q, the individual or the group
For openers, because what the supposed Q turns out suggests that he (they?) is merely yet another Russian intelligence effort. So you’d have to go half way around the world.
Not to mention that the Russian government tends to devote a fair amount of effort into security for those guys. We’re not talking about some mere domestic militia nut case here.
why shouldn’t I devote the rest of my life to hunting down Q, the individual or the group
For openers, because what the supposed Q turns out suggests that he (they?) is merely yet another Russian intelligence effort. So you’d have to go half way around the world.
Not to mention that the Russian government tends to devote a fair amount of effort into security for those guys. We’re not talking about some mere domestic militia nut case here.
Regarding the ’60’s and Martin Luther King’s popularity in the South, the closing of public schools in response to integration is what was happening in Virginia (where I lived). It doesn’t seem like these people were supporting the civil rights movement.
George Wallace ran as an anti-civil rights candidate in 1968. Even facing Richard Nixon’s racist “Southern Strategy”, he received 46 Electoral College votes, distributed as indicated here.
I’ve lived my whole life south of the Mason Dixon line, and support the view that a lot of progress has been made in the South, at least that’s true in urban areas. But pretending that white southerners were in favor of civil rights in the ’60’s and ’70’s is some kind of fantasy. Martin Luther King wasn’t a popular guy among most white people in the ’60’s (he died in 1968), particularly southern white people. He was gaining ground with young whites, who were also turning against the Vietnam war, but those kids were not primarily from the South.
Regarding the ’60’s and Martin Luther King’s popularity in the South, the closing of public schools in response to integration is what was happening in Virginia (where I lived). It doesn’t seem like these people were supporting the civil rights movement.
George Wallace ran as an anti-civil rights candidate in 1968. Even facing Richard Nixon’s racist “Southern Strategy”, he received 46 Electoral College votes, distributed as indicated here.
I’ve lived my whole life south of the Mason Dixon line, and support the view that a lot of progress has been made in the South, at least that’s true in urban areas. But pretending that white southerners were in favor of civil rights in the ’60’s and ’70’s is some kind of fantasy. Martin Luther King wasn’t a popular guy among most white people in the ’60’s (he died in 1968), particularly southern white people. He was gaining ground with young whites, who were also turning against the Vietnam war, but those kids were not primarily from the South.
Byomtov— I might reply tomorrow or might not. I am feeling lazy or disinclined to do long posts today.
Byomtov— I might reply tomorrow or might not. I am feeling lazy or disinclined to do long posts today.
An anecdote: A few years ago, I met a guy who had grown up in Northern Virginia, and who had graduated from high school not far from mine in the late ’60’s. He is a smart, wealthy guy, who owns his own company. He went to an Ivy League university. He now lives in California.
Somehow we got on the subject of Massive Resistance, and he had never heard of it. He was in school in Virginia through the whole debacle, but he had never even heard of it.
An anecdote: A few years ago, I met a guy who had grown up in Northern Virginia, and who had graduated from high school not far from mine in the late ’60’s. He is a smart, wealthy guy, who owns his own company. He went to an Ivy League university. He now lives in California.
Somehow we got on the subject of Massive Resistance, and he had never heard of it. He was in school in Virginia through the whole debacle, but he had never even heard of it.
“The absence of support for racist acts was a step forward.”
As George Jefferson might say: “That’s mighty white of y’all.”
Heinrich Himmler reportedly gagged and vomited into his Wagner-monogrammed hankie while leaning over a trench to get a closer look at the bodies of Jews shot in the head only minutes before, which I guess shows a sensitive disposition open to skipping the schnitzel at the next meal.
Bring him a Schnapps and keep em coming, meine liebchen.
I suppose Strom Thurmond’s fathering a black child while opposing integration was a sign of progressive sensitivity too.
He possessed the Abraham Lincoln of dicks.
Not sure who was emancipated by his climaxing proclamation.
“The absence of support for racist acts was a step forward.”
As George Jefferson might say: “That’s mighty white of y’all.”
Heinrich Himmler reportedly gagged and vomited into his Wagner-monogrammed hankie while leaning over a trench to get a closer look at the bodies of Jews shot in the head only minutes before, which I guess shows a sensitive disposition open to skipping the schnitzel at the next meal.
Bring him a Schnapps and keep em coming, meine liebchen.
I suppose Strom Thurmond’s fathering a black child while opposing integration was a sign of progressive sensitivity too.
He possessed the Abraham Lincoln of dicks.
Not sure who was emancipated by his climaxing proclamation.
In the most pessimistic view I see in any of the links, with a population of 60 million in 1965, it is reasonable to conclude the South had millions of people that supported the Civil Rights movement.
In the most pessimistic view I see in any of the links, with a population of 60 million in 1965, it is reasonable to conclude the South had millions of people that supported the Civil Rights movement.
Millions of black people lived in the South. That’s the only math that works, Marty.
Millions of black people lived in the South. That’s the only math that works, Marty.
There’s water in the form of ice crystals on Mars too but there ain’t no integrated public swimming pools.
There’s water in the form of ice crystals on Mars too but there ain’t no integrated public swimming pools.
According to the 1960 census the confederate states had a population of 43.6 million. I can’t quite get the racial breakdown, but I think a fair guess is 20% black, leaving 35 million or so whites.
If you want to claim that “millions” of white southerners – say 10% of the white population – supported King you need some solid proof.
Where is it?
According to the 1960 census the confederate states had a population of 43.6 million. I can’t quite get the racial breakdown, but I think a fair guess is 20% black, leaving 35 million or so whites.
If you want to claim that “millions” of white southerners – say 10% of the white population – supported King you need some solid proof.
Where is it?
I was using the percentages in lj’s link, population of 60m in 1965 so about 48m whites.
Really I thought millions was a pretty low bar. Depending on where you count Texas it isn’t even a question.
I was using the percentages in lj’s link, population of 60m in 1965 so about 48m whites.
Really I thought millions was a pretty low bar. Depending on where you count Texas it isn’t even a question.
Really I thought millions was a pretty low bar. Depending on where you count Texas it isn’t even a question.
Maybe there were 2 million out of 48 million whites. You’re actually, probably, right, Marty. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if less than 10% of white people in the South supported civil rights, and that would have numbered in the milllions.
Really I thought millions was a pretty low bar. Depending on where you count Texas it isn’t even a question.
Maybe there were 2 million out of 48 million whites. You’re actually, probably, right, Marty. I actually wouldn’t be surprised if less than 10% of white people in the South supported civil rights, and that would have numbered in the milllions.
So, if I were an African-American person in 1965 trying to find someone in my community who would support me in the face of some creepy, horrible racist incident, where in the 10% (maybe) of the white population would I have found a friend? How many doors would I have knocked on where somebody would have rejected me in order to find a person who wouldn’t have done so?
Would probably have been horrible. I’m white, so I don’t know for sure.
So, if I were an African-American person in 1965 trying to find someone in my community who would support me in the face of some creepy, horrible racist incident, where in the 10% (maybe) of the white population would I have found a friend? How many doors would I have knocked on where somebody would have rejected me in order to find a person who wouldn’t have done so?
Would probably have been horrible. I’m white, so I don’t know for sure.
So, a personal narrative here. My family moved to Shelby County TN in August, 1968, 4 months after MLk was assassinated in Shelby County TN. By huge coincidence, I was on the phone earlier today with a lawyer in Memphis who is friends with a high school classmate from Millington TN who is also a lawyer.
So, I started high school at Millington Central High School as a a Navy Brat, as was about 70% of the high school. The rest of the breakdown was 20% inbred redneck and 10% African American. The curfew in Shelby County was midnight for anyone 18 and under (or under 18, I can’t remember for sure).
The next year, our school was integrated with the all-black high school 5-7 miles a way. What was that like?
Not that bad, really. The number of shitheads, mostly white, was minimal, virtually nonexistent. Those inclined to be shitheads seem to have sensed that most people just wanted to get along. They sensed that acting like an asshole would find minimal to no support.
We moved to TN from Houston, where my junior high school was roughly split three ways, black, Hispanic, white. Did we have a lot of fights? No. The guys got on better across ethnic lines than the girls, but I think that was sports and a more active gym class.
We were in TN through my 10th grade year. We moved to SW MO, just outside Joplin. All white. One black guy in our entire football conference. Very strange.
Now, more than 40 years later, I have black and female law partners. Over half of my clients are female or non-white or both.
The work isn’t done. I think we are well more than half way there. My clients are national and international, BTW. It’s not a local phenomena.
I don’t recall widespread, or any really, support for MKL, among adult whites when I was a kid. Sorry, Marty, I just don’t.
What I do recall was a palpable change over time. Not acceptance really. Getting older people back then to accept blacks or Hispanics as social equals, that much change wasn’t happening because change had never been a part of their lives.
Rather, what I saw was younger people trying to adjust to what most of us thought they saw coming even if we really didn’t understand it.
By 1975, I was an RA at North Texas State (not widely recognized for its academic rigor but not a bad place). My floor was fully integrated right down to a gay guy (who was very, very brave for the time) who was, with a few exceptions that were dealt with, treated pretty decently for the time(treated cordially and left alone when it seemed he wanted privacy). Our dorm was fully integrated and we had great parties.
Stuff that seems automatic today was not automatic back in the day. We had to find our way, all of us. It was awkward a lot of the time and a lot of people never could quite blend, white, black or what have you.
Four years later, I was a second year law student at U of Houston. Four Houston police officers handcuffed Jose Campos Torres and took him for a swim in Buffalo Bayou. Jose didn’t quite get across the river. We then had quite the period of upheaval. Jose was hardly a paragon of virtue, but his senseless, cruel and vicious death at the hands of our protectors forced a lot of people to take a hard look inside. It’s a shitty thing to have to be a martyr, but I think that death did more to make our city the place it is today than anything else I can think of.
Since then, we’ve had two black mayors, a lesbian mayor and a bunch of other things that most of us wouldn’t think twice about but for the fact that it seems to be a big deal everywhere else.
I know I’ve gone on quite a bit. Part of that is the scotch. The rest is thinking back on a lot of years, thinking about my parents and how they grew up and back further to family members in and out of the Civil War.
For my money, it wasn’t overnight and there wasn’t widespread support in the 60’s among whites in the South for MLK. What there was was a lot of embarrassment at putting dogs on people someone knew, treating them like animals. Most southerners didn’t have the stomach for that. They still don’t. All of this loose talk these days about racists–most people who speak so confidently don’t know racism, the killing kind, the kind that consciously excludes.
We are still in the process of blending. We are well over half way there. All of the trend lines, the alarmists notwithstanding, are in the right direction.
No other country on earth has tried so hard and done so well at bringing so many different people together. Good night.
So, a personal narrative here. My family moved to Shelby County TN in August, 1968, 4 months after MLk was assassinated in Shelby County TN. By huge coincidence, I was on the phone earlier today with a lawyer in Memphis who is friends with a high school classmate from Millington TN who is also a lawyer.
So, I started high school at Millington Central High School as a a Navy Brat, as was about 70% of the high school. The rest of the breakdown was 20% inbred redneck and 10% African American. The curfew in Shelby County was midnight for anyone 18 and under (or under 18, I can’t remember for sure).
The next year, our school was integrated with the all-black high school 5-7 miles a way. What was that like?
Not that bad, really. The number of shitheads, mostly white, was minimal, virtually nonexistent. Those inclined to be shitheads seem to have sensed that most people just wanted to get along. They sensed that acting like an asshole would find minimal to no support.
We moved to TN from Houston, where my junior high school was roughly split three ways, black, Hispanic, white. Did we have a lot of fights? No. The guys got on better across ethnic lines than the girls, but I think that was sports and a more active gym class.
We were in TN through my 10th grade year. We moved to SW MO, just outside Joplin. All white. One black guy in our entire football conference. Very strange.
Now, more than 40 years later, I have black and female law partners. Over half of my clients are female or non-white or both.
The work isn’t done. I think we are well more than half way there. My clients are national and international, BTW. It’s not a local phenomena.
I don’t recall widespread, or any really, support for MKL, among adult whites when I was a kid. Sorry, Marty, I just don’t.
What I do recall was a palpable change over time. Not acceptance really. Getting older people back then to accept blacks or Hispanics as social equals, that much change wasn’t happening because change had never been a part of their lives.
Rather, what I saw was younger people trying to adjust to what most of us thought they saw coming even if we really didn’t understand it.
By 1975, I was an RA at North Texas State (not widely recognized for its academic rigor but not a bad place). My floor was fully integrated right down to a gay guy (who was very, very brave for the time) who was, with a few exceptions that were dealt with, treated pretty decently for the time(treated cordially and left alone when it seemed he wanted privacy). Our dorm was fully integrated and we had great parties.
Stuff that seems automatic today was not automatic back in the day. We had to find our way, all of us. It was awkward a lot of the time and a lot of people never could quite blend, white, black or what have you.
Four years later, I was a second year law student at U of Houston. Four Houston police officers handcuffed Jose Campos Torres and took him for a swim in Buffalo Bayou. Jose didn’t quite get across the river. We then had quite the period of upheaval. Jose was hardly a paragon of virtue, but his senseless, cruel and vicious death at the hands of our protectors forced a lot of people to take a hard look inside. It’s a shitty thing to have to be a martyr, but I think that death did more to make our city the place it is today than anything else I can think of.
Since then, we’ve had two black mayors, a lesbian mayor and a bunch of other things that most of us wouldn’t think twice about but for the fact that it seems to be a big deal everywhere else.
I know I’ve gone on quite a bit. Part of that is the scotch. The rest is thinking back on a lot of years, thinking about my parents and how they grew up and back further to family members in and out of the Civil War.
For my money, it wasn’t overnight and there wasn’t widespread support in the 60’s among whites in the South for MLK. What there was was a lot of embarrassment at putting dogs on people someone knew, treating them like animals. Most southerners didn’t have the stomach for that. They still don’t. All of this loose talk these days about racists–most people who speak so confidently don’t know racism, the killing kind, the kind that consciously excludes.
We are still in the process of blending. We are well over half way there. All of the trend lines, the alarmists notwithstanding, are in the right direction.
No other country on earth has tried so hard and done so well at bringing so many different people together. Good night.
Good comment, McK.
Just for those who may not know, Shelby County is pretty much Memphis.
What there was was a lot of embarrassment at putting dogs on people someone knew, treating them like animals. Most southerners didn’t have the stomach for that.
I’m not sure I agree totally here.
All of this loose talk these days about racists–most people who speak so confidently don’t know racism, the killing kind, the kind that consciously excludes.
Plenty of racism still around, IMO, including the killing kind, but much less than before, so that’s something.
Good comment, McK.
Just for those who may not know, Shelby County is pretty much Memphis.
What there was was a lot of embarrassment at putting dogs on people someone knew, treating them like animals. Most southerners didn’t have the stomach for that.
I’m not sure I agree totally here.
All of this loose talk these days about racists–most people who speak so confidently don’t know racism, the killing kind, the kind that consciously excludes.
Plenty of racism still around, IMO, including the killing kind, but much less than before, so that’s something.
I really appreciate that post, McKinney.
This part: We are still in the process of blending. We are well over half way there. All of the trend lines, the alarmists notwithstanding, are in the right direction.
No, the only “right direction” is a result of demographics. We are in serious trouble with the Trump administration because of their hatred of democracy.
I’m a military brat, like you, and we our parents paved the way for how anti-discrimination should be done. Country first, meaning all of us. My father called himself a Texan, because the best years of his life were in Austin at UT Law School.
You deserve your wealth, McKinney. I hope I’ve made it clear that I’m not against wealth. But tax cuts = everything? Your lack of interest in the border issue is disturbing, considering your humanitarianism.
I’m sorry that you’re not working hard for political rivals of Republicans. Somewhere along the line, some koolaid was served, and you had a taste. I hope you’re able to reassess.
I really appreciate that post, McKinney.
This part: We are still in the process of blending. We are well over half way there. All of the trend lines, the alarmists notwithstanding, are in the right direction.
No, the only “right direction” is a result of demographics. We are in serious trouble with the Trump administration because of their hatred of democracy.
I’m a military brat, like you, and we our parents paved the way for how anti-discrimination should be done. Country first, meaning all of us. My father called himself a Texan, because the best years of his life were in Austin at UT Law School.
You deserve your wealth, McKinney. I hope I’ve made it clear that I’m not against wealth. But tax cuts = everything? Your lack of interest in the border issue is disturbing, considering your humanitarianism.
I’m sorry that you’re not working hard for political rivals of Republicans. Somewhere along the line, some koolaid was served, and you had a taste. I hope you’re able to reassess.
Not that I think it’s intentional moving of goal posts, but Marty’s original comment had millions of white Southerners being “integral to” the civil rights movement. A harder case to make than mere “support.”
Not that I think it’s intentional moving of goal posts, but Marty’s original comment had millions of white Southerners being “integral to” the civil rights movement. A harder case to make than mere “support.”
What I do recall was a palpable change over time. Not acceptance really. Getting older people back then to accept blacks or Hispanics as social equals, that much change wasn’t happening because change had never been a part of their lives.
Rather, what I saw was younger people trying to adjust to what most of us thought they saw coming even if we really didn’t understand it.
I think that’s a lot of how we got from there to here: those who were deep-down racists have (mostly) died off; those who are left grew up knowing how things were going to be. It’s not a fast way to make progress, but sometimes it’s the only shot we’ve got.
We’ve made enormous progress, no question. And overall, we do better than most places at accepting and integrating those who are different. In the face of more diversity, and more cultural change than most places can even imagine.** It’s really quite impressive, viewed objectively.
We’re also a long ways from where we ought to be. And, as happens repeatedly in our history, we are currently having a spate of reaction to the progress we’ve made. It’s ugly, as it usually is. And it’s hard to remain optimistic, even though our history also shows we will almost certainly end up returning to what we here would consider progress. Leaving our descendants wondering what the devil was wrong with people in the late 2010s.
** One part of why people elsewhere really hate American “cultural imperialism” (i.e. their kids growing up watching American movies and thinking what they see there is how the world should be) is precisely the acceptance of diversity that is part of the package.
What I do recall was a palpable change over time. Not acceptance really. Getting older people back then to accept blacks or Hispanics as social equals, that much change wasn’t happening because change had never been a part of their lives.
Rather, what I saw was younger people trying to adjust to what most of us thought they saw coming even if we really didn’t understand it.
I think that’s a lot of how we got from there to here: those who were deep-down racists have (mostly) died off; those who are left grew up knowing how things were going to be. It’s not a fast way to make progress, but sometimes it’s the only shot we’ve got.
We’ve made enormous progress, no question. And overall, we do better than most places at accepting and integrating those who are different. In the face of more diversity, and more cultural change than most places can even imagine.** It’s really quite impressive, viewed objectively.
We’re also a long ways from where we ought to be. And, as happens repeatedly in our history, we are currently having a spate of reaction to the progress we’ve made. It’s ugly, as it usually is. And it’s hard to remain optimistic, even though our history also shows we will almost certainly end up returning to what we here would consider progress. Leaving our descendants wondering what the devil was wrong with people in the late 2010s.
** One part of why people elsewhere really hate American “cultural imperialism” (i.e. their kids growing up watching American movies and thinking what they see there is how the world should be) is precisely the acceptance of diversity that is part of the package.
if white Southerners wanted the CRA, it would have been news to LBJ. and we wouldn’t have the phrase “Southern Strategy”. and the GOP wouldn’t have switched places with the Democrats.
no. in general, on balance, statistically speaking, southern whites ditched the Dems when the Dems embraced civil rights for blacks.
that’s not even arguable. it’s just what happened.
if white Southerners wanted the CRA, it would have been news to LBJ. and we wouldn’t have the phrase “Southern Strategy”. and the GOP wouldn’t have switched places with the Democrats.
no. in general, on balance, statistically speaking, southern whites ditched the Dems when the Dems embraced civil rights for blacks.
that’s not even arguable. it’s just what happened.
Why is that behavior tolerated? Why is it not met with unending savage violence
because unending savage violence will not change the behavior.
from my own experience and from what i know of history, the national american id has always been a stew of parochial bigotry, violence, and crazy-ass paranoia.
i go to my niece’s wedding, her uncle asks me where i am living now, i tell him. i happen to live in an area that has, for new england, a large jewish presence. “lotta steens and bergs down there by you, huh?”. in new hampshire, in 2008.
i go to a gig and the guitar player and bass player get into a heavy conversation about soros and the jews and the bankers. in massachusetts, in 2017.
i go to another gig and an old dude is dancing his ass off. turns out he just had a heart transplant. the donor was a black guy. dancing old guy makes a joke about how that’s why he’s such a good dancer now. a pun on the word ‘jig’ was involved.
long ago i played in a band with a guy whose family were the nicest people you can imagine, and the sheetrocked guns and ammunition into the walls of their houses. for when the russians came to take them away.
another trumpet player i worked with used to bring his shotgun to rehearsals. why? well, he didn’t want to leave it in the car! he was also a big y2k guy back in the day, and is a big q anon guy now.
one of my uncles has a sort of collection of politically incorrect sheet music from the turn of the 20th C, tunes with titles like “levi the sheenie”.
my old man had a huge reportoire of nigger jokes. he came by them honestly. he mostly kept them under wraps, more or less to be polite. more or less. he had a field day when jesse jackson ran for president.
when i was a kid and my grandfather would take us cousins to the ball game, the inexpensive upper-level seats were known colloquially within the family as nigger heaven.
i got a million of them.
we’re a nation with a deep and rich legacy of this kind of just-folks bullshit.
i just don’t point regional fingers about this stuff. my people in georgia had issues with black and brown people, my people in NY had issues with black and brown people. the new englanders i live aorund today, in 2018, have issues with black and brown people, and spanish-speaking people of any color. and jews. and italians, for god’s sake.
in 2018.
people are prone to knee-jerk parochial bigotry, prejudice, and hatred. you aren’t going to beat it out of them.
the goal, i think, should be to address the ways in which it gets enshrined systematically.
Why is that behavior tolerated? Why is it not met with unending savage violence
because unending savage violence will not change the behavior.
from my own experience and from what i know of history, the national american id has always been a stew of parochial bigotry, violence, and crazy-ass paranoia.
i go to my niece’s wedding, her uncle asks me where i am living now, i tell him. i happen to live in an area that has, for new england, a large jewish presence. “lotta steens and bergs down there by you, huh?”. in new hampshire, in 2008.
i go to a gig and the guitar player and bass player get into a heavy conversation about soros and the jews and the bankers. in massachusetts, in 2017.
i go to another gig and an old dude is dancing his ass off. turns out he just had a heart transplant. the donor was a black guy. dancing old guy makes a joke about how that’s why he’s such a good dancer now. a pun on the word ‘jig’ was involved.
long ago i played in a band with a guy whose family were the nicest people you can imagine, and the sheetrocked guns and ammunition into the walls of their houses. for when the russians came to take them away.
another trumpet player i worked with used to bring his shotgun to rehearsals. why? well, he didn’t want to leave it in the car! he was also a big y2k guy back in the day, and is a big q anon guy now.
one of my uncles has a sort of collection of politically incorrect sheet music from the turn of the 20th C, tunes with titles like “levi the sheenie”.
my old man had a huge reportoire of nigger jokes. he came by them honestly. he mostly kept them under wraps, more or less to be polite. more or less. he had a field day when jesse jackson ran for president.
when i was a kid and my grandfather would take us cousins to the ball game, the inexpensive upper-level seats were known colloquially within the family as nigger heaven.
i got a million of them.
we’re a nation with a deep and rich legacy of this kind of just-folks bullshit.
i just don’t point regional fingers about this stuff. my people in georgia had issues with black and brown people, my people in NY had issues with black and brown people. the new englanders i live aorund today, in 2018, have issues with black and brown people, and spanish-speaking people of any color. and jews. and italians, for god’s sake.
in 2018.
people are prone to knee-jerk parochial bigotry, prejudice, and hatred. you aren’t going to beat it out of them.
the goal, i think, should be to address the ways in which it gets enshrined systematically.
mck at 9:45 – right on. let’s keep moving forward.
mck at 9:45 – right on. let’s keep moving forward.
from my own experience and from what i know of history, the national american id has always been a stew of parochial bigotry, violence, and crazy-ass paranoia.
That’s part of it. The other part is hope and change.
McKinney is a military brat, and so am I. Most military brats I know (at least my age) are super optimistic about racism being extinguished because the military broke the barriers first. During the Eisenhower years, integration was ordered. Obviously, there have been reactions and stuff that’s gone on since then.
I grew up with parents who were brought up in very racist environments, but tried very hard to kick that habit to the point where my mother’s funeral was attended by a large number of African-Americans, even though she was an old white lady.
We can do this, people. We don’t need to reinvent the past. We need to say, in our own time: Hello friend.
That includes welcoming people seeking asylum at the border.
from my own experience and from what i know of history, the national american id has always been a stew of parochial bigotry, violence, and crazy-ass paranoia.
That’s part of it. The other part is hope and change.
McKinney is a military brat, and so am I. Most military brats I know (at least my age) are super optimistic about racism being extinguished because the military broke the barriers first. During the Eisenhower years, integration was ordered. Obviously, there have been reactions and stuff that’s gone on since then.
I grew up with parents who were brought up in very racist environments, but tried very hard to kick that habit to the point where my mother’s funeral was attended by a large number of African-Americans, even though she was an old white lady.
We can do this, people. We don’t need to reinvent the past. We need to say, in our own time: Hello friend.
That includes welcoming people seeking asylum at the border.
hash, I think they were integral to the movement. Someone asked where they would find a white person to support them. In my experience they knew who they were safe around.
All that’s different than millions of white people pouring into the streets with MLK. But in my circles, particularly after he was dead, he was respected and then
a martyr to a great cause.
hash, I think they were integral to the movement. Someone asked where they would find a white person to support them. In my experience they knew who they were safe around.
All that’s different than millions of white people pouring into the streets with MLK. But in my circles, particularly after he was dead, he was respected and then
a martyr to a great cause.
I remember (I don’t know when this was) reading an article in, I think, the Atlantic, by Alan Paton. It was a followup to a book he’d written in the fifties, which featured interviews on race with Americans all across the country. In the article, he quoted one of the people from the book whom he re-interviewed, as saying, “Yep, I’m still a racist. But thank God, my children aren’t.”
I’ve never known quite what to make of that.
I remember (I don’t know when this was) reading an article in, I think, the Atlantic, by Alan Paton. It was a followup to a book he’d written in the fifties, which featured interviews on race with Americans all across the country. In the article, he quoted one of the people from the book whom he re-interviewed, as saying, “Yep, I’m still a racist. But thank God, my children aren’t.”
I’ve never known quite what to make of that.
hash, I think they were integral to the movement. Someone asked where they would find a white person to support them. In my experience they knew who they were safe around.
‘knowing who you are safe around’ doesn’t really mean anything. If you think about it, it’s this idea of boundaries and inside and outside that is why you had Freedom Riders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Riders
and why you get the discourse about ‘outside agitators’.
I should be more specific about my experience. I moved to a small town in Mississippi in the mid 70’s when my father was transferred there. By that time all of the institutional frameworks had been reworked to deal with integration. There’s a good book about the town called ‘Beyond the Southern Myth’ by Noel Polk. The Gulf Coast was and is culturally quite different from the rest of Mississippi. But even there, I saw no evidence of all these white people supporting MLK or Civil Rights. When Obama won the first time, the newspaper, the Picayune Item, put it below the fold. In fact, I looked up the town on the New York Times recent detailed election map
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-2016-voting-precinct-maps.html
Picayune is all red, except for an area of blue. Where is that? It is ‘the other side of the tracks’ where Picayune’s African-American population lives.
hash, I think they were integral to the movement. Someone asked where they would find a white person to support them. In my experience they knew who they were safe around.
‘knowing who you are safe around’ doesn’t really mean anything. If you think about it, it’s this idea of boundaries and inside and outside that is why you had Freedom Riders
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Riders
and why you get the discourse about ‘outside agitators’.
I should be more specific about my experience. I moved to a small town in Mississippi in the mid 70’s when my father was transferred there. By that time all of the institutional frameworks had been reworked to deal with integration. There’s a good book about the town called ‘Beyond the Southern Myth’ by Noel Polk. The Gulf Coast was and is culturally quite different from the rest of Mississippi. But even there, I saw no evidence of all these white people supporting MLK or Civil Rights. When Obama won the first time, the newspaper, the Picayune Item, put it below the fold. In fact, I looked up the town on the New York Times recent detailed election map
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-2016-voting-precinct-maps.html
Picayune is all red, except for an area of blue. Where is that? It is ‘the other side of the tracks’ where Picayune’s African-American population lives.
In the article, he quoted one of the people from the book whom he re-interviewed, as saying, “Yep, I’m still a racist. But thank God, my children aren’t.”
I’ve never known quite what to make of that.
Interestingly, it’s far from unheard of. It is possible to hold an (often emotional) attitude, but know intellectually that it is a bad one. And to, as a result, be willing to work hard to keep ones children from acquiring it — and be pleased to have succeeded.
It happened more often than you might think with race. I suspect it is happening a lot these days with sexual orientation. The thing is, changing behavior can be difficult but it’s a piece of cake compared to changing the feelings you absorbed growing up. Often the best you can do is keep your kids from absorbing those same attitudes.
In the article, he quoted one of the people from the book whom he re-interviewed, as saying, “Yep, I’m still a racist. But thank God, my children aren’t.”
I’ve never known quite what to make of that.
Interestingly, it’s far from unheard of. It is possible to hold an (often emotional) attitude, but know intellectually that it is a bad one. And to, as a result, be willing to work hard to keep ones children from acquiring it — and be pleased to have succeeded.
It happened more often than you might think with race. I suspect it is happening a lot these days with sexual orientation. The thing is, changing behavior can be difficult but it’s a piece of cake compared to changing the feelings you absorbed growing up. Often the best you can do is keep your kids from absorbing those same attitudes.
… I’d agree that switching the level to “kept at bay” is all that difficult. But switching to “dominate” appears to be depressingly quick and easy — at least in huge swathes of the population.
Looking at the most prominent cases I usually find that there was a lot of groundwork that had to be laid before the domination could take hold and keep up without external support.
The Nazis were extremly frustrated how long it took them to implant their brand of antisemitism in those beyond the traditional haters (and that despite decades of preliminary work by others). The majority for years took only part as far as was necessary to survive under the regime. But their effort did ‘pay off’ in the end and it took decades to get back to normal after the war. Imo, if the Nazi regime would have disappeared say in 1938, the attitude towards Jews would have quickly returned to the pre-Nazi state. I think the switch came about 1940 with “Jud Süß” as the marker and there was somewhat of an ‘at last!’ reaction by the main drivers.
What I want to say is that it takes effort to get from one *stable* state to the other, i.e. where the new can stand on its own without constant propping up. A short-term frenzy is one thing, a general shift in attitude another.
There are still human limits to what most people are willing to do (as opposed to just tolerate) but unfortunately one can usually find just enough people willing to go all the way. Looking at the US, the kid separation policy is a test case. We are still in a state where a majority is not willing to tolerate it. Those responsible had to temporarily retreat but will try again while working on shifting public attitude. I think it is not inconceivable that, given enough time in power, they will succeed. Most will still not be willing to do the dirty work themselves but not go out to do anything against it. An that would be enough.
… I’d agree that switching the level to “kept at bay” is all that difficult. But switching to “dominate” appears to be depressingly quick and easy — at least in huge swathes of the population.
Looking at the most prominent cases I usually find that there was a lot of groundwork that had to be laid before the domination could take hold and keep up without external support.
The Nazis were extremly frustrated how long it took them to implant their brand of antisemitism in those beyond the traditional haters (and that despite decades of preliminary work by others). The majority for years took only part as far as was necessary to survive under the regime. But their effort did ‘pay off’ in the end and it took decades to get back to normal after the war. Imo, if the Nazi regime would have disappeared say in 1938, the attitude towards Jews would have quickly returned to the pre-Nazi state. I think the switch came about 1940 with “Jud Süß” as the marker and there was somewhat of an ‘at last!’ reaction by the main drivers.
What I want to say is that it takes effort to get from one *stable* state to the other, i.e. where the new can stand on its own without constant propping up. A short-term frenzy is one thing, a general shift in attitude another.
There are still human limits to what most people are willing to do (as opposed to just tolerate) but unfortunately one can usually find just enough people willing to go all the way. Looking at the US, the kid separation policy is a test case. We are still in a state where a majority is not willing to tolerate it. Those responsible had to temporarily retreat but will try again while working on shifting public attitude. I think it is not inconceivable that, given enough time in power, they will succeed. Most will still not be willing to do the dirty work themselves but not go out to do anything against it. An that would be enough.
“Even before he arrives in Northern Virginia, the new fire chief for one of the country’s wealthiest suburbs heard the reason some people don’t want him there: his skin color.”
A black fire chief faces hatred online before his first day on the job
“Even before he arrives in Northern Virginia, the new fire chief for one of the country’s wealthiest suburbs heard the reason some people don’t want him there: his skin color.”
A black fire chief faces hatred online before his first day on the job
I know I’ve gone on quite a bit
It was nothing but a pleasure, McKinney, thank you. And as a matter of fact this whole thread has become fascinating – from Marty to russell to Jim Parrish to Hartmut etc. I have to say, I find Hartmut’s analysis at 03.01 frighteningly persuasive, particularly the conclusion as summarised by his 2nd paragraph.
Further to Jim Parrish’s Alan Paton story, and I may have told this story before, my South African cousin made a documentary series ages ago about race in America, and interviewed some black South African students who were at college in the US. They told him that in some ways the relations between the races were worse and more uneasy than back home in South Africa, and this was under the apartheid regime.
Given the current situation, I find it hard to be as sanguine about the state of racism in the US today as are McKinney and wj, but this may of course be a question of temperament. Or it may be because they self-define as conservative. I hope it is the former, and that they are right and that I (and others who think as I do) are wrong.
I know I’ve gone on quite a bit
It was nothing but a pleasure, McKinney, thank you. And as a matter of fact this whole thread has become fascinating – from Marty to russell to Jim Parrish to Hartmut etc. I have to say, I find Hartmut’s analysis at 03.01 frighteningly persuasive, particularly the conclusion as summarised by his 2nd paragraph.
Further to Jim Parrish’s Alan Paton story, and I may have told this story before, my South African cousin made a documentary series ages ago about race in America, and interviewed some black South African students who were at college in the US. They told him that in some ways the relations between the races were worse and more uneasy than back home in South Africa, and this was under the apartheid regime.
Given the current situation, I find it hard to be as sanguine about the state of racism in the US today as are McKinney and wj, but this may of course be a question of temperament. Or it may be because they self-define as conservative. I hope it is the former, and that they are right and that I (and others who think as I do) are wrong.
one possible explanation for the different perspectives of marty and mck, compared to bernie, might be that texas is not the same as alabama.
I’ve never known quite what to make of that.
i call it self-awareness, and progress.
The other part is hope and change. We need to say, in our own time: Hello friend.
amen. may it be so.
one possible explanation for the different perspectives of marty and mck, compared to bernie, might be that texas is not the same as alabama.
I’ve never known quite what to make of that.
i call it self-awareness, and progress.
The other part is hope and change. We need to say, in our own time: Hello friend.
amen. may it be so.
Given the current situation, I find it hard to be as sanguine about the state of racism in the US today as are McKinney and wj
#metoo. For your reading pleasure:
White Threat In A Browning America
White Fragility
For the glass half full types, it could be the case that the hardest part is yet to come. Food for thought.
Given the current situation, I find it hard to be as sanguine about the state of racism in the US today as are McKinney and wj
#metoo. For your reading pleasure:
White Threat In A Browning America
White Fragility
For the glass half full types, it could be the case that the hardest part is yet to come. Food for thought.
I have a very limited ability at the moment to follow links, bobbyp, but that New Yorker link on White Fragility is fascinating and uncomfortable reading. Interestingly, one short section of it (not the one I quote below) reminded me slightly of things bob mcmanus said, but of course in a much less hostile and therefore assimilable way!
I have a very limited ability at the moment to follow links, bobbyp, but that New Yorker link on White Fragility is fascinating and uncomfortable reading. Interestingly, one short section of it (not the one I quote below) reminded me slightly of things bob mcmanus said, but of course in a much less hostile and therefore assimilable way!
There was an interesting controversy about a poem published in The Nation that raised some issues. Here’s a NYT article about it. The article contains a link to the poem.
There was an interesting controversy about a poem published in The Nation that raised some issues. Here’s a NYT article about it. The article contains a link to the poem.
Yes, I read that sapient. I’ve been thinking a lot about cultural appropriation ever since a post of Doc Science’s in her first Hugos thread, and taking soundings from people I know. I think it’s a fascinating and contentious subject, and would love a discussion about it, but I’m not up to putting up the preliminary post. Maybe someone else will be interested in doing so?
Yes, I read that sapient. I’ve been thinking a lot about cultural appropriation ever since a post of Doc Science’s in her first Hugos thread, and taking soundings from people I know. I think it’s a fascinating and contentious subject, and would love a discussion about it, but I’m not up to putting up the preliminary post. Maybe someone else will be interested in doing so?
“The most effective adaptation of racism over time,” DiAngelo claims, “is the idea that racism is conscious bias held by mean people.”
This seems, to me, pretty much right on.
I’ve been thinking a lot about cultural appropriation
what we think of as “American culture” is the product of the blending and assimilation of multiple cultural traditions and heritages over time.
is that appropriation?
a bunch of snotty white fratboys sporting blackface at one of their drunken parties is not the same as Twain, or Faulkner, “appropriating” black dialect.
it shouldn’t be that hard to distinguish the two.
the poem in question seems more like Faulkner, and less like snotty fratboy, to me.
“The most effective adaptation of racism over time,” DiAngelo claims, “is the idea that racism is conscious bias held by mean people.”
This seems, to me, pretty much right on.
I’ve been thinking a lot about cultural appropriation
what we think of as “American culture” is the product of the blending and assimilation of multiple cultural traditions and heritages over time.
is that appropriation?
a bunch of snotty white fratboys sporting blackface at one of their drunken parties is not the same as Twain, or Faulkner, “appropriating” black dialect.
it shouldn’t be that hard to distinguish the two.
the poem in question seems more like Faulkner, and less like snotty fratboy, to me.
Looking at the US, the kid separation policy is a test case. We are still in a state where a majority is not willing to tolerate it. Those responsible had to temporarily retreat but will try again while working on shifting public attitude.
I think what we really need, to keep things from going that way, is consequences for those who tried to implement it.
For instance, there was a court order to restore the kids to their parents. Which the government didn’t manage to do. I think that, until all those kids are back with their parents, those in charge (from first level managers thru not only the division of ICE responsible but all the way up to and including the cabinet Secretary) should be remanded to the same facility and cages where the immigrants/asylum seekers were held.** And if that’s indefinitely, because ICE can’t find the kids, or can’t find the parents that they deported without their kids, so be it.
** In the happy event that those managers have kids of their own and are single parents, those kids should get dumped into the system as well. Probably not any, but the contingency should be provided for.
Looking at the US, the kid separation policy is a test case. We are still in a state where a majority is not willing to tolerate it. Those responsible had to temporarily retreat but will try again while working on shifting public attitude.
I think what we really need, to keep things from going that way, is consequences for those who tried to implement it.
For instance, there was a court order to restore the kids to their parents. Which the government didn’t manage to do. I think that, until all those kids are back with their parents, those in charge (from first level managers thru not only the division of ICE responsible but all the way up to and including the cabinet Secretary) should be remanded to the same facility and cages where the immigrants/asylum seekers were held.** And if that’s indefinitely, because ICE can’t find the kids, or can’t find the parents that they deported without their kids, so be it.
** In the happy event that those managers have kids of their own and are single parents, those kids should get dumped into the system as well. Probably not any, but the contingency should be provided for.
I find it hard to be as sanguine about the state of racism in the US today as are McKinney and wj
I can’t speak for McKinney of course, but I’m not sanguine about it at all. I’m just trying to keep aware that, bad as things are, they are far better than they were in my youth.
And, again as bad as they are, I’m optimistic that we will (eventually) come out in better shape. The path of progress (and it is progress) isn’t smooth and it isn’t monotonic increasing — there will be repeated setbacks. But the trend is pretty clear, even if progress is slower that many of us would like.
I find it hard to be as sanguine about the state of racism in the US today as are McKinney and wj
I can’t speak for McKinney of course, but I’m not sanguine about it at all. I’m just trying to keep aware that, bad as things are, they are far better than they were in my youth.
And, again as bad as they are, I’m optimistic that we will (eventually) come out in better shape. The path of progress (and it is progress) isn’t smooth and it isn’t monotonic increasing — there will be repeated setbacks. But the trend is pretty clear, even if progress is slower that many of us would like.
the poem in question seems more like Faulkner, and less like snotty fratboy, to me.
I agree with you. I think there’s a long discussion to be had, but GftNC is right that it probably merits its own post. Unfortunately, I don’t really have time right now.
I think what we really need, to keep things from going that way, is consequences for those who tried to implement it.
Yes, they should be jailed for contempt (if not under the conditions you describe, at least in whatever federal prison has jurisdiction to hold them).
the poem in question seems more like Faulkner, and less like snotty fratboy, to me.
I agree with you. I think there’s a long discussion to be had, but GftNC is right that it probably merits its own post. Unfortunately, I don’t really have time right now.
I think what we really need, to keep things from going that way, is consequences for those who tried to implement it.
Yes, they should be jailed for contempt (if not under the conditions you describe, at least in whatever federal prison has jurisdiction to hold them).
Yes, they should be jailed for contempt (if not under the conditions you describe, at least in whatever federal prison has jurisdiction to hold them).
Just so it’s not one of those white collar country club facilities! Make it hard time, so they have some clue what they have done unto others.
Yes, they should be jailed for contempt (if not under the conditions you describe, at least in whatever federal prison has jurisdiction to hold them).
Just so it’s not one of those white collar country club facilities! Make it hard time, so they have some clue what they have done unto others.
The stories of various shelter abuses and negligence are horrifying. Just the latest of so many I’ve read from Pro Publica’s reporting via twitter.
I’m grateful that there’s action in the courts, but we’ll never be able to make up for what we’re doing to these children and their parents.
The stories of various shelter abuses and negligence are horrifying. Just the latest of so many I’ve read from Pro Publica’s reporting via twitter.
I’m grateful that there’s action in the courts, but we’ll never be able to make up for what we’re doing to these children and their parents.
Agreed, we can’t make up for what we’ve done to these kids (and their parents). But that’s true of punishment for any crime. What we can do is make the punishment of those responsible sufficient to discourage a repeat in the future.
Agreed, we can’t make up for what we’ve done to these kids (and their parents). But that’s true of punishment for any crime. What we can do is make the punishment of those responsible sufficient to discourage a repeat in the future.
the poem in question seems more like Faulkner, and less like snotty fratboy, to me.
I also agree, and thought the poem not bad, particularly the ending. But I sent the link to my sister, who is a proper, radical lefty with whom I had been discussing the whole issue of cultural appropriation, and she was similarly tolerant. She’s an artist, and her point is that acceptable practice is narrowing and narrowing to the point, generally, that it stifles creativity of many kinds (which often involves building on the work or language etc of others), apart from any other objections. I thought that was interesting.
the poem in question seems more like Faulkner, and less like snotty fratboy, to me.
I also agree, and thought the poem not bad, particularly the ending. But I sent the link to my sister, who is a proper, radical lefty with whom I had been discussing the whole issue of cultural appropriation, and she was similarly tolerant. She’s an artist, and her point is that acceptable practice is narrowing and narrowing to the point, generally, that it stifles creativity of many kinds (which often involves building on the work or language etc of others), apart from any other objections. I thought that was interesting.
it stifles creativity of many kinds (which often involves building on the work or language etc of others), apart from any other objections.
I’m not sure how writers can imagine characters who are anything other than autobiographical if they can’t experiment with trying on other personas, including manner of speech. Whether they are able pull it off convincingly is the question. I’m disappointed that the editors and poet felt that apologies needed to be made, although that’s tricky too, and I see why they did it.
it stifles creativity of many kinds (which often involves building on the work or language etc of others), apart from any other objections.
I’m not sure how writers can imagine characters who are anything other than autobiographical if they can’t experiment with trying on other personas, including manner of speech. Whether they are able pull it off convincingly is the question. I’m disappointed that the editors and poet felt that apologies needed to be made, although that’s tricky too, and I see why they did it.
i can see how the poem’s use of AABV could have angered, offended or frustrated some readers, but the poet’s apology talked about the “pain” and “hurt” his poem caused.
who was actually hurt by it?
i can see how the poem’s use of AABV could have angered, offended or frustrated some readers, but the poet’s apology talked about the “pain” and “hurt” his poem caused.
who was actually hurt by it?
I confess that I’ve never really understood the complaints about “cultural appropriation.”
It seems like what they are saying is “We object to the fact that some people outside our group (however defined) have a high enough opinion of our culture to want to emulate it.” Huh? They object to being admired???
It does, however, make an interesting counterpoint to those who object to “cultural imperialism” — the fact that some of our group (again, however defined) have a high enough opinion of another culture to emulate parts of it.
I confess that I’ve never really understood the complaints about “cultural appropriation.”
It seems like what they are saying is “We object to the fact that some people outside our group (however defined) have a high enough opinion of our culture to want to emulate it.” Huh? They object to being admired???
It does, however, make an interesting counterpoint to those who object to “cultural imperialism” — the fact that some of our group (again, however defined) have a high enough opinion of another culture to emulate parts of it.
who was actually hurt by it?
Maybe a racial offense is hurtful. Since I’m white, I don’t know or understand. I just feel like a writer should be able to create literature by imagining characters outside of the writer’s experience, and I don’t see how to do that unless the writer is able to depict a character’s appearance and speech, all of which could be done badly or well.
I remember reading Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden, who wrote the book in the voice of a woman. This is a review by Michiko Kakutani. It seems like the same thing to me, but maybe it’s not.
who was actually hurt by it?
Maybe a racial offense is hurtful. Since I’m white, I don’t know or understand. I just feel like a writer should be able to create literature by imagining characters outside of the writer’s experience, and I don’t see how to do that unless the writer is able to depict a character’s appearance and speech, all of which could be done badly or well.
I remember reading Memoirs of a Geisha by Arthur Golden, who wrote the book in the voice of a woman. This is a review by Michiko Kakutani. It seems like the same thing to me, but maybe it’s not.
They object to being admired?
part of the issue is that it’s not always admiration. sometimes it’s outright mockery (blackface, etc). sometimes it’s based in bigoted stereotypes (). it also runs into issues of authenticity – white musicians playing styles that originated from black players is one thing. but then putting on the clothes and adopting the language, and sprinkling on bits and pieces of black culture in order to sell the music, too? that’s a bit much, IMO.
but sometimes, the complaints seem silly to me, too.
They object to being admired?
part of the issue is that it’s not always admiration. sometimes it’s outright mockery (blackface, etc). sometimes it’s based in bigoted stereotypes (). it also runs into issues of authenticity – white musicians playing styles that originated from black players is one thing. but then putting on the clothes and adopting the language, and sprinkling on bits and pieces of black culture in order to sell the music, too? that’s a bit much, IMO.
but sometimes, the complaints seem silly to me, too.
Yeah, my understanding is that cultural appropriation is either demeaning or a form of theft … or both. I suppose there are other possibilities, but I don’t know what they are.
Yeah, my understanding is that cultural appropriation is either demeaning or a form of theft … or both. I suppose there are other possibilities, but I don’t know what they are.
I suppose there are other possibilities, but I don’t know what they are.
I would opine a lot depends on the history and power relationship as between the appropriator and the appropirated.
Given any minimal level of human empathy, one should be able to understand that if a dominant group has pretty much taken everything from another group then the oppressed group might be a little touchy about what little they have left and demand they have to power to define what is ‘appropriate’ in such instances.
Just sayin’
I suppose there are other possibilities, but I don’t know what they are.
I would opine a lot depends on the history and power relationship as between the appropriator and the appropirated.
Given any minimal level of human empathy, one should be able to understand that if a dominant group has pretty much taken everything from another group then the oppressed group might be a little touchy about what little they have left and demand they have to power to define what is ‘appropriate’ in such instances.
Just sayin’
Sure. I’m not sure how that isn’t covered under the possibilities already mentioned, though.
Sure. I’m not sure how that isn’t covered under the possibilities already mentioned, though.
if a dominant group has pretty much taken everything from another group then the oppressed group might be a little touchy about what little they have left and demand they have to power to define what is ‘appropriate’ in such instances.
I understand this in theory. I guess if I were a writer, trying to depict certain human interactions, requiring me to completely ignore including characters who aren’t in my specific demographic for fear of offending people would make it very difficult to do certain kinds of writing. And ignoring the existence of groups of people seems insulting and diminishing too, so there’s that.
if a dominant group has pretty much taken everything from another group then the oppressed group might be a little touchy about what little they have left and demand they have to power to define what is ‘appropriate’ in such instances.
I understand this in theory. I guess if I were a writer, trying to depict certain human interactions, requiring me to completely ignore including characters who aren’t in my specific demographic for fear of offending people would make it very difficult to do certain kinds of writing. And ignoring the existence of groups of people seems insulting and diminishing too, so there’s that.
That, and an oppressed group might include millions of people. They might not all agree on what’s appropriate and what’s not.
That, and an oppressed group might include millions of people. They might not all agree on what’s appropriate and what’s not.
Re: cultural appropriation.
They can take my TexMex food from my cold-dead hands!
wait, that came out wrong…
Re: cultural appropriation.
They can take my TexMex food from my cold-dead hands!
wait, that came out wrong…
I confess that I’ve never really understood the complaints about “cultural appropriation.”
I don’t understand the whole brouhaha about Scarlett Johansson playing a transgender male. Isn’t that the whole point of acting?
I confess that I’ve never really understood the complaints about “cultural appropriation.”
I don’t understand the whole brouhaha about Scarlett Johansson playing a transgender male. Isn’t that the whole point of acting?
On the other hand, describing TexMex as SPMD** food might well be over the top.
** Starving Peasants and Moral Degenerates. Usually applied to things like vegan-faddist food, but it could be applied to anything the speaker isn’t fond of.
On the other hand, describing TexMex as SPMD** food might well be over the top.
** Starving Peasants and Moral Degenerates. Usually applied to things like vegan-faddist food, but it could be applied to anything the speaker isn’t fond of.
I don’t understand the whole brouhaha about Scarlett Johansson playing a transgender male. Isn’t that the whole point of acting?
Then there are those human ballerinas dancing pretending to be swans….
I don’t understand the whole brouhaha about Scarlett Johansson playing a transgender male. Isn’t that the whole point of acting?
Then there are those human ballerinas dancing pretending to be swans….
I think a red line is where the carriers of the original culture get excluded by the appropriators.
An imo particularly crass example is Hollywood yellowfacing. Because the white actors playing Asian roles looked quite unconvincing*, actual Asians were banned from even minor roles in those films in order to not make it even more blatant.
*e.g. Katherine Hepburn as a native Chinese freedom fighter in Dragon Seed(1944).
I think a red line is where the carriers of the original culture get excluded by the appropriators.
An imo particularly crass example is Hollywood yellowfacing. Because the white actors playing Asian roles looked quite unconvincing*, actual Asians were banned from even minor roles in those films in order to not make it even more blatant.
*e.g. Katherine Hepburn as a native Chinese freedom fighter in Dragon Seed(1944).
I don’t understand the whole brouhaha about Scarlett Johansson playing a transgender male. Isn’t that the whole point of acting?
This whole topic is too big and too fraught; earlier today, coming home from errands and seeing that it had bubbled up, I started to draft a front page post. Then I realized it would take a novel, or a set of encyclopedias, and anyhow I need to be in a calmer mood to even decide whether to touch it.
But on the specific question CharlesWT asks, I will just cite a conversaion I had with a gay friend of mine who lived as a gay man in NYC for a lot of his adult life, some of it during the period when people mostly lived in the closet, while I was poking along just figuring out I was gay as a young adult, then thinking it was no big deal, and mostly continuing to lead a sort of mainstream life in any case. (This would be volumes 1-8 of the encyclopedia, just trying to define some terms and map some territory to discuss.)
We had this conversation about twenty years ago when I had just seen the movie “To Wong Fu Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar” — which, for anyone who might not know it, is about three drag queens whose car breaks down in a little nothing town in the middle of America while they’re on their way from NY to LA. It’s a great movie, hilarious, touching, maybe even for some people eye-opening. The three drag queens are played by Wesley Snipes, Patrick Swayze, John Leguizamo. (Stockard Channing and Blythe Danner are also in it.)
My friend said (which I might have intuited if I hadn’t been so naive): yes, it’s an okay movie, but there are plenty of *real* drag queens who would have loved the parts.
I said: yes, but probably then no one would have seen the movie. Patrick Swayze, are you kidding? Wesley Snipes? I mean come on; what real drag queen has a name like that to draw people to the movie house?
We both just shrugged, without a good answer to the dilemma.
I don’t understand the whole brouhaha about Scarlett Johansson playing a transgender male. Isn’t that the whole point of acting?
This whole topic is too big and too fraught; earlier today, coming home from errands and seeing that it had bubbled up, I started to draft a front page post. Then I realized it would take a novel, or a set of encyclopedias, and anyhow I need to be in a calmer mood to even decide whether to touch it.
But on the specific question CharlesWT asks, I will just cite a conversaion I had with a gay friend of mine who lived as a gay man in NYC for a lot of his adult life, some of it during the period when people mostly lived in the closet, while I was poking along just figuring out I was gay as a young adult, then thinking it was no big deal, and mostly continuing to lead a sort of mainstream life in any case. (This would be volumes 1-8 of the encyclopedia, just trying to define some terms and map some territory to discuss.)
We had this conversation about twenty years ago when I had just seen the movie “To Wong Fu Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar” — which, for anyone who might not know it, is about three drag queens whose car breaks down in a little nothing town in the middle of America while they’re on their way from NY to LA. It’s a great movie, hilarious, touching, maybe even for some people eye-opening. The three drag queens are played by Wesley Snipes, Patrick Swayze, John Leguizamo. (Stockard Channing and Blythe Danner are also in it.)
My friend said (which I might have intuited if I hadn’t been so naive): yes, it’s an okay movie, but there are plenty of *real* drag queens who would have loved the parts.
I said: yes, but probably then no one would have seen the movie. Patrick Swayze, are you kidding? Wesley Snipes? I mean come on; what real drag queen has a name like that to draw people to the movie house?
We both just shrugged, without a good answer to the dilemma.
One of my all-time favorite movie lines, spoken by the Patrick Swayze character to the Stockard Channing character when they’re saying good-bye at the end.
“Imagine good things and moisturize, I cannot stress this enough.” Words to live by.
One of my all-time favorite movie lines, spoken by the Patrick Swayze character to the Stockard Channing character when they’re saying good-bye at the end.
“Imagine good things and moisturize, I cannot stress this enough.” Words to live by.
And there’s Victor Victoria wherein a woman, Julie Andrews, plays a woman playing a man playing a woman.
And there’s Victor Victoria wherein a woman, Julie Andrews, plays a woman playing a man playing a woman.
Victor/Victoria — a seriously underappreciated gem.
Victor/Victoria — a seriously underappreciated gem.
I don’t get the whole “cultural appropriation” business either. Criticizing a high school student because her prom dress ws in a Chinese style is ridiculous.
Russell asks,
what we think of as “American culture” is the product of the blending and assimilation of multiple cultural traditions and heritages over time.
is that appropriation?
To me, it’s not, or if it is, there’s nothing wrong with it. What exactly is wrong about a white musician playing jazz? Or a non-Asian chef mastering the preparation of Chinese food, etc.?
Now, there are offensive things that happen, but it’s not the cultural appropriation that makes them so. Effectively stealing others’ work and ideas – far from uncommon in the music business – is offensive, because theft is offensive. Using dialects or whatnot to mock other groups is offensive, because mockery is offensive, whether done with dialects or otherwise.
I don’t get the whole “cultural appropriation” business either. Criticizing a high school student because her prom dress ws in a Chinese style is ridiculous.
Russell asks,
what we think of as “American culture” is the product of the blending and assimilation of multiple cultural traditions and heritages over time.
is that appropriation?
To me, it’s not, or if it is, there’s nothing wrong with it. What exactly is wrong about a white musician playing jazz? Or a non-Asian chef mastering the preparation of Chinese food, etc.?
Now, there are offensive things that happen, but it’s not the cultural appropriation that makes them so. Effectively stealing others’ work and ideas – far from uncommon in the music business – is offensive, because theft is offensive. Using dialects or whatnot to mock other groups is offensive, because mockery is offensive, whether done with dialects or otherwise.
Here’s an interview with the poet from before this controversy arose.
He’s an interesting guy, and a promising poet. It’s my impression that he didn’t mean any “harm”, but only meant to make a poem out of some of the experiences he’s actually had.
I wonder whether there can be honest dialogue about race or other issues (of identity and otherwise) when people of good will, who are making an honest attempt to communicate or create, and are doing so without bile, are treated as villains.
Here’s an interview with the poet from before this controversy arose.
He’s an interesting guy, and a promising poet. It’s my impression that he didn’t mean any “harm”, but only meant to make a poem out of some of the experiences he’s actually had.
I wonder whether there can be honest dialogue about race or other issues (of identity and otherwise) when people of good will, who are making an honest attempt to communicate or create, and are doing so without bile, are treated as villains.
There are two problems that come with cultural appropriation (but aren’t about cultural appropriation) that make it difficult to have a conversation about it. The first is white knighting, where a person not necessarily from the group loudly protests about something like this, something which has gotten worse in the internet age. In the legal system, this is addressed by the concept of standing, which itself can be used to keep the powerless out of court, but you don’t really have a parallel mechanism in the court of public opinion.
The second is a phenomenon for which I don’t know if there is a name (though it might be ‘passing’), but can be seen from the fact that every minority culture has a term for a member who appears to be part of the group but has adopted the norms of the majority culture (interestingly enough, they are all food items, oreo, apple, banana, coconut). This isn’t just a problem of the person, it is a problem of the system. When films deal with particular ethnic groups, producers/directors will often hire consultants to educate/immunize themselves. Obviously, that is a fuzzy line, but it leads to tokenism, which is a way that the majority culture maintains its grip.
Neither of these are related to cultural appropriation, but can muddy up the waters enough to make it difficult to figure out if cultural appropriation is problematic.
The other problem is when cultural appropriation represents theft, where the people who originally made the culture and are then systematically excluded. There is nothing wrong with a white musician playing jazz, there is something wrong when white musicians get all the gigs and black musicians don’t. In basketball, Jack Halberstam, in his book Breaks of the Game, talks about how black players, acutely aware of how competitive roster spots are, say ‘he’s stealing it’ for when white players are kept in lower bench positions to appease fans. I’m not sure if that has changed. One can imagine a white writer writing a book in dialect that then becomes a best-seller and the community that s/he is writing about gets nothing. Linguists working with Native American communities with endangered languages often get a lot of resistance because it is perceived that they are going into a community, mining it and then leaving the community worse off. Linguists say that they aren’t getting rich, but doing something like that does contribute to their sinecure, so it’s not as clear-cut as some would have you think. There’s nothing wrong with a non-Asian chef mastering the preparation of Chinese food, but when s/he then becomes anointed as the ‘expert’ and gets the benefits that accrue from that, it becomes a little tricky.
Though some might argue that the Scarlett Johansson/transgender role is a question of cultural representation, I don’t think it is, though someone could accuse me of ignoring/minimizing transgender culture. I think it comes about because the transgender community probably feels that this is not the first time and the above points of white-knighting and passing also intersect here. You have Hilary Swank in Boys Don’t Cry and Jeffrey Tambour in Transparent and Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club so the issue has been sensitized.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/09/18/jeffrey-tambor-won-an-emmy-for-playing-a-transgender-woman-but-even-he-thinks-thats-problematic/?utm_term=.24501d027eb2
So it’s not _just_ Scarlett Johannson_.Here’s an interesting blogpost about some protests about Boys Don’t Cry and why they are problematic. They may give an answer to Charles’ question.
https://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/hiding-the-tears-in-my-eyes-boys-dont-cry-a-legacy-by-jack-halberstam/
Halberstam’s blog is worth reading because he identifys the underlying questions and treats them as legitimate, but explains why the protests themselves are problematic.
Here’s another blog post of Halberstam that plugs into the questions of racism and majority culture and might be of interest.
https://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/white-men-behaving-sadly-by-jack-halberstam/
There are two problems that come with cultural appropriation (but aren’t about cultural appropriation) that make it difficult to have a conversation about it. The first is white knighting, where a person not necessarily from the group loudly protests about something like this, something which has gotten worse in the internet age. In the legal system, this is addressed by the concept of standing, which itself can be used to keep the powerless out of court, but you don’t really have a parallel mechanism in the court of public opinion.
The second is a phenomenon for which I don’t know if there is a name (though it might be ‘passing’), but can be seen from the fact that every minority culture has a term for a member who appears to be part of the group but has adopted the norms of the majority culture (interestingly enough, they are all food items, oreo, apple, banana, coconut). This isn’t just a problem of the person, it is a problem of the system. When films deal with particular ethnic groups, producers/directors will often hire consultants to educate/immunize themselves. Obviously, that is a fuzzy line, but it leads to tokenism, which is a way that the majority culture maintains its grip.
Neither of these are related to cultural appropriation, but can muddy up the waters enough to make it difficult to figure out if cultural appropriation is problematic.
The other problem is when cultural appropriation represents theft, where the people who originally made the culture and are then systematically excluded. There is nothing wrong with a white musician playing jazz, there is something wrong when white musicians get all the gigs and black musicians don’t. In basketball, Jack Halberstam, in his book Breaks of the Game, talks about how black players, acutely aware of how competitive roster spots are, say ‘he’s stealing it’ for when white players are kept in lower bench positions to appease fans. I’m not sure if that has changed. One can imagine a white writer writing a book in dialect that then becomes a best-seller and the community that s/he is writing about gets nothing. Linguists working with Native American communities with endangered languages often get a lot of resistance because it is perceived that they are going into a community, mining it and then leaving the community worse off. Linguists say that they aren’t getting rich, but doing something like that does contribute to their sinecure, so it’s not as clear-cut as some would have you think. There’s nothing wrong with a non-Asian chef mastering the preparation of Chinese food, but when s/he then becomes anointed as the ‘expert’ and gets the benefits that accrue from that, it becomes a little tricky.
Though some might argue that the Scarlett Johansson/transgender role is a question of cultural representation, I don’t think it is, though someone could accuse me of ignoring/minimizing transgender culture. I think it comes about because the transgender community probably feels that this is not the first time and the above points of white-knighting and passing also intersect here. You have Hilary Swank in Boys Don’t Cry and Jeffrey Tambour in Transparent and Jared Leto in Dallas Buyers Club so the issue has been sensitized.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2016/09/18/jeffrey-tambor-won-an-emmy-for-playing-a-transgender-woman-but-even-he-thinks-thats-problematic/?utm_term=.24501d027eb2
So it’s not _just_ Scarlett Johannson_.Here’s an interesting blogpost about some protests about Boys Don’t Cry and why they are problematic. They may give an answer to Charles’ question.
https://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2016/12/07/hiding-the-tears-in-my-eyes-boys-dont-cry-a-legacy-by-jack-halberstam/
Halberstam’s blog is worth reading because he identifys the underlying questions and treats them as legitimate, but explains why the protests themselves are problematic.
Here’s another blog post of Halberstam that plugs into the questions of racism and majority culture and might be of interest.
https://bullybloggers.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/white-men-behaving-sadly-by-jack-halberstam/
lj, thanks for the links, especially the Boys Don’t Cry one by Halberstam.
lj, thanks for the links, especially the Boys Don’t Cry one by Halberstam.
I wonder if there isn’t a regular trajectory here in the arts, specifically the performing arts.
First, members of a minority group “pass” (to the extent that they can) in order to get work. Then, the first roles for members of that group appear . . . and are taken by established performers from outside the group. Later, members of the group get roles portraying members of the group. Finally, roles go to ability, regardless of membership.
That may not be ideal. But it does appear to be what IS. Whatever your minority, you shouldn’t be particularly surprised if it happens to you, too. Not thrilled, but not surprised.
Also you will probably give yourself less heartburn if you realize that your group isn’t getting especially picked on — other minority groups got the same treatment. Doesn’t make it right, of course, just unexceptional.
I wonder if there isn’t a regular trajectory here in the arts, specifically the performing arts.
First, members of a minority group “pass” (to the extent that they can) in order to get work. Then, the first roles for members of that group appear . . . and are taken by established performers from outside the group. Later, members of the group get roles portraying members of the group. Finally, roles go to ability, regardless of membership.
That may not be ideal. But it does appear to be what IS. Whatever your minority, you shouldn’t be particularly surprised if it happens to you, too. Not thrilled, but not surprised.
Also you will probably give yourself less heartburn if you realize that your group isn’t getting especially picked on — other minority groups got the same treatment. Doesn’t make it right, of course, just unexceptional.
One can imagine a white writer writing a book in dialect that then becomes a best-seller and the community that s/he is writing about gets nothing.
Thanks, lj, for your thoughtful comment. I highlighted this sentence because, in my experience, most writers don’t write in order for their work to become a best-seller (although writers who have been successful ride on that, which is okay with me). Obviously, writers love it when their work is read, and they like it better when it sells. But their “community” gets what?
What does that even mean? What did the “community” get from the writing of Shane McCrae? What did the “community” get from the writing of Joan Kane? Pride, of course. Maybe Anders Carlson-Wee’s community of people who eat from grocery store dumpsters are getting something from his work?
I have to say, I feel that this fine-tuning of “cultural appropriation” is the Richard Spencerism of the left.
As to “standing”, when we’re talking about art, we all have standing.
One can imagine a white writer writing a book in dialect that then becomes a best-seller and the community that s/he is writing about gets nothing.
Thanks, lj, for your thoughtful comment. I highlighted this sentence because, in my experience, most writers don’t write in order for their work to become a best-seller (although writers who have been successful ride on that, which is okay with me). Obviously, writers love it when their work is read, and they like it better when it sells. But their “community” gets what?
What does that even mean? What did the “community” get from the writing of Shane McCrae? What did the “community” get from the writing of Joan Kane? Pride, of course. Maybe Anders Carlson-Wee’s community of people who eat from grocery store dumpsters are getting something from his work?
I have to say, I feel that this fine-tuning of “cultural appropriation” is the Richard Spencerism of the left.
As to “standing”, when we’re talking about art, we all have standing.
Also you will probably give yourself less heartburn…Doesn’t make it right, of course, just unexceptional.
That’s true, but you can take that observation and then use it to ignore or delegitimise complaints. So insofar as this is advice to individuals, I can see its value, but when it is advice to groups, it becomes problematic.
A separate thought, I think this interview with Garrett Hongo is quite interesting
http://www.lanternreview.com/blog/2012/04/10/a-conversation-with-garrett-hongo/
I paste part of the interview, but go to the page as there are links to many of the authors and ideas.
GH: Do “discourses of authenticity” automatically imply “greater questions of cultural identity?” I don’t think so, actually. I think they tend to shut down the greater questions of cultural identity. In fact, that’s what “discourses of authenticity” are indeed structurally designed to do. Think about the Black Arts Movement, for example. For all its contribution to black pride and the renaissance of African American culture, one of its goals was to shut down, put down, and quash the diversities of cultural identity within African American literary production, identifying, branding, if you will, writers like Ralph Ellison and my own teacher Robert Hayden as “Uncle Toms” and “Negroes” who were too accommodating to white cultural dominance and too learned regarding Western canonical literature. Had Gwendolyn Brooks not embraced the doctrines of the Black Arts Movement, she too would have been denounced and ridiculed for her being so practiced in traditional English poetic forms and diction. I knew Robert Hayden and was shocked when he explained how he was considered persona non grata by black students at the University of Michigan because his poetry had been so branded. It was a disgraceful way to treat the author of “Those Winter Sundays,” “The Middle Passage,” and “El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X).” History creates these self-identified movements of “authenticity” as much to stifle as to empower. “When the power shift to their side,/I wasn’t black enough for their pride…” writes Caribbean Derek Walcott in his great poem “The Schooner Flight.” When I read that, I knew and felt deeply what he meant. “I’m just a red nigger who love the sea,/And either I’m nobody, or I’m a nation.” Partly because of his hybridity, his mixed-blood and culture, Walcott’s Shabine, the sailor who loves the sea, is outcast within the contemporary nationalist movements of the Caribbean, made an exile from his own homeland. I know that feeling, being an outlier myself.
My basic take is that there are very serious contestations going on regarding indigeneity, hybridity, diaspora, and naturalization to the landscape of Hawai`i. Most writers and scholar/critics have sought legitimation and created discourse at the level of “authenticities” with regard to representation, canceling and vying and seeking ethical, political, and moral certainties. This discourse that was created and now dominates acts as a kind of policing mechanism, therefore, suppressing other diversities of discourse, disciplining existing discourse into the categories set by these policing discourses—e.g., legitimacy, local, Native Hawaiian, outsider, etc.
Under this mechanism, I would qualify as an outsider—the “Mainland,” California, West Coast, or “kotonk” author many of the self-proclaimed “local” writers would label me as. Under the discursive mechanism of indigeneity as value argued for by writers like part-Native Hawaiian Haunani Trask and Japanese American scholar-critic Candace Fujikane at UH-Manoa, I would qualify as a “settler” writer akin to South African descended from colonizing Boers—the Dutch.
However, both these discourses fail to account for history—immigration, migration, and diaspora. My ancestors did not come to colonize Hawai`i as the Dutch did South Africa, nor did they STAY to colonize Hawai`i as Trask and Fujikane say the emergent Japanese American bourgeoisie did. In fact, my family was dispersed in a subsequent diaspora FROM Hawai`i, as the days of King Sugar ended and its laborers had to emigrate once again in order to survive. My family re-settled in Los Angeles, where I grew up from the age of six.
But my early childhood in Hawai`i is no less legitimate than any local writer’s childhood. It’s just that I see it through a different lens—not one of naturalizing myself and my ethnicity to the landscape of Hawai`i, but through the lens of a kind of literary Romanticism, in fact, and also a theoretical awareness of hybridities, diasporic nostalgia and loyalty, and a consciousness that is as much cosmopolitan as regional.
What’s not discussed is that there is a diaspora of displaced peoples FROM Hawai`i—Native Hawaiian, Japanese American, Korean American, Portuguese, Puerto Rican, Chinese, hapa-haole, and haole. We cannot be explained, as the policing discourse would explain us, by the label “outsider” quite, as we have histories and attachments to the place completely unlike mainstream tourists or bourgeoisie professionals who come to buy real estate and settle in Hawai`i. Our connection cannot be denied, nor do I wish to displace the claim of any other of the “legitimate,” local, or Native Hawaiian voices that claim they are the essential voices of Hawai`i who should be heard. Not at all.
Yet, I understand how I am perceived as a threat. It’s a shame, but, in a material sense, it is about competition for various forms of recognition—within the local scene, state funding, mainstream publishing. I’ve been lucky that way—in terms of publishing, that is—but it’s not my fault. I had no trouble from the Bamboo Ridge group until I published with Knopf. The fear and anger, I think, come from an anxiety that a single voice will be chosen by the system, already seen as oppressive and discriminatory, the episteme, if you will, as “representative” without election from the region that voice might be (mis)taken to represent. In that sense, the issue has to do with systemic over-simplification and the over-simplified, angry reaction engendered in those who perceive themselves as silenced by that initial over-simplifcation that has selected an “exemplary and representative voice” without input and participation from those silenced and marginalized by this episteme.
When Frank Chin came out with his angry response to the widespread acceptance of Maxine Hong Kingston‘s work, his accusation was she was “fake” Chinese and promulgated stereotypes and a narrative of assimilation into the mainstream, white world. To me, what was more interesting than the accusation was the creation of distinctive, exclusionary, and fundamentalist categories of “the real” and “the fake.” I’ve already written about this in my Intro to Under Western Eyes, my anthology of Asian American non-fiction. I also wrote against nationalist unisonance as a reactionary myth in the Intro to The Open Boat, an anthology of Asian American poetry, in which I tried to argue against a qualifying politics and for diversity—political, aesthetic, cultural, and even ethnic—within the category of AA poetry.
Moreover, there are also at least three other ways to respond to assumptions about authenticity vs. usurpation of that space by “the fake”:
1. My ghosts are in Hawai`i—my father and paternal grandfather in Volcano, my maternal grandfather and grandmother on O`ahu. While my grandmother was still alive—she only passed away two years ago this April (a month shy of her 102nd birthday), I went back every year to visit her on O`ahu. Indeed, she was my fondest connection to the past, especially to Kahuku and Hau`ula.
2. There is a trajectory of blame and scapegoating, a pharmakos, if you will, in the practice of condemning various writers who write of Hawai`i as “illegitimate” and “outsider,” as though these acts, cathartic though they may be, could cleanse the collective guilt we all feel for the injustice and criminality of the land being colonized by non-Hawaiians. These condemnations and vilifications are almost ritual, marking intruders and interlopers, branding them, excluding them on the order of Oedipus being cast out of Thebes as a poisonous presence. The arc of the activity and its passionate performances are psychologically and sociologically beneficial to the performers, identifying them as a “tribe” of authority, indeed in a mimetic fiction of tribal origin in ritualized difference, and casting out non-tribal identities and entities in acts of self-valorization.
3. Nationalisms identify a narrative that there is both a history and an imaginary contemporaneity that are held in common by a group, that those not holding to this narration or bearing its marks are outside the nation. Whether one shares the history is nearly meaningless as one must also dwell in the imaginary contemporaneity as well—in other words, be in sympathy and communication with those who identify themselves as that nation. Deviations, particularly those that advance any competing or more complex narrations, are suspect, threatening, and potentially invalidating of the narrative of the nation. I think this is one difference between the positions/perceptions of Wole Soyinka and Ngugi wa Thiong’o.
This might address some of the points that sapient raises. I personally think that if we want to talk about this, we have to talk about the individual cases rather than use individual cases to try and instantiate some overall norm. So all of the examples that are listed have to be taken, one by one, and discussed, so all the examples you list, I’d have to know a lot more about them to discuss them intelligently.
But it’s not a question of why the writers write, which then makes it a question of individual responsibility, it is a question that in the context of society, writer X can make a decent living writing about someone else’s community while a person from that community can’t, so it isn’t a question of outcomes, it is a question of opportunities. So, as I said to wj, what is good advice for an individual can be a dismissal of the issue for a group.
For linguists and endangered language communities, there is a clear community there. To extend that to a ‘community of people who eat from grocery store dumpsters’ is taking issue with the definition of community, so it doesn’t really clarify anything.
It is also driven by the idea of ownership, (which the word ‘appropriation’ kind of gives away) which also gets into some serious definitional muddles. We can see this by the Olivia De Havilland suit, which was recently rejected
https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/olivia-de-havilland-feud-lawsuit-tossed-1202736605/
De Havilland lost, but I’m sure that this isn’t going away and there will be other suits. I think there was some merit to her position, and if we can’t control how we are represented when we live, I wonder how much else we won’t be able to control.
Also you will probably give yourself less heartburn…Doesn’t make it right, of course, just unexceptional.
That’s true, but you can take that observation and then use it to ignore or delegitimise complaints. So insofar as this is advice to individuals, I can see its value, but when it is advice to groups, it becomes problematic.
A separate thought, I think this interview with Garrett Hongo is quite interesting
http://www.lanternreview.com/blog/2012/04/10/a-conversation-with-garrett-hongo/
I paste part of the interview, but go to the page as there are links to many of the authors and ideas.
GH: Do “discourses of authenticity” automatically imply “greater questions of cultural identity?” I don’t think so, actually. I think they tend to shut down the greater questions of cultural identity. In fact, that’s what “discourses of authenticity” are indeed structurally designed to do. Think about the Black Arts Movement, for example. For all its contribution to black pride and the renaissance of African American culture, one of its goals was to shut down, put down, and quash the diversities of cultural identity within African American literary production, identifying, branding, if you will, writers like Ralph Ellison and my own teacher Robert Hayden as “Uncle Toms” and “Negroes” who were too accommodating to white cultural dominance and too learned regarding Western canonical literature. Had Gwendolyn Brooks not embraced the doctrines of the Black Arts Movement, she too would have been denounced and ridiculed for her being so practiced in traditional English poetic forms and diction. I knew Robert Hayden and was shocked when he explained how he was considered persona non grata by black students at the University of Michigan because his poetry had been so branded. It was a disgraceful way to treat the author of “Those Winter Sundays,” “The Middle Passage,” and “El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X).” History creates these self-identified movements of “authenticity” as much to stifle as to empower. “When the power shift to their side,/I wasn’t black enough for their pride…” writes Caribbean Derek Walcott in his great poem “The Schooner Flight.” When I read that, I knew and felt deeply what he meant. “I’m just a red nigger who love the sea,/And either I’m nobody, or I’m a nation.” Partly because of his hybridity, his mixed-blood and culture, Walcott’s Shabine, the sailor who loves the sea, is outcast within the contemporary nationalist movements of the Caribbean, made an exile from his own homeland. I know that feeling, being an outlier myself.
My basic take is that there are very serious contestations going on regarding indigeneity, hybridity, diaspora, and naturalization to the landscape of Hawai`i. Most writers and scholar/critics have sought legitimation and created discourse at the level of “authenticities” with regard to representation, canceling and vying and seeking ethical, political, and moral certainties. This discourse that was created and now dominates acts as a kind of policing mechanism, therefore, suppressing other diversities of discourse, disciplining existing discourse into the categories set by these policing discourses—e.g., legitimacy, local, Native Hawaiian, outsider, etc.
Under this mechanism, I would qualify as an outsider—the “Mainland,” California, West Coast, or “kotonk” author many of the self-proclaimed “local” writers would label me as. Under the discursive mechanism of indigeneity as value argued for by writers like part-Native Hawaiian Haunani Trask and Japanese American scholar-critic Candace Fujikane at UH-Manoa, I would qualify as a “settler” writer akin to South African descended from colonizing Boers—the Dutch.
However, both these discourses fail to account for history—immigration, migration, and diaspora. My ancestors did not come to colonize Hawai`i as the Dutch did South Africa, nor did they STAY to colonize Hawai`i as Trask and Fujikane say the emergent Japanese American bourgeoisie did. In fact, my family was dispersed in a subsequent diaspora FROM Hawai`i, as the days of King Sugar ended and its laborers had to emigrate once again in order to survive. My family re-settled in Los Angeles, where I grew up from the age of six.
But my early childhood in Hawai`i is no less legitimate than any local writer’s childhood. It’s just that I see it through a different lens—not one of naturalizing myself and my ethnicity to the landscape of Hawai`i, but through the lens of a kind of literary Romanticism, in fact, and also a theoretical awareness of hybridities, diasporic nostalgia and loyalty, and a consciousness that is as much cosmopolitan as regional.
What’s not discussed is that there is a diaspora of displaced peoples FROM Hawai`i—Native Hawaiian, Japanese American, Korean American, Portuguese, Puerto Rican, Chinese, hapa-haole, and haole. We cannot be explained, as the policing discourse would explain us, by the label “outsider” quite, as we have histories and attachments to the place completely unlike mainstream tourists or bourgeoisie professionals who come to buy real estate and settle in Hawai`i. Our connection cannot be denied, nor do I wish to displace the claim of any other of the “legitimate,” local, or Native Hawaiian voices that claim they are the essential voices of Hawai`i who should be heard. Not at all.
Yet, I understand how I am perceived as a threat. It’s a shame, but, in a material sense, it is about competition for various forms of recognition—within the local scene, state funding, mainstream publishing. I’ve been lucky that way—in terms of publishing, that is—but it’s not my fault. I had no trouble from the Bamboo Ridge group until I published with Knopf. The fear and anger, I think, come from an anxiety that a single voice will be chosen by the system, already seen as oppressive and discriminatory, the episteme, if you will, as “representative” without election from the region that voice might be (mis)taken to represent. In that sense, the issue has to do with systemic over-simplification and the over-simplified, angry reaction engendered in those who perceive themselves as silenced by that initial over-simplifcation that has selected an “exemplary and representative voice” without input and participation from those silenced and marginalized by this episteme.
When Frank Chin came out with his angry response to the widespread acceptance of Maxine Hong Kingston‘s work, his accusation was she was “fake” Chinese and promulgated stereotypes and a narrative of assimilation into the mainstream, white world. To me, what was more interesting than the accusation was the creation of distinctive, exclusionary, and fundamentalist categories of “the real” and “the fake.” I’ve already written about this in my Intro to Under Western Eyes, my anthology of Asian American non-fiction. I also wrote against nationalist unisonance as a reactionary myth in the Intro to The Open Boat, an anthology of Asian American poetry, in which I tried to argue against a qualifying politics and for diversity—political, aesthetic, cultural, and even ethnic—within the category of AA poetry.
Moreover, there are also at least three other ways to respond to assumptions about authenticity vs. usurpation of that space by “the fake”:
1. My ghosts are in Hawai`i—my father and paternal grandfather in Volcano, my maternal grandfather and grandmother on O`ahu. While my grandmother was still alive—she only passed away two years ago this April (a month shy of her 102nd birthday), I went back every year to visit her on O`ahu. Indeed, she was my fondest connection to the past, especially to Kahuku and Hau`ula.
2. There is a trajectory of blame and scapegoating, a pharmakos, if you will, in the practice of condemning various writers who write of Hawai`i as “illegitimate” and “outsider,” as though these acts, cathartic though they may be, could cleanse the collective guilt we all feel for the injustice and criminality of the land being colonized by non-Hawaiians. These condemnations and vilifications are almost ritual, marking intruders and interlopers, branding them, excluding them on the order of Oedipus being cast out of Thebes as a poisonous presence. The arc of the activity and its passionate performances are psychologically and sociologically beneficial to the performers, identifying them as a “tribe” of authority, indeed in a mimetic fiction of tribal origin in ritualized difference, and casting out non-tribal identities and entities in acts of self-valorization.
3. Nationalisms identify a narrative that there is both a history and an imaginary contemporaneity that are held in common by a group, that those not holding to this narration or bearing its marks are outside the nation. Whether one shares the history is nearly meaningless as one must also dwell in the imaginary contemporaneity as well—in other words, be in sympathy and communication with those who identify themselves as that nation. Deviations, particularly those that advance any competing or more complex narrations, are suspect, threatening, and potentially invalidating of the narrative of the nation. I think this is one difference between the positions/perceptions of Wole Soyinka and Ngugi wa Thiong’o.
This might address some of the points that sapient raises. I personally think that if we want to talk about this, we have to talk about the individual cases rather than use individual cases to try and instantiate some overall norm. So all of the examples that are listed have to be taken, one by one, and discussed, so all the examples you list, I’d have to know a lot more about them to discuss them intelligently.
But it’s not a question of why the writers write, which then makes it a question of individual responsibility, it is a question that in the context of society, writer X can make a decent living writing about someone else’s community while a person from that community can’t, so it isn’t a question of outcomes, it is a question of opportunities. So, as I said to wj, what is good advice for an individual can be a dismissal of the issue for a group.
For linguists and endangered language communities, there is a clear community there. To extend that to a ‘community of people who eat from grocery store dumpsters’ is taking issue with the definition of community, so it doesn’t really clarify anything.
It is also driven by the idea of ownership, (which the word ‘appropriation’ kind of gives away) which also gets into some serious definitional muddles. We can see this by the Olivia De Havilland suit, which was recently rejected
https://variety.com/2018/biz/news/olivia-de-havilland-feud-lawsuit-tossed-1202736605/
De Havilland lost, but I’m sure that this isn’t going away and there will be other suits. I think there was some merit to her position, and if we can’t control how we are represented when we live, I wonder how much else we won’t be able to control.
This might address some of the points that sapient raises. I personally think that if we want to talk about this, we have to talk about the individual cases rather than use individual cases to try and instantiate some overall norm. So all of the examples that are listed have to be taken, one by one, and discussed, so all the examples you list, I’d have to know a lot more about them to discuss them intelligently.
I love Garrett Hongo, fwiw.
I agree that it’s a complicated issue requiring people to talk about individual cases.
But in the popular vernacular, it all gets thrown into “cultural appropriaton”. I’m thinking it might be wise to reject that term. What Anders Carlson-Wee was doing [IMO] was not “cultural appropriation”. It also wasn’t “blackface.” It was an attempt to represent someone he had met in his travels.
I’s fine to question the effectiveness of that representation. Whether he had the “right” to “try” to represent other people? I think he did have that right, and shouldn’t be shamed.
This might address some of the points that sapient raises. I personally think that if we want to talk about this, we have to talk about the individual cases rather than use individual cases to try and instantiate some overall norm. So all of the examples that are listed have to be taken, one by one, and discussed, so all the examples you list, I’d have to know a lot more about them to discuss them intelligently.
I love Garrett Hongo, fwiw.
I agree that it’s a complicated issue requiring people to talk about individual cases.
But in the popular vernacular, it all gets thrown into “cultural appropriaton”. I’m thinking it might be wise to reject that term. What Anders Carlson-Wee was doing [IMO] was not “cultural appropriation”. It also wasn’t “blackface.” It was an attempt to represent someone he had met in his travels.
I’s fine to question the effectiveness of that representation. Whether he had the “right” to “try” to represent other people? I think he did have that right, and shouldn’t be shamed.
Let’s discuss another aspect of the poem issue.
One of the editors of The Nation is Stephanie Burt. Stephanie Burt is a wonderful poet, and also a great poetry critic. She has an eye for new poets that is really sensitive and acute.
Stephanie Burt was, a year or two ago, Steph Burt. A year or two further back, Stephen Burt. She shared, very generously, modestly, but publicly, her transition. People, like me, who followed her learned a lot, and care a lot more about people who undertake this journey. I am unequivocal in supporting her.
But TERF? Isn’t that the same dynamic?
Let’s discuss another aspect of the poem issue.
One of the editors of The Nation is Stephanie Burt. Stephanie Burt is a wonderful poet, and also a great poetry critic. She has an eye for new poets that is really sensitive and acute.
Stephanie Burt was, a year or two ago, Steph Burt. A year or two further back, Stephen Burt. She shared, very generously, modestly, but publicly, her transition. People, like me, who followed her learned a lot, and care a lot more about people who undertake this journey. I am unequivocal in supporting her.
But TERF? Isn’t that the same dynamic?
Sorry, wasn’t clear.
Isn’t the feminist anti-trans women dynamic the same as “cultural appropriation”, meaning men transitioning to women can’t appropriate women’s experience?
So Stephanie Burt is caught in this conundrum. She’s an amazingly good person, so I’m not dumping on her. But it makes the whole issue of that poem so much more confusing.
Sorry, wasn’t clear.
Isn’t the feminist anti-trans women dynamic the same as “cultural appropriation”, meaning men transitioning to women can’t appropriate women’s experience?
So Stephanie Burt is caught in this conundrum. She’s an amazingly good person, so I’m not dumping on her. But it makes the whole issue of that poem so much more confusing.
I recently watched most of the episodes of Finding Your Roots.
When their DNA was analyzed, a number of the celebrates got some surprises. Carly Simon finds out that she’s 10% Sub-Saharan African. Gloria Reuben finds out that she’s a Jewish girl with a very good tan. And quite a few of them find out, contrary to family lore, that they have zero native American ancestries.
The series also gives quite a few insights into American and world history. Recommended.
I recently watched most of the episodes of Finding Your Roots.
When their DNA was analyzed, a number of the celebrates got some surprises. Carly Simon finds out that she’s 10% Sub-Saharan African. Gloria Reuben finds out that she’s a Jewish girl with a very good tan. And quite a few of them find out, contrary to family lore, that they have zero native American ancestries.
The series also gives quite a few insights into American and world history. Recommended.
I didn’t mention anything about Anders Carlson-Wee, and I’d have to read his other works and see a lot more than tweets to be able to speak about the poem and the controversy. To be honest, I didn’t click on your earlier link because it was unreferenced and took place early enough that I’d already posted a comment before I noticed it, so if I gave you the impression I was speaking to that, I’m sorry, I wasn’t.
As far as speaking about Stephanie Burt, I’m not supporting or attacking her, but I think ‘oh, she’s transgender’ isn’t really a very logical way to discuss why one would support (or not) the publication of Anders Carlson-Wee’s poem. The Times article mentions that one of the problems is that what the Nation has addressed the issue is different than previous, which then requires understanding how the Nation has responded previously, which requires even more time and effort.
I also think that poetry, because of its brevity, requires a lot more thinking thru. If Carlson-Wee were a novelist, we’d have a lot more data about how he portrays the character, but with a poem, there’s a lot of filling in that is being done and one has to be careful.
Also going back over this, I see you posted about Memoirs of a Geisha. Unfortunately, that could be an even bigger problem to discuss, because of the issues with the film and the problems Chinese had with it. Unravelling all the threads is difficult if not impossible.
I didn’t mention anything about Anders Carlson-Wee, and I’d have to read his other works and see a lot more than tweets to be able to speak about the poem and the controversy. To be honest, I didn’t click on your earlier link because it was unreferenced and took place early enough that I’d already posted a comment before I noticed it, so if I gave you the impression I was speaking to that, I’m sorry, I wasn’t.
As far as speaking about Stephanie Burt, I’m not supporting or attacking her, but I think ‘oh, she’s transgender’ isn’t really a very logical way to discuss why one would support (or not) the publication of Anders Carlson-Wee’s poem. The Times article mentions that one of the problems is that what the Nation has addressed the issue is different than previous, which then requires understanding how the Nation has responded previously, which requires even more time and effort.
I also think that poetry, because of its brevity, requires a lot more thinking thru. If Carlson-Wee were a novelist, we’d have a lot more data about how he portrays the character, but with a poem, there’s a lot of filling in that is being done and one has to be careful.
Also going back over this, I see you posted about Memoirs of a Geisha. Unfortunately, that could be an even bigger problem to discuss, because of the issues with the film and the problems Chinese had with it. Unravelling all the threads is difficult if not impossible.
The series also gives quite a few insights into American and world history. Recommended.
Yeah DNA is creepy.
Also, CharlesWT, as much as I hate libertarianism, I really appreciate your standing up for people at the border. Thank you.
The series also gives quite a few insights into American and world history. Recommended.
Yeah DNA is creepy.
Also, CharlesWT, as much as I hate libertarianism, I really appreciate your standing up for people at the border. Thank you.
One of the challenges with “cultural authenticity” and “cultural appropriation” is that it frequently seems to not be about culture at all. That is, it has a big problem with individuals who belong to one group, but were adopted (say, for simplicity, as infants) by members of another. For all that they grew up in the culture, their genetics are otherwise.
And this doesn’t apply just with race and ethnicity. Consider the straight individual adopted by a gay couple. Is his voice “inauthentic” regarding gay culture? Even though he was raised in it. At what point in your life does your ability to natively (is that a word?) absorb culture cut off? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 21 years?
Similarly with other pieces of culture. Do your genetics determine what kinds of cooking you are allowed to be an expert in? Is your jazz less because you are not black? (Ignoring the question, which Charles alludes to, of just how much of your genome has to be from subSaharan Africa for you to qualify. Do we adopt the racists’ beloved “one drop” standard?)
One of the challenges with “cultural authenticity” and “cultural appropriation” is that it frequently seems to not be about culture at all. That is, it has a big problem with individuals who belong to one group, but were adopted (say, for simplicity, as infants) by members of another. For all that they grew up in the culture, their genetics are otherwise.
And this doesn’t apply just with race and ethnicity. Consider the straight individual adopted by a gay couple. Is his voice “inauthentic” regarding gay culture? Even though he was raised in it. At what point in your life does your ability to natively (is that a word?) absorb culture cut off? 1 year? 5 years? 10 years? 21 years?
Similarly with other pieces of culture. Do your genetics determine what kinds of cooking you are allowed to be an expert in? Is your jazz less because you are not black? (Ignoring the question, which Charles alludes to, of just how much of your genome has to be from subSaharan Africa for you to qualify. Do we adopt the racists’ beloved “one drop” standard?)
lj, lots of stuff you raised, which is all worthwhile.
Unfortunately, that could be an even bigger problem to discuss, because of the issues with the film and the problems Chinese had with it.
Don’t know about any of this, and would love to learn.
lj, lots of stuff you raised, which is all worthwhile.
Unfortunately, that could be an even bigger problem to discuss, because of the issues with the film and the problems Chinese had with it.
Don’t know about any of this, and would love to learn.
…, as much as I hate libertarianism, …
I’ve never quite understood that. There’s quite a bit of overlap between libertarianism and left and right. And where the overlap is missing, it’s usually because libertarians want more freedom than the left or right approve of.
Some libertarians see easy immigration as unsustainable in a welfare state. The rest of us wonder, what with the declining birthrate, who, if not young immigrants, is going to pay for Social Security and Medicare.
…, as much as I hate libertarianism, …
I’ve never quite understood that. There’s quite a bit of overlap between libertarianism and left and right. And where the overlap is missing, it’s usually because libertarians want more freedom than the left or right approve of.
Some libertarians see easy immigration as unsustainable in a welfare state. The rest of us wonder, what with the declining birthrate, who, if not young immigrants, is going to pay for Social Security and Medicare.
I’ve never quite understood that.
It has to do with the fact that the welfare state (a bad phrase these days) is the most efficient way to care for those who really can’t help themselves. It’s the social safety net. It’s essential. Also, we all need it, if hardship, or surprises, or people who have screwed us over, have left us in a state where we need help. The government is the best way to count on a safety net.
I really don’t like libertarians because they deny that reality. The good-hearted people, like you, CharlesWT, need to get out more. Do Meals on Wheels or something. Meet people who did the right thing, but things went south anyway.
I’ve never quite understood that.
It has to do with the fact that the welfare state (a bad phrase these days) is the most efficient way to care for those who really can’t help themselves. It’s the social safety net. It’s essential. Also, we all need it, if hardship, or surprises, or people who have screwed us over, have left us in a state where we need help. The government is the best way to count on a safety net.
I really don’t like libertarians because they deny that reality. The good-hearted people, like you, CharlesWT, need to get out more. Do Meals on Wheels or something. Meet people who did the right thing, but things went south anyway.
Sorry, we cross posted.
Isn’t the feminist anti-trans women dynamic the same as “cultural appropriation”, meaning men transitioning to women can’t appropriate women’s experience?
That’s one dynamic, but there are lots of them. There’s a syntax problem here, in that
[the feminist [anti-trans women dynamic]]
or
the [[feminist anti-trans] women dynamic]]
The first one implies that there is one feminist viewpoint, while the second one doesn’t really parse for me, but I assume means ‘there is a thread in some feminist thinking that MtF transgender is an exploitation of power’. There is, but I don’t think that is intrinsic to feminism, and a discussion of that would require who said it and what they said. If you wanted to look at it as ‘cultural appropriation’, you’d have to say that the men who are transitioning to women are somehow ‘appropriating’ women’s culture. That seems to be off, because even though we can talk about ‘male culture’ versus ‘female culture’, the categories are so large as to make the question of definition very problematic. It may be the same ‘dynamic’, but given that questions of society and societal norms and taboos interweave, it’s not really worthwhile to use that dynamic as a way of sorting it out.
About Memoirs, all the Japanese I knew who saw the movie were amused/incensed/flabergasted that a movie that is supposed to be set in Japan can be so much fantasy. Additionally, the kansai dialect word for geisha used a chinese character that represents prostitute, which, coming at a time when the question of comfort women (ianfu) was raging, also added to it and the film was banned in China. There was also an issue where the leading actors were Chinese portraying Japanese, but Ebert noted that the 3 Chinese playing Japanese actually are bigger in the Japanese box office than any Japanese and the fact that a western film would have 3 Chinese as the leads is also interesting, especially as China becomes a market for cinema that rivals the West. Finally, the subject and the movie especially represent that trope embedded in Western culture of the exotic and sexualized Asian woman (cf Madam Butterfly) which in itself is pretty problematic.
From my standpoint, it is interesting because geisha culture is pretty much gone, but is often considered emblematic of a kind of Japanese high culture, so it represents a lot of things that Japanese think about themselves despite being absent.
Sorry, we cross posted.
Isn’t the feminist anti-trans women dynamic the same as “cultural appropriation”, meaning men transitioning to women can’t appropriate women’s experience?
That’s one dynamic, but there are lots of them. There’s a syntax problem here, in that
[the feminist [anti-trans women dynamic]]
or
the [[feminist anti-trans] women dynamic]]
The first one implies that there is one feminist viewpoint, while the second one doesn’t really parse for me, but I assume means ‘there is a thread in some feminist thinking that MtF transgender is an exploitation of power’. There is, but I don’t think that is intrinsic to feminism, and a discussion of that would require who said it and what they said. If you wanted to look at it as ‘cultural appropriation’, you’d have to say that the men who are transitioning to women are somehow ‘appropriating’ women’s culture. That seems to be off, because even though we can talk about ‘male culture’ versus ‘female culture’, the categories are so large as to make the question of definition very problematic. It may be the same ‘dynamic’, but given that questions of society and societal norms and taboos interweave, it’s not really worthwhile to use that dynamic as a way of sorting it out.
About Memoirs, all the Japanese I knew who saw the movie were amused/incensed/flabergasted that a movie that is supposed to be set in Japan can be so much fantasy. Additionally, the kansai dialect word for geisha used a chinese character that represents prostitute, which, coming at a time when the question of comfort women (ianfu) was raging, also added to it and the film was banned in China. There was also an issue where the leading actors were Chinese portraying Japanese, but Ebert noted that the 3 Chinese playing Japanese actually are bigger in the Japanese box office than any Japanese and the fact that a western film would have 3 Chinese as the leads is also interesting, especially as China becomes a market for cinema that rivals the West. Finally, the subject and the movie especially represent that trope embedded in Western culture of the exotic and sexualized Asian woman (cf Madam Butterfly) which in itself is pretty problematic.
From my standpoint, it is interesting because geisha culture is pretty much gone, but is often considered emblematic of a kind of Japanese high culture, so it represents a lot of things that Japanese think about themselves despite being absent.
What about classic* blaxploitation (Coffy, Shaft etc.)? Was that cultural appropriation, a chance for actual blacks to carry movies or just a way (for white executives) to make more money from an until then insufficiently tapped (black) audiecnce? Or all of it at the same time?
What would a for real ‘Cleopatra Schwartz’ movie have been (Pam Greer volunteered for that btw)?
*i.e. not the modern remakes.
What about classic* blaxploitation (Coffy, Shaft etc.)? Was that cultural appropriation, a chance for actual blacks to carry movies or just a way (for white executives) to make more money from an until then insufficiently tapped (black) audiecnce? Or all of it at the same time?
What would a for real ‘Cleopatra Schwartz’ movie have been (Pam Greer volunteered for that btw)?
*i.e. not the modern remakes.
I hope the above does not give the impression of ‘whataboutism’. It was meant as a serious question. I like some of those movies but have little idea what ‘the community’ thinks of them these days, e.g. whether the character of Shaft is seen as inspiring or as a vile caricature of the black male.
I hope the above does not give the impression of ‘whataboutism’. It was meant as a serious question. I like some of those movies but have little idea what ‘the community’ thinks of them these days, e.g. whether the character of Shaft is seen as inspiring or as a vile caricature of the black male.
Was that cultural appropriation, a chance for actual blacks to carry movies or just a way (for white executives) to make more money from an until then insufficiently tapped (black) audiecnce? Or all of it at the same time?
Sort of the same for the TV version of Amos ‘n’ Andy
Was that cultural appropriation, a chance for actual blacks to carry movies or just a way (for white executives) to make more money from an until then insufficiently tapped (black) audiecnce? Or all of it at the same time?
Sort of the same for the TV version of Amos ‘n’ Andy
wj, let me pick at your example a bit. First, while adoption is an interesting angle to look at this, it is an exceptional case. I’m not what percentage of children are adopted per year, but I think it is small enough to make any use of it more like a gedanken experiment. While there is nothing wrong with that, it means that your parameters have to be set up pretty clearly.
So, when you make your gedanken experiment about a gay couple and the straight adoptee (and it seems like the adoption part isn’t really necessary, a gay couple may have a child with one of the parents acting as the genetic parent and if it were a lesbian couple, one of the partners could give birth to the child), you have to ask what is ‘gay culture’ and why would we need to assess the ability of the straight child to be ‘authentic’? I suppose that there could be a situation where the straight child is called on to speak ‘for’ the gay community and then the question might be posed about why this straight child gets to be the representative, but then you have to start hypothesizing a lot more parameters.
Plus gay culture really doesn’t exist separately and apart from the mainstream culture, so it is not really a good example in that regard.
A better example might be deaf culture, which Oliver Sacks wrote about in Seeing Voices. I think I remember that there are some things that are a bit off in Sacks telling, but it has been a while since I read it. But the question of a child being fitted with a cochlear implant, thereby separating him or her from deaf culture or parents choosing to have it done is. There is a ton of stuff about it, but this Atlantic article is a good starter
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/understanding-deafness-not-everyone-wants-to-be-fixed/278527/
This is a really interesting debate, but I feel where it takes on an edge is when rewards are to be made over the deployment of cultural appropriation. That safely sets aside questions like caucasians wearing kimono or ao dai, and the person at home cooking up [blank] dishes. At least this is where I divide things up.
wj, let me pick at your example a bit. First, while adoption is an interesting angle to look at this, it is an exceptional case. I’m not what percentage of children are adopted per year, but I think it is small enough to make any use of it more like a gedanken experiment. While there is nothing wrong with that, it means that your parameters have to be set up pretty clearly.
So, when you make your gedanken experiment about a gay couple and the straight adoptee (and it seems like the adoption part isn’t really necessary, a gay couple may have a child with one of the parents acting as the genetic parent and if it were a lesbian couple, one of the partners could give birth to the child), you have to ask what is ‘gay culture’ and why would we need to assess the ability of the straight child to be ‘authentic’? I suppose that there could be a situation where the straight child is called on to speak ‘for’ the gay community and then the question might be posed about why this straight child gets to be the representative, but then you have to start hypothesizing a lot more parameters.
Plus gay culture really doesn’t exist separately and apart from the mainstream culture, so it is not really a good example in that regard.
A better example might be deaf culture, which Oliver Sacks wrote about in Seeing Voices. I think I remember that there are some things that are a bit off in Sacks telling, but it has been a while since I read it. But the question of a child being fitted with a cochlear implant, thereby separating him or her from deaf culture or parents choosing to have it done is. There is a ton of stuff about it, but this Atlantic article is a good starter
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/08/understanding-deafness-not-everyone-wants-to-be-fixed/278527/
This is a really interesting debate, but I feel where it takes on an edge is when rewards are to be made over the deployment of cultural appropriation. That safely sets aside questions like caucasians wearing kimono or ao dai, and the person at home cooking up [blank] dishes. At least this is where I divide things up.
A fascinating debate, and one about which I have many conflicting feelings and opinions. I have been canvassing recently among my acquaintance about the issue of TERFs (using the term for brevity’s sake) as well as cultural appropriation, and have found similar levels of ambivalence in surprising people. I am told, on the TERF issue, that there are gay women who are being given a hard time for excluding as sexual partners trans women who still have penises, with no intention necessarily of having said penises removed. Stuff like this makes me feel as if I am living in a very strange and unnavigable world.
As a personal anecdote, I am godmother to a 19 year-old deaf girl (with some other learning disabilities) whom I adore. Her mother, an old friend of mine, is a single parent, so godparents (and particularly me) had an unusually high involvement in her upbringing, medical care, education etc. When she was two, she had a cochlear implant, and there was some discussion around the fact that we might be imposing something on her, and removing her without her consent from deaf culture. But since her mother and all other people in her ambit were hearing, we decided to go ahead with it (although many of us took Sign classes), and favour her inclusion in her spoken language family and wider circle over some theoretical future deaf culture. Maybe we were right, and maybe we were wrong: she has never questioned it, and at her school for deaf children there are many kids with barely any spoken language while many others of them, like her, have cochlear implants and pretty good speech. If she ever decides it was a wrong thing to do, we always said she would be able to shout at us before having her implant removed.
A fascinating debate, and one about which I have many conflicting feelings and opinions. I have been canvassing recently among my acquaintance about the issue of TERFs (using the term for brevity’s sake) as well as cultural appropriation, and have found similar levels of ambivalence in surprising people. I am told, on the TERF issue, that there are gay women who are being given a hard time for excluding as sexual partners trans women who still have penises, with no intention necessarily of having said penises removed. Stuff like this makes me feel as if I am living in a very strange and unnavigable world.
As a personal anecdote, I am godmother to a 19 year-old deaf girl (with some other learning disabilities) whom I adore. Her mother, an old friend of mine, is a single parent, so godparents (and particularly me) had an unusually high involvement in her upbringing, medical care, education etc. When she was two, she had a cochlear implant, and there was some discussion around the fact that we might be imposing something on her, and removing her without her consent from deaf culture. But since her mother and all other people in her ambit were hearing, we decided to go ahead with it (although many of us took Sign classes), and favour her inclusion in her spoken language family and wider circle over some theoretical future deaf culture. Maybe we were right, and maybe we were wrong: she has never questioned it, and at her school for deaf children there are many kids with barely any spoken language while many others of them, like her, have cochlear implants and pretty good speech. If she ever decides it was a wrong thing to do, we always said she would be able to shout at us before having her implant removed.
This is a great discussion, to echo whoever wrote that earlier.
I’m bothered by the reaction to the Boys Don’t Cry director’s appearance at the Reed College screening. If there’s a reason to complain about intolerance on the left (on college campuses), this sort of thing would be it, rather than people protesting a horse’s a$$ like Milo Yiannopoulos, whose goal in life is to offend.
There’s a difference between something simply being worthy of some criticism (and what isn’t in this imperfect world?) and something that is truly despicable. When you can no longer see that difference and respond appropriately, you’ve officially been in your bubble for too long.
(As the self-appointed spokesperson for The Left, I hereby grant McKinney permission to label those kids {can I call them that?) at Reed College “Social Justice Warriors.”)
This is a great discussion, to echo whoever wrote that earlier.
I’m bothered by the reaction to the Boys Don’t Cry director’s appearance at the Reed College screening. If there’s a reason to complain about intolerance on the left (on college campuses), this sort of thing would be it, rather than people protesting a horse’s a$$ like Milo Yiannopoulos, whose goal in life is to offend.
There’s a difference between something simply being worthy of some criticism (and what isn’t in this imperfect world?) and something that is truly despicable. When you can no longer see that difference and respond appropriately, you’ve officially been in your bubble for too long.
(As the self-appointed spokesperson for The Left, I hereby grant McKinney permission to label those kids {can I call them that?) at Reed College “Social Justice Warriors.”)
cultural appropriation can be: people who aren’t part of your culture dressing up and pretending to be one of you for the length of a cocktail party and getting praise from their friends for wearing clothes, acting and speaking like you – oh novel and fun! meanwhile, nobody praises you for dressing, acting and speaking like you do every single day.
cultural appropriation can be: people who aren’t part of your culture dressing up and pretending to be one of you for the length of a cocktail party and getting praise from their friends for wearing clothes, acting and speaking like you – oh novel and fun! meanwhile, nobody praises you for dressing, acting and speaking like you do every single day.
If you think it’s hilarious to wear a sombrero and a fake moustache on Cinco de Mayo, you might be a cultural appropriator.
If you think it’s hilarious to wear a sombrero and a fake moustache on Cinco de Mayo, you might be a cultural appropriator.
cleek, do you include people dressing in e.g. cheong sams because they like them, but not pretending to be Chinese? And, I’m bound to say, I’ve never heard of someone dressing in a cheong sam (or a sari, or an ao dai) being praised for it, let alone “acting and speaking” in any way differently. I can well imagine it might once have happened in less enlightened times, but surely not now? And if not, does the dressing alone constitute a problem (for you, I mean not the activists who are enforcing the current rules on cultural appropriation)? I should stress this is a purely theoretical question – neither I nor anyone else I know has dressed in another culture’s defining garments for many years.
cleek, do you include people dressing in e.g. cheong sams because they like them, but not pretending to be Chinese? And, I’m bound to say, I’ve never heard of someone dressing in a cheong sam (or a sari, or an ao dai) being praised for it, let alone “acting and speaking” in any way differently. I can well imagine it might once have happened in less enlightened times, but surely not now? And if not, does the dressing alone constitute a problem (for you, I mean not the activists who are enforcing the current rules on cultural appropriation)? I should stress this is a purely theoretical question – neither I nor anyone else I know has dressed in another culture’s defining garments for many years.
1. …there are gay women who are being given a hard time for excluding as sexual partners trans women who still have penises, with no intention necessarily of having said penises removed.
I hadn’t heard of this one, but it’s the perfect epitome (this is an “epitome” thread, right?) of how mind-bogglingly far some people have gone off the rails.
We are supposed to accept unquestioningly, with virtually no cultural preparation and no time period allowed for adjustment and education even of educable people of good will, whatever anyone says about the gender they feel is theirs. (Since my own life has been one of relatively mild but inherent and stubborn gender-noncompliance, I am totally in favor of a cultural shift that recognizes complexity and nuance around gender. *That* is not the problem, IMHO.)
But then we are supposed to turn around and crap on people for claiming an exactly parallel right to be attracted romantically and sexually to (and only to) whatever type of person they say they’re attracted to?
Words fail.
1. …there are gay women who are being given a hard time for excluding as sexual partners trans women who still have penises, with no intention necessarily of having said penises removed.
I hadn’t heard of this one, but it’s the perfect epitome (this is an “epitome” thread, right?) of how mind-bogglingly far some people have gone off the rails.
We are supposed to accept unquestioningly, with virtually no cultural preparation and no time period allowed for adjustment and education even of educable people of good will, whatever anyone says about the gender they feel is theirs. (Since my own life has been one of relatively mild but inherent and stubborn gender-noncompliance, I am totally in favor of a cultural shift that recognizes complexity and nuance around gender. *That* is not the problem, IMHO.)
But then we are supposed to turn around and crap on people for claiming an exactly parallel right to be attracted romantically and sexually to (and only to) whatever type of person they say they’re attracted to?
Words fail.
2. Plus gay culture really doesn’t exist separately and apart from the mainstream culture, so it is not really a good example in that regard.
lj, please say something more about this, because my first reaction is: WTF is he talking about? Maybe things are changing because the closet doors have been blown off the hinges, but either this is wrong, or *no* subculture exists separately and apart from the mainstream culture. Are you talking about various forms of overt separatism? … or what?
2. Plus gay culture really doesn’t exist separately and apart from the mainstream culture, so it is not really a good example in that regard.
lj, please say something more about this, because my first reaction is: WTF is he talking about? Maybe things are changing because the closet doors have been blown off the hinges, but either this is wrong, or *no* subculture exists separately and apart from the mainstream culture. Are you talking about various forms of overt separatism? … or what?
I hadn’t heard of this one, but it’s the perfect epitome (this is an “epitome” thread, right?) of how mind-bogglingly far some people have gone off the rails.
***
Words fail.
My feelings in a nutshell.
I hadn’t heard of this one, but it’s the perfect epitome (this is an “epitome” thread, right?) of how mind-bogglingly far some people have gone off the rails.
***
Words fail.
My feelings in a nutshell.
3. Reed College is a mess. Or was; I haven’t kept up.
3. Reed College is a mess. Or was; I haven’t kept up.
Thanks for that Garrett Hongo long quote, and link, lj. It is indeed very interesting.
Whether one shares the history is nearly meaningless as one must also dwell in the imaginary contemporaneity as well—in other words, be in sympathy and communication with those who identify themselves as that nation. Deviations, particularly those that advance any competing or more complex narrations, are suspect, threatening, and potentially invalidating of the narrative of the nation.
This would seem to apply just as well to the Halberstam post, and particularly the debate on trans identity in its comments section, to which you also linked.
Thanks for that Garrett Hongo long quote, and link, lj. It is indeed very interesting.
Whether one shares the history is nearly meaningless as one must also dwell in the imaginary contemporaneity as well—in other words, be in sympathy and communication with those who identify themselves as that nation. Deviations, particularly those that advance any competing or more complex narrations, are suspect, threatening, and potentially invalidating of the narrative of the nation.
This would seem to apply just as well to the Halberstam post, and particularly the debate on trans identity in its comments section, to which you also linked.
I must apologise to Donald for not responding to his posts on Labour’s Jewish problem. I wasn’t intentionally avoiding the discussion, but have been (and am) a bit busy.
There is probably more heat than light in the ongoing debate, and arguments are being made in good and bad faith in both sides. I don’t have time to respond at length, but I think this Guardian article explains the concerns quite fairly:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/27/jewish-anger-labour-listen-antisemitism-opinion
I must apologise to Donald for not responding to his posts on Labour’s Jewish problem. I wasn’t intentionally avoiding the discussion, but have been (and am) a bit busy.
There is probably more heat than light in the ongoing debate, and arguments are being made in good and bad faith in both sides. I don’t have time to respond at length, but I think this Guardian article explains the concerns quite fairly:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/27/jewish-anger-labour-listen-antisemitism-opinion
FWIW, I decided to track down a proper source for what I said I had been told about “trans women with penises” to see if it was more than anecdotal, and in my first sweep (probably all I have energy for at the moment) what I have found is this:
http://lesbianalliance.org.uk/lesbian-fury-at-stonewall-over-trans-agenda/
I couldn’t get behind the Times firewall, but the money quote was this:
The 135 signatories say that Stonewall supports the “absurd idea that male-bodied persons with penises can be lesbians”.
and this:
The acronym ‘LGBT’ suggests a common interest between lesbians and those identifying as transgender, but is this really the case? Recent developments such as the dramatic rise in young women presenting at Gender Identity Clinics, the erasure of women-only spaces and the pressure on lesbians to accept male-bodied individuals as sexual partners, tell a different story.
Clearly the Lesbian Alliance is seen as a trans-exclusionary hate group in the current climate, but everybody I have so far spoken to is getting pretty uncomfortable with the growing orthodoxy on this subject.
FWIW, I decided to track down a proper source for what I said I had been told about “trans women with penises” to see if it was more than anecdotal, and in my first sweep (probably all I have energy for at the moment) what I have found is this:
http://lesbianalliance.org.uk/lesbian-fury-at-stonewall-over-trans-agenda/
I couldn’t get behind the Times firewall, but the money quote was this:
The 135 signatories say that Stonewall supports the “absurd idea that male-bodied persons with penises can be lesbians”.
and this:
The acronym ‘LGBT’ suggests a common interest between lesbians and those identifying as transgender, but is this really the case? Recent developments such as the dramatic rise in young women presenting at Gender Identity Clinics, the erasure of women-only spaces and the pressure on lesbians to accept male-bodied individuals as sexual partners, tell a different story.
Clearly the Lesbian Alliance is seen as a trans-exclusionary hate group in the current climate, but everybody I have so far spoken to is getting pretty uncomfortable with the growing orthodoxy on this subject.
Let me try to be a little clearer and calmer. I have personal reasons for welcoming, and being grateful for, the hard and painful work people have done to bring into the open the notion (or, IMO, fact) that a two-gender framework is, to say the least, inadequate to real human experience.
What I object to is people being shouted down for daring to open their mouths about gender if they aren’t saying what some particular person thinks they should be saying. (It’s like the Reformation: what’s the point of getting rid of the authority of the pope if all you’re doing is enabling a billion little popes to start asserting that they, and only they, know the word of God, and where possible punishing anyone who disagrees?)
And again, if you then extend that tyranny to telling me that I’m wrong for being attracted to whoever I say I’m attracted to, then — at that point you’ve lost me.
Here’s a commenter (who came to say this and immediately disappeared) at CT not long ago, in the little popes vein:
(My bold.)
This was written in response to someone familiar to ObWi denizens. I’m not going to link, or name anyone, because I don’t want to make it personal. But I just don’t think that silencing people of basic good will is the way to make things better. Which is something like what Jack Halberstam said at lj’s Boys Don’t Cry link.
And still it’s not easy. I can testify that it’s painful to have bigots discussing your life as if it’s nothing but fodder for debate and for their right to make their bigoted points. As usual there’s a huge and unmanageable gray area that’s too unmanageable for me at this phase of my life. I could write ObWi posts from now until doomsday about gender and sexuality, but I have refrained and will continue to refrain, because I just can’t deal with the hassle.
Let me try to be a little clearer and calmer. I have personal reasons for welcoming, and being grateful for, the hard and painful work people have done to bring into the open the notion (or, IMO, fact) that a two-gender framework is, to say the least, inadequate to real human experience.
What I object to is people being shouted down for daring to open their mouths about gender if they aren’t saying what some particular person thinks they should be saying. (It’s like the Reformation: what’s the point of getting rid of the authority of the pope if all you’re doing is enabling a billion little popes to start asserting that they, and only they, know the word of God, and where possible punishing anyone who disagrees?)
And again, if you then extend that tyranny to telling me that I’m wrong for being attracted to whoever I say I’m attracted to, then — at that point you’ve lost me.
Here’s a commenter (who came to say this and immediately disappeared) at CT not long ago, in the little popes vein:
(My bold.)
This was written in response to someone familiar to ObWi denizens. I’m not going to link, or name anyone, because I don’t want to make it personal. But I just don’t think that silencing people of basic good will is the way to make things better. Which is something like what Jack Halberstam said at lj’s Boys Don’t Cry link.
And still it’s not easy. I can testify that it’s painful to have bigots discussing your life as if it’s nothing but fodder for debate and for their right to make their bigoted points. As usual there’s a huge and unmanageable gray area that’s too unmanageable for me at this phase of my life. I could write ObWi posts from now until doomsday about gender and sexuality, but I have refrained and will continue to refrain, because I just can’t deal with the hassle.
Concerning GftNC’s quotes: maybe part of where the whole thing has gotten derailed is in people’s urge to generalize. Sexual attraction is very very very very very personal, no? I’m partway through a book called Argonauts that’s related to these topics. I may or may not be attracted to any particular person, with or without a penis. Why do people have to make generalized demands and generalized proclamations about it?
Bah.
Concerning GftNC’s quotes: maybe part of where the whole thing has gotten derailed is in people’s urge to generalize. Sexual attraction is very very very very very personal, no? I’m partway through a book called Argonauts that’s related to these topics. I may or may not be attracted to any particular person, with or without a penis. Why do people have to make generalized demands and generalized proclamations about it?
Bah.
Byomtov wrote—
“The problem was still there after WWII, Donald. Jews who survived were mostly DP’s. They could go back to Poland, of course – though that sometimes didn’t turn out well.
Western countries, very much including the US, were reluctant to accept many refugees – proto-Trumpism, I suppose. (I speak here from family experience.)
May I suggest that if you have no good answers to the question you should moderate your criticism of the answer that was actually chosen. It could have gone better. The 1948 war was not inevitable.
… I also think they had no right to forcibly displace another people…
“Indeed. And the Arab countries had no right to forcibly expel their substantial Jewish communities. Note that Arab anti-semitism, including violence, and expulsion, predated the establishment of Israel. Do you think this hardened anti-Arab sentiment in Israel?”
———————————————————————————————-
I agree Arab countries had no right to expel Jews. Nobody in the conflict looks good. The increase in Arab anti-semitism occurred with the advent of Zionism. Obviously the actions of people on each side contributed to the actions of the other. When a group of people declare their intent to create a state for their own people in an already inhabited land, you guarantee hostility. The Zionist movement tried with mixed success to have the British Empire set the stage for their planned state. It doesn’t matter what two groups you are talking about. You are going to have a violent response under those circumstances. The UN partition was unfair to the Palestinians and utterly unworkable. Incidentally, that doesn’t mean terrorism is justified. It isn’t. Palestinian violence in the form of murderous riots began in the 20’s. Children were killed. ( in fairness, some Palestinians saved Jews from other Palestinians in the Hebron slaughter.) This is despicable. Zionist terrorism against Palestinian civilians began in the 30’s when the Palestinians themselves were engaged in similar actions in their rebellion against the Brits.
And the bigotry flows both ways. I know in the West people act horrified when Zionism is linked to racism and it doesn’t have to be, but in practice, the mainstream Zionist movement and I mean Herzl and Weissman and Ben Gurion and not just the Zionist right, presupposed that they had more right to the land than the Arabs already there. Logically, setting morality aside,to form a Jewish state you had to see the Arabs as obstacles and one way or another they had to become the minority. And this ideology came into being at the tail end of the period of Western expansion, settlement, and imperialism and the same attitudes are clearly there.
“In addition, we might note that, in 1948, it was not so bizarre for the Israelis to fear annihilation at the hands of the Arab armies. If you want to argue that the terror tactics of Hamas, etc., are justified by the treatment of Gaza, you might ask whether some of the Israeli actions of that time were justified as well.”
I don’t justify terror tactics of either side. Each side to some degree provokes violence from the other, but the killers of civilians on each side bear the primary responsibility for their own actions.
As for the Arab armies, they came in after Deir Yassin and after 300,000 Palestinians had already been expelled, when the Mandate ended. The size of all the “ armies” put together was smaller than the number fighting on the Zionist side. They mostly fought within the territory allocated to the Arab state and they had ulterior motives. Transjordan wanted the Arab state land for itself and the other Arab countries knew this and opposed it. Yes, the Israelis were afraid, but they had the advantage and in the second half of the war when victory was certain was when some of the biggest expulsions occurred, for clearly demographic reasons. The process of expulsion involved at least 20 massacres according to Benny Morris, who by the way is a racist who wishes the expulsions had been more humane, but also more complete. And after the war, thousands of Palestinians sneaking back across the border to retrieve property were shot. Morris wrote a book about that. A small number were armed insurgents. Most were not. The lies about how they all fled because they were told to do so by the Arab leaders began immediately.
The entire conflict from beginning to end is sordid on both sides, with terrorism employed freely by both, and there are no leaders on either side who look good. Which is what makes the BDS movement stand out. Palestinian civil society decides to use the traditional nonviolent methods people use to demand their rights. And they get dismissal from liberals because there are other human rights situations that have to be dealt with first. Presumably all of them.
Byomtov wrote—
“The problem was still there after WWII, Donald. Jews who survived were mostly DP’s. They could go back to Poland, of course – though that sometimes didn’t turn out well.
Western countries, very much including the US, were reluctant to accept many refugees – proto-Trumpism, I suppose. (I speak here from family experience.)
May I suggest that if you have no good answers to the question you should moderate your criticism of the answer that was actually chosen. It could have gone better. The 1948 war was not inevitable.
… I also think they had no right to forcibly displace another people…
“Indeed. And the Arab countries had no right to forcibly expel their substantial Jewish communities. Note that Arab anti-semitism, including violence, and expulsion, predated the establishment of Israel. Do you think this hardened anti-Arab sentiment in Israel?”
———————————————————————————————-
I agree Arab countries had no right to expel Jews. Nobody in the conflict looks good. The increase in Arab anti-semitism occurred with the advent of Zionism. Obviously the actions of people on each side contributed to the actions of the other. When a group of people declare their intent to create a state for their own people in an already inhabited land, you guarantee hostility. The Zionist movement tried with mixed success to have the British Empire set the stage for their planned state. It doesn’t matter what two groups you are talking about. You are going to have a violent response under those circumstances. The UN partition was unfair to the Palestinians and utterly unworkable. Incidentally, that doesn’t mean terrorism is justified. It isn’t. Palestinian violence in the form of murderous riots began in the 20’s. Children were killed. ( in fairness, some Palestinians saved Jews from other Palestinians in the Hebron slaughter.) This is despicable. Zionist terrorism against Palestinian civilians began in the 30’s when the Palestinians themselves were engaged in similar actions in their rebellion against the Brits.
And the bigotry flows both ways. I know in the West people act horrified when Zionism is linked to racism and it doesn’t have to be, but in practice, the mainstream Zionist movement and I mean Herzl and Weissman and Ben Gurion and not just the Zionist right, presupposed that they had more right to the land than the Arabs already there. Logically, setting morality aside,to form a Jewish state you had to see the Arabs as obstacles and one way or another they had to become the minority. And this ideology came into being at the tail end of the period of Western expansion, settlement, and imperialism and the same attitudes are clearly there.
“In addition, we might note that, in 1948, it was not so bizarre for the Israelis to fear annihilation at the hands of the Arab armies. If you want to argue that the terror tactics of Hamas, etc., are justified by the treatment of Gaza, you might ask whether some of the Israeli actions of that time were justified as well.”
I don’t justify terror tactics of either side. Each side to some degree provokes violence from the other, but the killers of civilians on each side bear the primary responsibility for their own actions.
As for the Arab armies, they came in after Deir Yassin and after 300,000 Palestinians had already been expelled, when the Mandate ended. The size of all the “ armies” put together was smaller than the number fighting on the Zionist side. They mostly fought within the territory allocated to the Arab state and they had ulterior motives. Transjordan wanted the Arab state land for itself and the other Arab countries knew this and opposed it. Yes, the Israelis were afraid, but they had the advantage and in the second half of the war when victory was certain was when some of the biggest expulsions occurred, for clearly demographic reasons. The process of expulsion involved at least 20 massacres according to Benny Morris, who by the way is a racist who wishes the expulsions had been more humane, but also more complete. And after the war, thousands of Palestinians sneaking back across the border to retrieve property were shot. Morris wrote a book about that. A small number were armed insurgents. Most were not. The lies about how they all fled because they were told to do so by the Arab leaders began immediately.
The entire conflict from beginning to end is sordid on both sides, with terrorism employed freely by both, and there are no leaders on either side who look good. Which is what makes the BDS movement stand out. Palestinian civil society decides to use the traditional nonviolent methods people use to demand their rights. And they get dismissal from liberals because there are other human rights situations that have to be dealt with first. Presumably all of them.
Corrected title: The Argonauts, by Maggie Nelson. Not long, but challenging, and wonderful in a weird way. Or maybe I just don’t get out enough. (Actually, no “maybe” about it….)
Corrected title: The Argonauts, by Maggie Nelson. Not long, but challenging, and wonderful in a weird way. Or maybe I just don’t get out enough. (Actually, no “maybe” about it….)
Sources later, if asked. Groceries need to be purchased.
Sources later, if asked. Groceries need to be purchased.
Ah, those groceries and their needs….. 😉
Ah, those groceries and their needs….. 😉
Another bit from GftNC’s link:
They [a group called the Lesbian Rights Alliance] say that lesbians are biological women who are sexually attracted to, and have sexual and emotional relationships with other biological women only.
This is “a pox on both your houses” territory.
Who is the Lesbian Rights Alliance (which after all is composed of a bunch of self-defined individual lesbians, I presume) to assert that *they* and *only* they have the right to define what a lesbian is?
But then again, who says Stonewall (also in the end a collection of individual humans) has that right any more than the LRA?
And Germaine Greer, of course, is in charge of the definition of “woman”………..
Yeah, I don’t get out enough. Thank the FSM.
Another bit from GftNC’s link:
They [a group called the Lesbian Rights Alliance] say that lesbians are biological women who are sexually attracted to, and have sexual and emotional relationships with other biological women only.
This is “a pox on both your houses” territory.
Who is the Lesbian Rights Alliance (which after all is composed of a bunch of self-defined individual lesbians, I presume) to assert that *they* and *only* they have the right to define what a lesbian is?
But then again, who says Stonewall (also in the end a collection of individual humans) has that right any more than the LRA?
And Germaine Greer, of course, is in charge of the definition of “woman”………..
Yeah, I don’t get out enough. Thank the FSM.
*no* subculture exists separately and apart from the mainstream culture.
Hi Janie, I didn’t want to be accused of dismissing anything by calling it a ‘subculture’, plus I’m not sure what the sociological definition of a culture versus a subculture is.
Also, adoption is a bit of a powderkeg, and, while I’m sure that wj isn’t bringing it up in a mean or unfair way, I was thinking of the courtroom scenes in the movie Losing Isiah.
quick summary, black woman (Halle Berry) addicted to crack abandons a new born baby. Social worker (Jessica Lange) ends up adopting baby, birth mother discovers her child is still alive and sues for custody.
The movie works hard to set up a Hollywood ending where both the mothers get to be a part the child’s life so no opinions are actually threatened in the making of the film and this page talks about why that’s a problem.
https://consequenceofsound.net/2015/03/losing-isaiah-the-white-savior-trope-20-years-later/
I don’t think you can transfer that scenario to one where either a gay or a straight mother is demanding their baby back and have the story turn out the same. We can, sad to say, imagine homosexuality being brought up as a reason to take away a child or keep away a child from a parent, but I don’t think we can imagine a scene like the one in this youtube video where the lawyer makes the case that the child needs representations of the culture they were deprived of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYuqYqD16AY
That’s why I was trying to suggest that taking adoption muddies the issue when we are talking about cultural authenticity. I’m not sure what wj had in mind, but worrying that the straight child’s voice would be considered ‘unauthentic’ when talking about gay culture doesn’t make much sense to me unless we postulate a whole range of conditions and circumstances.
I also wanted to take a shot at hartmut’s question, but I’d first note that it’s not like I can speak from a position of authority
But my impression is that movies in the blaxplotation genre, especially the initial ones, were _not_ cultural appropriation, though they may feel like it because the edges were softened (in Shaft, he saves the girl with the help of a Black Panther like group, but to make the film palatable to white audiences, it is just an allusion and white america’s feelings about the Black Panther movement are probably better expressed by this story
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/30/black-panthers-prison-interviews-african-american-activism
*no* subculture exists separately and apart from the mainstream culture.
Hi Janie, I didn’t want to be accused of dismissing anything by calling it a ‘subculture’, plus I’m not sure what the sociological definition of a culture versus a subculture is.
Also, adoption is a bit of a powderkeg, and, while I’m sure that wj isn’t bringing it up in a mean or unfair way, I was thinking of the courtroom scenes in the movie Losing Isiah.
quick summary, black woman (Halle Berry) addicted to crack abandons a new born baby. Social worker (Jessica Lange) ends up adopting baby, birth mother discovers her child is still alive and sues for custody.
The movie works hard to set up a Hollywood ending where both the mothers get to be a part the child’s life so no opinions are actually threatened in the making of the film and this page talks about why that’s a problem.
https://consequenceofsound.net/2015/03/losing-isaiah-the-white-savior-trope-20-years-later/
I don’t think you can transfer that scenario to one where either a gay or a straight mother is demanding their baby back and have the story turn out the same. We can, sad to say, imagine homosexuality being brought up as a reason to take away a child or keep away a child from a parent, but I don’t think we can imagine a scene like the one in this youtube video where the lawyer makes the case that the child needs representations of the culture they were deprived of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYuqYqD16AY
That’s why I was trying to suggest that taking adoption muddies the issue when we are talking about cultural authenticity. I’m not sure what wj had in mind, but worrying that the straight child’s voice would be considered ‘unauthentic’ when talking about gay culture doesn’t make much sense to me unless we postulate a whole range of conditions and circumstances.
I also wanted to take a shot at hartmut’s question, but I’d first note that it’s not like I can speak from a position of authority
But my impression is that movies in the blaxplotation genre, especially the initial ones, were _not_ cultural appropriation, though they may feel like it because the edges were softened (in Shaft, he saves the girl with the help of a Black Panther like group, but to make the film palatable to white audiences, it is just an allusion and white america’s feelings about the Black Panther movement are probably better expressed by this story
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jul/30/black-panthers-prison-interviews-african-american-activism
Words do fail.
We need a bigger nutshell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E6uGkotqKA
Walker Percy might have a few more words to offer, but he’s dead.
A couple of years ago, I asked a woman I had recently met if she would like to have a drink and she said sure but I should know upfront that she was exclusively attracted to women and, for once in my life, I was able to get off a spontaneously (and mildly) clever line in a slightly out of kilter situation that made us both laugh “Well then, see, we have much in common right out of the blocks, because I’m exclusively attracted to women, too.”
Happily, she didn’t add that she might be willing to make an exception for me, but that I would first be required to have my penis surgically removed.
I mean, look, I’m open minded but a guy has to draw a line somewhere.
The world is becoming a fairly unnavigable Strait of Hormuz in affairs of the heart, particularly as we reach our emeritus years, and come to think of it, it has become more relaxed AND yet more uptight and out of sight simultaneously.
Ugh, please forgive me if I add that’s why God made SEXtants, especially for those solitary sailors out there running aground on the island of Eros.
I read Rod Dreher over at the American Conservative, mostly now just for the entertainment of observing him blowing a gasket as he recounts his latest outrage over the world’s sexual follies.
Talk about a guy holding back the flood with his finger in the politically incorrect, umm …. dike.
Words do fail.
We need a bigger nutshell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E6uGkotqKA
Walker Percy might have a few more words to offer, but he’s dead.
A couple of years ago, I asked a woman I had recently met if she would like to have a drink and she said sure but I should know upfront that she was exclusively attracted to women and, for once in my life, I was able to get off a spontaneously (and mildly) clever line in a slightly out of kilter situation that made us both laugh “Well then, see, we have much in common right out of the blocks, because I’m exclusively attracted to women, too.”
Happily, she didn’t add that she might be willing to make an exception for me, but that I would first be required to have my penis surgically removed.
I mean, look, I’m open minded but a guy has to draw a line somewhere.
The world is becoming a fairly unnavigable Strait of Hormuz in affairs of the heart, particularly as we reach our emeritus years, and come to think of it, it has become more relaxed AND yet more uptight and out of sight simultaneously.
Ugh, please forgive me if I add that’s why God made SEXtants, especially for those solitary sailors out there running aground on the island of Eros.
I read Rod Dreher over at the American Conservative, mostly now just for the entertainment of observing him blowing a gasket as he recounts his latest outrage over the world’s sexual follies.
Talk about a guy holding back the flood with his finger in the politically incorrect, umm …. dike.
lj…sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear. You wrote this:
Plus gay culture really doesn’t exist separately and apart from the mainstream culture, so it is not really a good example in that regard.
That is what I was asking about. How is gay culture any different from any other [X] culture in that regard? And if it isn’t any different, why single it out for mention, as if it *is* somehow different from the others in its relation to mainstream culture?
I thought you were making some kind of distinction between gay culture and, say, deaf culture, or AA culture, in terms of how those cultures relate to the “mainstream” culture.
??
lj…sorry, maybe I wasn’t clear. You wrote this:
Plus gay culture really doesn’t exist separately and apart from the mainstream culture, so it is not really a good example in that regard.
That is what I was asking about. How is gay culture any different from any other [X] culture in that regard? And if it isn’t any different, why single it out for mention, as if it *is* somehow different from the others in its relation to mainstream culture?
I thought you were making some kind of distinction between gay culture and, say, deaf culture, or AA culture, in terms of how those cultures relate to the “mainstream” culture.
??
wj was the one who suggested gay culture and then added adoption, and I was trying to say that it’s not a very clear example for the purposes of cultural authenticity. I could have said ‘why single out gay culture?’, but that would make it seem that I think we would have a list and gay culture would be between French culture and German culture.
I do think that gay culture has some particular features that make it different from deaf and AA culture (not that I have any particular expertise in any of those cultures), but I got hung up on thinking about the question of who is an authentic representative of gay culture. wj is worried about the straight child of a gay couple (but gay couples have straight kids all the time, to think otherwise is pretty problematic) and his or her voice, but that seems at a pretty far distance from someone becoming the spokesperson for a culture that they are not a member of.
Also, me discussing this is not me claiming I know gay culture to any great extent, so I wanted to say ‘I think you are wrong about using gay culture as an example’ without saying ’cause this is what gay culture is’, something that I don’t have any ability to say. Maybe my concern with avoiding that impression is making this harder to parse than usual.
wj was the one who suggested gay culture and then added adoption, and I was trying to say that it’s not a very clear example for the purposes of cultural authenticity. I could have said ‘why single out gay culture?’, but that would make it seem that I think we would have a list and gay culture would be between French culture and German culture.
I do think that gay culture has some particular features that make it different from deaf and AA culture (not that I have any particular expertise in any of those cultures), but I got hung up on thinking about the question of who is an authentic representative of gay culture. wj is worried about the straight child of a gay couple (but gay couples have straight kids all the time, to think otherwise is pretty problematic) and his or her voice, but that seems at a pretty far distance from someone becoming the spokesperson for a culture that they are not a member of.
Also, me discussing this is not me claiming I know gay culture to any great extent, so I wanted to say ‘I think you are wrong about using gay culture as an example’ without saying ’cause this is what gay culture is’, something that I don’t have any ability to say. Maybe my concern with avoiding that impression is making this harder to parse than usual.
Maybe my concern with avoiding that impression is making this harder to parse than usual.
None of it is easy to parse……we can leave it at that as far as I’m concerned. 🙂
Maybe my concern with avoiding that impression is making this harder to parse than usual.
None of it is easy to parse……we can leave it at that as far as I’m concerned. 🙂
Why do people have to make generalized demands and generalized proclamations about it?
Agreed again. And in fact, one could further say that the problem is prescription and proscription, and the assumption by any group (or to be more precise group of individuals) that they have the right of definition or to make the rules. But on the other hand, I assume we all agree that certain groups or individuals need protection from discrimination (on the grounds of race, sexual orientation etc etc), and once you agree this then these groups or individuals need definition. It may be my increasing problem with abstract thought, which I have described in the past, but I find these conundrums more and more difficult to disentangle….
Why do people have to make generalized demands and generalized proclamations about it?
Agreed again. And in fact, one could further say that the problem is prescription and proscription, and the assumption by any group (or to be more precise group of individuals) that they have the right of definition or to make the rules. But on the other hand, I assume we all agree that certain groups or individuals need protection from discrimination (on the grounds of race, sexual orientation etc etc), and once you agree this then these groups or individuals need definition. It may be my increasing problem with abstract thought, which I have described in the past, but I find these conundrums more and more difficult to disentangle….
Whatever happens, may we avoid the pox.
Regarding cultural misappropriation, my general view is that the world slouches towards syncretism and maintaining purity is a fool’s errand.
Unfortunately, the fools worldwide have come out of the woodwork and have the upper hand at the moment and by fool I mean a guy who is a white nationalist while shoveling the contents of a taco bowl down his ignorant gullet.
There was a curious phenomenon in the Peace Corps of American volunteers going completely native and off the grid Lawrence of Arabia style, some of it urban legend, but I ran across an example of it in the Philippines.
There was a male American volunteer assigned to a barrio in Mindanao, probably in some type of agricultural group. Among the tribes in the nearby forests are the T’boli and he immersed himself in their culture.
Beautiful crafts and clothing, much like the Faerie world as you heard the tiny brass bells they wore tinkling whereever you walked.
I found the guy on a personal trip thru there. He refused to speak English to me(us) out of some odd immersive principle, and though I spoke enough Tagalog to make my way thru the day, he didn’t, so communication was difficult.
We had to communicate with the help of a Filipino, not T’boli.
He went barefoot and his mouth and teeth were red from chewing the betel nut, which he did sitting on his haunches like his hosts.
One of the things I learned was that, out of some misplaced sense of honor, he only took half his Peace Corps salary, or about $50 a month at the time so as to live as closely economically to his hosts as possible.
First thing to know is that you could live like a king even at $50 a month in that area. But I asked him thru our interpreter why he didn’t just take the full $100 each month and donate it to something like treating the disease schistosomiasis, endemic to the area, and he turned away and ignored me thereafter.
I was not a prize of a Peace Corps Volunteer my own self, but I found his attitude to be simple vanity.
I’ve always wondered how, if he returned to the States, he fared under the reverse culture shock that many volunteers experience after living abroad, as even I did for a time after returning.
He’s probably a bond trader on Wall Street now.
No longer barefoot.
But I noticed that while he was barefoot, one of his fellow T’Boli was wearing brand new pair of western-style running shoes … and bells.
I also heard a story from a friend who served as a Volunteer in Afghanistan before the Soviet Union and the United States cooperated in ruining that country that they had a volunteer who disappeared immediately after posting to his site and two years later, after nary a peep, someone from the Peace Corps office in Kabul by coincidence ran across him.
He was riding with a nomadic band of tribal horsemen, his beard down to his waist, and for all appearances, hadn’t bathed in months.
Whatever happens, may we avoid the pox.
Regarding cultural misappropriation, my general view is that the world slouches towards syncretism and maintaining purity is a fool’s errand.
Unfortunately, the fools worldwide have come out of the woodwork and have the upper hand at the moment and by fool I mean a guy who is a white nationalist while shoveling the contents of a taco bowl down his ignorant gullet.
There was a curious phenomenon in the Peace Corps of American volunteers going completely native and off the grid Lawrence of Arabia style, some of it urban legend, but I ran across an example of it in the Philippines.
There was a male American volunteer assigned to a barrio in Mindanao, probably in some type of agricultural group. Among the tribes in the nearby forests are the T’boli and he immersed himself in their culture.
Beautiful crafts and clothing, much like the Faerie world as you heard the tiny brass bells they wore tinkling whereever you walked.
I found the guy on a personal trip thru there. He refused to speak English to me(us) out of some odd immersive principle, and though I spoke enough Tagalog to make my way thru the day, he didn’t, so communication was difficult.
We had to communicate with the help of a Filipino, not T’boli.
He went barefoot and his mouth and teeth were red from chewing the betel nut, which he did sitting on his haunches like his hosts.
One of the things I learned was that, out of some misplaced sense of honor, he only took half his Peace Corps salary, or about $50 a month at the time so as to live as closely economically to his hosts as possible.
First thing to know is that you could live like a king even at $50 a month in that area. But I asked him thru our interpreter why he didn’t just take the full $100 each month and donate it to something like treating the disease schistosomiasis, endemic to the area, and he turned away and ignored me thereafter.
I was not a prize of a Peace Corps Volunteer my own self, but I found his attitude to be simple vanity.
I’ve always wondered how, if he returned to the States, he fared under the reverse culture shock that many volunteers experience after living abroad, as even I did for a time after returning.
He’s probably a bond trader on Wall Street now.
No longer barefoot.
But I noticed that while he was barefoot, one of his fellow T’Boli was wearing brand new pair of western-style running shoes … and bells.
I also heard a story from a friend who served as a Volunteer in Afghanistan before the Soviet Union and the United States cooperated in ruining that country that they had a volunteer who disappeared immediately after posting to his site and two years later, after nary a peep, someone from the Peace Corps office in Kabul by coincidence ran across him.
He was riding with a nomadic band of tribal horsemen, his beard down to his waist, and for all appearances, hadn’t bathed in months.
Regarding the Blaxploitation films, where do we place Quentin Tarantino’s “Jackie Brown”, starring Pam Grier.
Is that a homage to cultural appropriation? Kitsch on kitsch.
I was happy to see Grier get the work.
Regarding the Blaxploitation films, where do we place Quentin Tarantino’s “Jackie Brown”, starring Pam Grier.
Is that a homage to cultural appropriation? Kitsch on kitsch.
I was happy to see Grier get the work.
https://foxsanantonio.com/news/nation-world/hate-group-metro-unite-the-right-rally-dc
America: The land of government-subsidized hate.
Hitler’s Brownshirts at least had to pick themselves up by their own jackboot straps before they took control of the government.
What’s next? Supplying the KKK with surplus government rope to lynch the black transit workers protecting their fucking racist asses.
https://foxsanantonio.com/news/nation-world/hate-group-metro-unite-the-right-rally-dc
America: The land of government-subsidized hate.
Hitler’s Brownshirts at least had to pick themselves up by their own jackboot straps before they took control of the government.
What’s next? Supplying the KKK with surplus government rope to lynch the black transit workers protecting their fucking racist asses.
“Why do people have to make generalized demands and generalized proclamations about it?”
Trigger alert. I believe that this is important and dont see, possibly my lack of searching, much talked about.
I believe we eventually achieve a place where declaring a sexual preference isn’t necessary or assumed to be permanent. I am not gay, or straight, or bi or any of the letters. I have been involved in two heterosexual long term relationships that cover most of my life. But they were choices based on two specific people that could have been either sex,although I admit to seeking a heterosexual relationship to have children as a young man.
I’m not that particular. Which is how, given a specific question, I might define my sexual preference: not particular.
However, my experience is that would make me gay to most people if widely known, as most people both straight and gay, demand a label and perceive bi as being a cover for “really” being gay. I can’t imagine trying to explain not particular. Sexual organs have really never been the first criteria for who I’m attracted to. I like faces, smiles, attitude, and other initial variables.
There just arent any sexual acts that I perceive as being necessarily reserved to any one sex, while not enjoying certain acts is shared across sexes.
Not to at all question whether others have definite preferences, I am certain they do. I just dont think we should demand a declaration of intent.
“Why do people have to make generalized demands and generalized proclamations about it?”
Trigger alert. I believe that this is important and dont see, possibly my lack of searching, much talked about.
I believe we eventually achieve a place where declaring a sexual preference isn’t necessary or assumed to be permanent. I am not gay, or straight, or bi or any of the letters. I have been involved in two heterosexual long term relationships that cover most of my life. But they were choices based on two specific people that could have been either sex,although I admit to seeking a heterosexual relationship to have children as a young man.
I’m not that particular. Which is how, given a specific question, I might define my sexual preference: not particular.
However, my experience is that would make me gay to most people if widely known, as most people both straight and gay, demand a label and perceive bi as being a cover for “really” being gay. I can’t imagine trying to explain not particular. Sexual organs have really never been the first criteria for who I’m attracted to. I like faces, smiles, attitude, and other initial variables.
There just arent any sexual acts that I perceive as being necessarily reserved to any one sex, while not enjoying certain acts is shared across sexes.
Not to at all question whether others have definite preferences, I am certain they do. I just dont think we should demand a declaration of intent.
…there are gay women who are being given a hard time for excluding as sexual partners trans women who still have penises, with no intention necessarily of having said penises removed.
Somehow I have a serious problem with giving anyone a hard time for not being attracted to a particular someone else. It wasn’t right when straights did it to homosexuals. It wasn’t right when it was objections to interracial marriages. It’s not right here.
…there are gay women who are being given a hard time for excluding as sexual partners trans women who still have penises, with no intention necessarily of having said penises removed.
Somehow I have a serious problem with giving anyone a hard time for not being attracted to a particular someone else. It wasn’t right when straights did it to homosexuals. It wasn’t right when it was objections to interracial marriages. It’s not right here.
Palestinian violence in the form of murderous riots began in the 20’s.
And many Palestinians and other Arabs were overtly and loudly pro-Nazi, as you surely know. Hardly a good place to start if you want to live in peace with Jewish neighbors.
Children were killed. ( in fairness, some Palestinians saved Jews from other Palestinians in the Hebron slaughter.
I’m willing to bet that some Jews saved Palestinians as well. Good for both groups.
As for the Arab armies, they came in after Deir Yassin and after 300,000 Palestinians had already been expelled, when the Mandate ended.
I don’t think this is accurate. The invasion started the day Israel declared independence, more than a month after Deir Yassin, an act, by the way, condemned at the time by mainstream Israeli organization, including Haganah.
The size of all the “ armies” put together was smaller than the number fighting on the Zionist side. They mostly fought within the territory allocated to the Arab state and they had ulterior motives.
Why do you put “armies” in quotation marks? Don’t minimize. They were armies, not “armies.” If they were smaller than the Zionist forces that is because the Arab nations seriously underestimated what it would take to destroy Israel.
According to aljazeera,
Perhaps, the military campaigns were never taken seriously enough by Arab leaders and as a result, a small number of poorly-equipped Arab forces were sent to the battlefield.
Do you propose to blame the Zionists for this incompetence?
I don’t justify terror tactics of either side.
OK. But plenty of critics of Israel on the left do in fact give anti-Israel terrorism a pass. Remember The Death of Klinghoffer?
Palestinian violence in the form of murderous riots began in the 20’s.
And many Palestinians and other Arabs were overtly and loudly pro-Nazi, as you surely know. Hardly a good place to start if you want to live in peace with Jewish neighbors.
Children were killed. ( in fairness, some Palestinians saved Jews from other Palestinians in the Hebron slaughter.
I’m willing to bet that some Jews saved Palestinians as well. Good for both groups.
As for the Arab armies, they came in after Deir Yassin and after 300,000 Palestinians had already been expelled, when the Mandate ended.
I don’t think this is accurate. The invasion started the day Israel declared independence, more than a month after Deir Yassin, an act, by the way, condemned at the time by mainstream Israeli organization, including Haganah.
The size of all the “ armies” put together was smaller than the number fighting on the Zionist side. They mostly fought within the territory allocated to the Arab state and they had ulterior motives.
Why do you put “armies” in quotation marks? Don’t minimize. They were armies, not “armies.” If they were smaller than the Zionist forces that is because the Arab nations seriously underestimated what it would take to destroy Israel.
According to aljazeera,
Perhaps, the military campaigns were never taken seriously enough by Arab leaders and as a result, a small number of poorly-equipped Arab forces were sent to the battlefield.
Do you propose to blame the Zionists for this incompetence?
I don’t justify terror tactics of either side.
OK. But plenty of critics of Israel on the left do in fact give anti-Israel terrorism a pass. Remember The Death of Klinghoffer?
That’s why I was trying to suggest that taking adoption muddies the issue when we are talking about cultural authenticity. I’m not sure what wj had in mind, but worrying that the straight child’s voice would be considered ‘unauthentic’ when talking about gay culture doesn’t make much sense to me unless we postulate a whole range of conditions and circumstances.
lj, what I was trying to get to is, culture is not genetic. That’s all; adoptions being an obvious way you can be genetically (superficially, if you will) part of one group but culturally totally part of a different one.
Of course the same applies to mixed race kids. Does someone else get to define which race they are? Is their choice invalid if they pick otherwise?
And, once we start looking at adoptions and the group you are raised in, then we get to . . . how young do you have to be on adoption for your culture to be valid, rather that “appropriated”? And, depending on the age you pick, why can’t someone that age just get interested, maybe by friends/playmates, and validly pick up the culture that way?
Yes, there can be exploitation. Say someone starts an ethnic restaurant, but refuses to hire members of that ethnic group as cooks? Similarly regarding casting of shows. But that’s not what we (or at least I) am talking about.
That’s why I was trying to suggest that taking adoption muddies the issue when we are talking about cultural authenticity. I’m not sure what wj had in mind, but worrying that the straight child’s voice would be considered ‘unauthentic’ when talking about gay culture doesn’t make much sense to me unless we postulate a whole range of conditions and circumstances.
lj, what I was trying to get to is, culture is not genetic. That’s all; adoptions being an obvious way you can be genetically (superficially, if you will) part of one group but culturally totally part of a different one.
Of course the same applies to mixed race kids. Does someone else get to define which race they are? Is their choice invalid if they pick otherwise?
And, once we start looking at adoptions and the group you are raised in, then we get to . . . how young do you have to be on adoption for your culture to be valid, rather that “appropriated”? And, depending on the age you pick, why can’t someone that age just get interested, maybe by friends/playmates, and validly pick up the culture that way?
Yes, there can be exploitation. Say someone starts an ethnic restaurant, but refuses to hire members of that ethnic group as cooks? Similarly regarding casting of shows. But that’s not what we (or at least I) am talking about.
a particular someone else
wj, far be it from me to make an apologia for whoever this is, but I believe the objection was to making “trans women who still have penises with no intention necessarily of having said penises removed” a group of “women” whom “lesbians” might rule out by definition. Or something.
a particular someone else
wj, far be it from me to make an apologia for whoever this is, but I believe the objection was to making “trans women who still have penises with no intention necessarily of having said penises removed” a group of “women” whom “lesbians” might rule out by definition. Or something.
I assume we all agree that certain groups or individuals need protection from discrimination (on the grounds of race, sexual orientation etc etc), and once you agree this then these groups or individuals need definition. It may be my increasing problem with abstract thought, which I have described in the past, but I find these conundrums more and more difficult to disentangle….
I don’t see any problem with abstract thought in the comments you write here. 🙂
I was trying to get at something similar with my comment about the difficult gray areas. This isn’t an arithmetic problem…..
I assume we all agree that certain groups or individuals need protection from discrimination (on the grounds of race, sexual orientation etc etc), and once you agree this then these groups or individuals need definition. It may be my increasing problem with abstract thought, which I have described in the past, but I find these conundrums more and more difficult to disentangle….
I don’t see any problem with abstract thought in the comments you write here. 🙂
I was trying to get at something similar with my comment about the difficult gray areas. This isn’t an arithmetic problem…..
Marty, I like “not particular.” Maybe we should see if Facebook would add it to their umpty dozen gender/sexual orientation options. Of course, I’m not on Facebook, so it’s not one of my biggest worries.
I feel like I’m madly particular, but in a way that may amount to the same thing as your “not particular.” I.e., apt to be attracted to people based on some intangible combination of qualities, of which “gender” is only one, and not necessarily the most important.
But then again….
One of the things I realized well along the way, that I wished I had figured out earlier, was that there are lots of kinds of attraction, not just the romantic/sexual kind. Which is messy and confusing enough, but real life is even messier than that, because it seems to me that especially when you’re young, sex infiltrates, mimics, and/or contaminates the other kinds of attraction. A couple of my most intense … relationships, if you want to call them that … have had their roots in a sort of “intellectual” attraction, masquerading as the sexual kind. It was mostly pretty messy.
Once long long ago, at a workshop, I said that I thought I was “homosexual but bi-emotional.”
Now I think that was simplistic. But now I’m also kind of jaded and hermit-like anyhow. So maybe in my next lifetime…..
Marty, I like “not particular.” Maybe we should see if Facebook would add it to their umpty dozen gender/sexual orientation options. Of course, I’m not on Facebook, so it’s not one of my biggest worries.
I feel like I’m madly particular, but in a way that may amount to the same thing as your “not particular.” I.e., apt to be attracted to people based on some intangible combination of qualities, of which “gender” is only one, and not necessarily the most important.
But then again….
One of the things I realized well along the way, that I wished I had figured out earlier, was that there are lots of kinds of attraction, not just the romantic/sexual kind. Which is messy and confusing enough, but real life is even messier than that, because it seems to me that especially when you’re young, sex infiltrates, mimics, and/or contaminates the other kinds of attraction. A couple of my most intense … relationships, if you want to call them that … have had their roots in a sort of “intellectual” attraction, masquerading as the sexual kind. It was mostly pretty messy.
Once long long ago, at a workshop, I said that I thought I was “homosexual but bi-emotional.”
Now I think that was simplistic. But now I’m also kind of jaded and hermit-like anyhow. So maybe in my next lifetime…..
Huh, I also liked Marty’s “not particular”, and thought if more people were like that (and had no problem saying it) the world would probably be a better and certainly a more honest place.
Huh, I also liked Marty’s “not particular”, and thought if more people were like that (and had no problem saying it) the world would probably be a better and certainly a more honest place.
It’s not an area where I feel like I have anything like skin in the game. But just for my general education, what is the difference between “not particular” and bi?
It’s not an area where I feel like I have anything like skin in the game. But just for my general education, what is the difference between “not particular” and bi?
wj, go back and read Marty’s comment again.
wj, go back and read Marty’s comment again.
Janie, I tried — and I read it a couple of times initially. Maybe I’m just dense. Or, my initial assumption, I just don’t understand what bi really means.
Janie, I tried — and I read it a couple of times initially. Maybe I’m just dense. Or, my initial assumption, I just don’t understand what bi really means.
I should have stayed out of it; I will leave it to to Marty reply if he wants to.
I should have stayed out of it; I will leave it to to Marty reply if he wants to.
all of this is of interest to me because my family is in the middle of this issue right now.
my niece has three children – twin girls and a boy. but one of the girls ‘identifies as’ a boy. by which i mean she dresses like a boy, has invented and adopted for herself a boy-ish, or at least non-gender-specific name, and wants to be referred to with male pronouns.
so from here on out in this comment i will refer to her, as him.
he is seven. ‘sexual attraction’, in the sense of who he wants to have a physical sexual relationship with, is not part of the agenda.
he just is a boy, for all practical and social purposes.
it’s an issue at school, where some kids know he’s biologically a girl, some don’t, and he’d sort of like to maintain some level of control over all of that. i.e., choose who and when knows this about him.
his parents were, but no longer are, married. dad is not having all of this, and refuses to call him by his chosen name, preferring the clearly female name he was given at birth, and refuses to use male pronouns. that’s just one of the ways in which dad is not particularly supportive, which is another story, but it is one of the ways. dad is lao, so there may be some cultural baggage involved there, i don’t know.
nieces family – my sister, her husband, her sister and her sister’s husband – are uniformly supportive, where ‘support’ ranges from ‘whatever floats his boat’ to more pro-active, engaged advocacy.
he recently spent a week in a psych hospital to deal with angry acting out issues, which may or may not be related to all of the above, but i imagine they are related in some way.
what gender is my niece’s child? plumbing says girl. niece’s child says boy. at age seven.
i know other kids who have gone through phases where they embraced aspects of the biological gender they were not, to greater or lesser degrees, for shorter or longer periods of time. but my niece’s child’s thing has been going on for a couple of years now, and seems more profound than just tom-boy stuff.
don’t know where it will land, or what the kid has before him. it’s a lot for a seven year old to sort out. i’m glad the family (other than dad) are solidly behind him.
all of this is of interest to me because my family is in the middle of this issue right now.
my niece has three children – twin girls and a boy. but one of the girls ‘identifies as’ a boy. by which i mean she dresses like a boy, has invented and adopted for herself a boy-ish, or at least non-gender-specific name, and wants to be referred to with male pronouns.
so from here on out in this comment i will refer to her, as him.
he is seven. ‘sexual attraction’, in the sense of who he wants to have a physical sexual relationship with, is not part of the agenda.
he just is a boy, for all practical and social purposes.
it’s an issue at school, where some kids know he’s biologically a girl, some don’t, and he’d sort of like to maintain some level of control over all of that. i.e., choose who and when knows this about him.
his parents were, but no longer are, married. dad is not having all of this, and refuses to call him by his chosen name, preferring the clearly female name he was given at birth, and refuses to use male pronouns. that’s just one of the ways in which dad is not particularly supportive, which is another story, but it is one of the ways. dad is lao, so there may be some cultural baggage involved there, i don’t know.
nieces family – my sister, her husband, her sister and her sister’s husband – are uniformly supportive, where ‘support’ ranges from ‘whatever floats his boat’ to more pro-active, engaged advocacy.
he recently spent a week in a psych hospital to deal with angry acting out issues, which may or may not be related to all of the above, but i imagine they are related in some way.
what gender is my niece’s child? plumbing says girl. niece’s child says boy. at age seven.
i know other kids who have gone through phases where they embraced aspects of the biological gender they were not, to greater or lesser degrees, for shorter or longer periods of time. but my niece’s child’s thing has been going on for a couple of years now, and seems more profound than just tom-boy stuff.
don’t know where it will land, or what the kid has before him. it’s a lot for a seven year old to sort out. i’m glad the family (other than dad) are solidly behind him.
russell — in this era your niece probably has plenty of resources, but Becoming Nicole is a very recent book about another set of twins. These twins were born in boys’ bodies, but one of them was sure she was a girl from very early on. As with your niece, the dad was resistant for a long time…until he wasn’t.
Also, this piece from the Globe a few years ago is lovely.
russell — in this era your niece probably has plenty of resources, but Becoming Nicole is a very recent book about another set of twins. These twins were born in boys’ bodies, but one of them was sure she was a girl from very early on. As with your niece, the dad was resistant for a long time…until he wasn’t.
Also, this piece from the Globe a few years ago is lovely.
thank you Janie!
my sister and her family are actually out in Phoenix AZ, which seems like it might not be such a hospitable place to be having these issues, but my niece has actually found schools etc to be *very* supportive and helpful.
thank you Janie!
my sister and her family are actually out in Phoenix AZ, which seems like it might not be such a hospitable place to be having these issues, but my niece has actually found schools etc to be *very* supportive and helpful.
wj, always hard to explain. But imagine it as liking sex with both genders, as opposed to a less specific attraction to individual people coupled with an open mind on mutual sexual satisfaction.
wj, always hard to explain. But imagine it as liking sex with both genders, as opposed to a less specific attraction to individual people coupled with an open mind on mutual sexual satisfaction.
all of this is of interest to me because my family is in the middle of this issue right now.
Coincidently, I was just a few minutes ago listening to a podcast interview with Dr. Debra Soh.
“In a list of today’s top-10 contentious issues, the subject of transgender children easily covets the No. 1 spot. Parents, teachers, and medical professionals have been told that “affirming” a child who identifies as the opposite sex is the only acceptable approach. Anything short of that is transphobic and will lead a child to suicide.
But it’s not as simple as what we’ve been led to believe. There are a number of reasons why children may want to transition and, in many cases, they don’t have anything to do with feelings of being ‘born in the wrong body.'”
Don’t treat all cases of gender dysphoria the same way: Debra Soh holds a PhD in sexual neuroscience from York University and writes about the science and politics of sex
all of this is of interest to me because my family is in the middle of this issue right now.
Coincidently, I was just a few minutes ago listening to a podcast interview with Dr. Debra Soh.
“In a list of today’s top-10 contentious issues, the subject of transgender children easily covets the No. 1 spot. Parents, teachers, and medical professionals have been told that “affirming” a child who identifies as the opposite sex is the only acceptable approach. Anything short of that is transphobic and will lead a child to suicide.
But it’s not as simple as what we’ve been led to believe. There are a number of reasons why children may want to transition and, in many cases, they don’t have anything to do with feelings of being ‘born in the wrong body.'”
Don’t treat all cases of gender dysphoria the same way: Debra Soh holds a PhD in sexual neuroscience from York University and writes about the science and politics of sex
Parents, teachers, and medical professionals have been told…
But it’s not as simple as what we’ve been led to believe.
Lotta possibly inflammatory weasely passive voice there. Who told all these parents, teachers, and professionals this stuff?
Also, even on my casual acquaintance with trans writing and trans issues, it doesn’t seem like “born in the wrong body” is some kind of orthodoxy at this point. Some trans people say they feel that way, some don’t.
Finally, how can you trust the opinions of someone who doesn’t even know what the word “covet” means?
Parents, teachers, and medical professionals have been told…
But it’s not as simple as what we’ve been led to believe.
Lotta possibly inflammatory weasely passive voice there. Who told all these parents, teachers, and professionals this stuff?
Also, even on my casual acquaintance with trans writing and trans issues, it doesn’t seem like “born in the wrong body” is some kind of orthodoxy at this point. Some trans people say they feel that way, some don’t.
Finally, how can you trust the opinions of someone who doesn’t even know what the word “covet” means?
Who told all these parents, teachers, and professionals this stuff?
me.
i told them.
and then i ran away giggling.
Who told all these parents, teachers, and professionals this stuff?
me.
i told them.
and then i ran away giggling.
There are a number of reasons why children may want to transition and, in many cases, they don’t have anything to do with feelings of being “born in the wrong body”.
Indeed. And the more rigid the parents/community is about “appropriate gender roles” the more likely a kid with non-traditional interests is to see claiming a different gender as the path do following their (unrelated to sex) interests.
There are a number of reasons why children may want to transition and, in many cases, they don’t have anything to do with feelings of being “born in the wrong body”.
Indeed. And the more rigid the parents/community is about “appropriate gender roles” the more likely a kid with non-traditional interests is to see claiming a different gender as the path do following their (unrelated to sex) interests.
“There are a number of reasons why children may want to transition”
My primary concern in this is that people start talking about “transition” at 7. Or, perhaps, how would a 7 year old have a concept of transition?
Not to mention the vast number of things a 7 year old might misunderstand, Incuding how they feel.
I think support is correct, without treating it like a life decision.
“There are a number of reasons why children may want to transition”
My primary concern in this is that people start talking about “transition” at 7. Or, perhaps, how would a 7 year old have a concept of transition?
Not to mention the vast number of things a 7 year old might misunderstand, Incuding how they feel.
I think support is correct, without treating it like a life decision.
Finally, how can you trust the opinions of someone who doesn’t even know what the word “covet” means?
You took the words right out of my mouth…
(absolutely not a cue for Meatloaf!)
Finally, how can you trust the opinions of someone who doesn’t even know what the word “covet” means?
You took the words right out of my mouth…
(absolutely not a cue for Meatloaf!)
On the topic of Arab antisemitism: There has been traditional anti-Judaism in Islam from early on, likely originating from personal conflicts Mohammed had with the Jewish community in Mecca (I have read claims that Jewish merchants acted like peddlars in Indian territory with booze and gambling but that may be a later invention to justify the hostility).
To my knowledge it never reached the systemic level common in Christian territories.
The modern Arab antisemitism got bred and fostered deliberately by the actual Nazis. There has been a recent in-depth study on that (in German, and I have no link available. Sorry!). Quite a lot of resources were put into turning Arabs from simple “we do not like Jews” guys into ‘modern, scientific’ racist antisemites. Hitler took a personal interest in this and insisted that Arabs too should use the term ‘antisemite’ despite being semites themselves (which was a major obstacle).
It’s another case where the efforts ‘paid off’ too late for the instigators but we have to live with the effects of the poison/infection to this day.
There would still be a hot political conflict between Arabs and Israel but without the Nazi ideological intervention it would imo look quite different and be less ideological. In these days we have Nazis in all but name on both sides pouring gasoline on the fire and trying to prevent by all means possible any peaceful solution.
On the topic of Arab antisemitism: There has been traditional anti-Judaism in Islam from early on, likely originating from personal conflicts Mohammed had with the Jewish community in Mecca (I have read claims that Jewish merchants acted like peddlars in Indian territory with booze and gambling but that may be a later invention to justify the hostility).
To my knowledge it never reached the systemic level common in Christian territories.
The modern Arab antisemitism got bred and fostered deliberately by the actual Nazis. There has been a recent in-depth study on that (in German, and I have no link available. Sorry!). Quite a lot of resources were put into turning Arabs from simple “we do not like Jews” guys into ‘modern, scientific’ racist antisemites. Hitler took a personal interest in this and insisted that Arabs too should use the term ‘antisemite’ despite being semites themselves (which was a major obstacle).
It’s another case where the efforts ‘paid off’ too late for the instigators but we have to live with the effects of the poison/infection to this day.
There would still be a hot political conflict between Arabs and Israel but without the Nazi ideological intervention it would imo look quite different and be less ideological. In these days we have Nazis in all but name on both sides pouring gasoline on the fire and trying to prevent by all means possible any peaceful solution.
Got up late and had to leave early, so instead of posting just after everyone is finished, I’m posting just before everyone gets started.
To me, even though they look similar, questions of identity are different from questions of cultural appropriation, though they can blend into each other. Cultural appropriation is a question of power asymmetry, when a person from the dominant culture gets to pick and choose what they like.
So yes, it’s not genetics, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, parents raise their own offspring, so it not being genetics doesn’t really get us much, except to suggest that maybe parents shouldn’t freak out so much when their kids want to do something the parents don’t really want them to do.
Thinking about identity at the same time as talking about cultural appropriation leads to a mess, imho, which is why discussing men transitioning to women in light of the power asymmetry between men and women in society gets really fraught.
Unfortunately, (and this is not a shot at anyone here), when the dividing lines between those questions are blurred, it encourages a situation where people can be encouraged to think that who _they_ are is threatened, which is why discussing this with random people on the internet can be problematic. You see this often, with bathroom legislation and false facebook memes about California mandating that children be taught about gay sex.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/bogus-claim-about-lgbt-history-lessons/
By blurring the lines between questions of cultural appropriation and identity, it doesn’t calm fears, it increases them. This is why I tried to step lightly around this, cause I’m sure everyone here has the best of intentions, so I don’t want to come off accusing anyone of doing that.
When we talk about identity, the comment that Janie flagged from Crooked Timber, which I saw when it was posted, sticks in my mind as well. When other people’s identities become fodder for arguments among people who have little or no experience with that identity, it is difficult to see any good coming out of it. However, if it is suggested that people not talk about it, someone might say ‘why do you want to censor me?’, which leads to the comment Janie noted.
In an ideal world, if everyone in a group were talking about some other group that wasn’t represented in their number, let’s say left handed pipe fitters, cause there was some great interest in how left handed pipe fitters go about their work, and someone pops up and says “well, I’m a left handed pipe fitter”, at that point, you’d defer to them and after asking them some questions, you’d move on. It may reach the point where our left handed pipe fitter says ‘hey, I just came to talk about something other than work, can we change the subject?” Or the left handed pipe fitter just leaves, getting creeped out with people who seem to have an undue fascination with left handed pipe fitters. Of course, if every site has an interest in left hand pipe fitters, the only two answers are to not visit or to never acknowledge that you are a left hand pipe fitter.
Unfortunately, we as a society can’t (or don’t) do that very well in two areas, race and gender. And because identity is such a key touchstone, especially in the West, that’s why people freak out so much when race and gender intersect with identity issues.
We’ve seamlessly transitioned from cultural appropriation to sexual identity, and I have to echo Janie and GftNC’s praise of Marty’s brilliant formulation of “not particular”. However, I think we can see that gender identity is still really problematic in our society when we realize that someone were to answer ‘which do you like, Mexican or Italian’, with ‘I’m not particular’, they’d give off the vibe of an unfussy eater, but if they were answering the question ‘so, do you like men or women’ and they gave the same answer, some might assume that the person was some sort of sex fiend. So it goes.
As far as CharlesWT’s link goes, here’s a counter link
https://montrealgazette.com/life/ontario-bill-77-puts-transgender-issues-on-mainstream-radar-screens
The bill was amended in committee to clarify that therapeutic practices are still allowed under the law as long as their primary aim isn’t to change a person’s sexual or gender identity.”
The internet suggests that the purpose of the bill is to ban “reparative therapy”, which in the states is termed conversion therapy.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/realities-of-conversion-therapy_us_582b6cf2e4b01d8a014aea66
Perhaps the bill is imperfect in how it defines reparative therapy, but that is to be expected in new legislation that is trying to come to grips with definitions.
I also wanted to find out more about Dr. Soh. She seems to be following in the footsteps of people who like to sell the contrarian take. And by sell, I do mean sell.
https://www.patreon.com/DrDebraSoh
The patreon page has a list of her articles. Her twitter feed (which moved from https://twitter.com/debra_soh to https://twitter.com/DrDebraSoh) suggests a person using a recently obtained doctorate to try and get on the right wing gravy train. Caveat lector…
Got up late and had to leave early, so instead of posting just after everyone is finished, I’m posting just before everyone gets started.
To me, even though they look similar, questions of identity are different from questions of cultural appropriation, though they can blend into each other. Cultural appropriation is a question of power asymmetry, when a person from the dominant culture gets to pick and choose what they like.
So yes, it’s not genetics, but in the overwhelming majority of cases, parents raise their own offspring, so it not being genetics doesn’t really get us much, except to suggest that maybe parents shouldn’t freak out so much when their kids want to do something the parents don’t really want them to do.
Thinking about identity at the same time as talking about cultural appropriation leads to a mess, imho, which is why discussing men transitioning to women in light of the power asymmetry between men and women in society gets really fraught.
Unfortunately, (and this is not a shot at anyone here), when the dividing lines between those questions are blurred, it encourages a situation where people can be encouraged to think that who _they_ are is threatened, which is why discussing this with random people on the internet can be problematic. You see this often, with bathroom legislation and false facebook memes about California mandating that children be taught about gay sex.
https://www.factcheck.org/2018/08/bogus-claim-about-lgbt-history-lessons/
By blurring the lines between questions of cultural appropriation and identity, it doesn’t calm fears, it increases them. This is why I tried to step lightly around this, cause I’m sure everyone here has the best of intentions, so I don’t want to come off accusing anyone of doing that.
When we talk about identity, the comment that Janie flagged from Crooked Timber, which I saw when it was posted, sticks in my mind as well. When other people’s identities become fodder for arguments among people who have little or no experience with that identity, it is difficult to see any good coming out of it. However, if it is suggested that people not talk about it, someone might say ‘why do you want to censor me?’, which leads to the comment Janie noted.
In an ideal world, if everyone in a group were talking about some other group that wasn’t represented in their number, let’s say left handed pipe fitters, cause there was some great interest in how left handed pipe fitters go about their work, and someone pops up and says “well, I’m a left handed pipe fitter”, at that point, you’d defer to them and after asking them some questions, you’d move on. It may reach the point where our left handed pipe fitter says ‘hey, I just came to talk about something other than work, can we change the subject?” Or the left handed pipe fitter just leaves, getting creeped out with people who seem to have an undue fascination with left handed pipe fitters. Of course, if every site has an interest in left hand pipe fitters, the only two answers are to not visit or to never acknowledge that you are a left hand pipe fitter.
Unfortunately, we as a society can’t (or don’t) do that very well in two areas, race and gender. And because identity is such a key touchstone, especially in the West, that’s why people freak out so much when race and gender intersect with identity issues.
We’ve seamlessly transitioned from cultural appropriation to sexual identity, and I have to echo Janie and GftNC’s praise of Marty’s brilliant formulation of “not particular”. However, I think we can see that gender identity is still really problematic in our society when we realize that someone were to answer ‘which do you like, Mexican or Italian’, with ‘I’m not particular’, they’d give off the vibe of an unfussy eater, but if they were answering the question ‘so, do you like men or women’ and they gave the same answer, some might assume that the person was some sort of sex fiend. So it goes.
As far as CharlesWT’s link goes, here’s a counter link
https://montrealgazette.com/life/ontario-bill-77-puts-transgender-issues-on-mainstream-radar-screens
The bill was amended in committee to clarify that therapeutic practices are still allowed under the law as long as their primary aim isn’t to change a person’s sexual or gender identity.”
The internet suggests that the purpose of the bill is to ban “reparative therapy”, which in the states is termed conversion therapy.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/realities-of-conversion-therapy_us_582b6cf2e4b01d8a014aea66
Perhaps the bill is imperfect in how it defines reparative therapy, but that is to be expected in new legislation that is trying to come to grips with definitions.
I also wanted to find out more about Dr. Soh. She seems to be following in the footsteps of people who like to sell the contrarian take. And by sell, I do mean sell.
https://www.patreon.com/DrDebraSoh
The patreon page has a list of her articles. Her twitter feed (which moved from https://twitter.com/debra_soh to https://twitter.com/DrDebraSoh) suggests a person using a recently obtained doctorate to try and get on the right wing gravy train. Caveat lector…
My view is that the leaders of the surrounding Arab countries bear much of the blame for the festering conflict in Palestine, and have done ever since they rejected the UN’s 1947 Partition Plan.
It suits them to have a common enemy for their people to unite against.
My view is that the leaders of the surrounding Arab countries bear much of the blame for the festering conflict in Palestine, and have done ever since they rejected the UN’s 1947 Partition Plan.
It suits them to have a common enemy for their people to unite against.
When other people’s identities become fodder for arguments among people who have little or no experience with that identity, it is difficult to see any good coming out of it. However, if it is suggested that people not talk about it, someone might say ‘why do you want to censor me?’, which leads to the comment Janie noted.
The usual excuses for not being as thorough as I should be — I haven’t had breakfast or caffeine yet; maybe I should stop checking ObWi first thing. 😉
As topics, gender and sexuality are intimately and personally relevant to, and belong to, everyone. Sexuality, at least, is relevant to major life decisions that everyone makes, actively or passively, like: who am I going to have sex with? (Marry, have children with, etc.) (To the extent that gender is *made* relevant — to things like career decisions — it should not be. But that’s a side topic for the moment.)
So it would be a difficult line to draw to say okay, you can talk about gender, and how *you* relate to gender, and who you feel like you are, and how you relate to the dominant culture’s framework for gender, but don’t you dare talk about *this* aspect of gender, because someone might feel sad and angry if you do.
I have very little patience with that. As a gay person, I have had to accept that my life isn’t just a plain old anonymous boring life, it has been fodder for political campaigns, the target of hate-filled rants, and a topic for endless discussion (9? 10? statewide referenda on civil rights and marriage in my state between 1995 and 2012). That isn’t the life people “should” have to live, but it’s the life a lot of people live. And if having one’s most private characteristics made fodder for public nonsense, and having to spend energy, time, and $ on dealing with the publicness and politicalness of one’s life, is the price to be paid for bringing people out of the closet so that maybe later generations can live in boring anonymity — then I’m okay with it.
I know this isn’t exactly on point to the analogy of whether the pipe fitter is in the conversation or not, but … not talking about things, and trying to force other people not to talk about things, is a very backassed way to try to effect change in the world.
lj, thanks for tracking down more about Soh. Yes — that’s exactly what I would have guessed, the right wing gravy train. My jab about her using the word “covet” wrong came precisely out of the sense that that’s what she was up to. Lots of straw-manning, lots of rabble-rousing, precious little substance, and the arrogance to do all of that without the humility of knowing that you’re not as goddamned smart as you think you are.
When other people’s identities become fodder for arguments among people who have little or no experience with that identity, it is difficult to see any good coming out of it. However, if it is suggested that people not talk about it, someone might say ‘why do you want to censor me?’, which leads to the comment Janie noted.
The usual excuses for not being as thorough as I should be — I haven’t had breakfast or caffeine yet; maybe I should stop checking ObWi first thing. 😉
As topics, gender and sexuality are intimately and personally relevant to, and belong to, everyone. Sexuality, at least, is relevant to major life decisions that everyone makes, actively or passively, like: who am I going to have sex with? (Marry, have children with, etc.) (To the extent that gender is *made* relevant — to things like career decisions — it should not be. But that’s a side topic for the moment.)
So it would be a difficult line to draw to say okay, you can talk about gender, and how *you* relate to gender, and who you feel like you are, and how you relate to the dominant culture’s framework for gender, but don’t you dare talk about *this* aspect of gender, because someone might feel sad and angry if you do.
I have very little patience with that. As a gay person, I have had to accept that my life isn’t just a plain old anonymous boring life, it has been fodder for political campaigns, the target of hate-filled rants, and a topic for endless discussion (9? 10? statewide referenda on civil rights and marriage in my state between 1995 and 2012). That isn’t the life people “should” have to live, but it’s the life a lot of people live. And if having one’s most private characteristics made fodder for public nonsense, and having to spend energy, time, and $ on dealing with the publicness and politicalness of one’s life, is the price to be paid for bringing people out of the closet so that maybe later generations can live in boring anonymity — then I’m okay with it.
I know this isn’t exactly on point to the analogy of whether the pipe fitter is in the conversation or not, but … not talking about things, and trying to force other people not to talk about things, is a very backassed way to try to effect change in the world.
lj, thanks for tracking down more about Soh. Yes — that’s exactly what I would have guessed, the right wing gravy train. My jab about her using the word “covet” wrong came precisely out of the sense that that’s what she was up to. Lots of straw-manning, lots of rabble-rousing, precious little substance, and the arrogance to do all of that without the humility of knowing that you’re not as goddamned smart as you think you are.
P.S. lj, I deeply appreciate your careful teasing apart of things like our seamless (unconscious?) transition from talking about cultural appropriation to talking about identity. I am not so patient — as should be obvious. 😉
This is why I said it would take an encyclopedia…..
P.S. lj, I deeply appreciate your careful teasing apart of things like our seamless (unconscious?) transition from talking about cultural appropriation to talking about identity. I am not so patient — as should be obvious. 😉
This is why I said it would take an encyclopedia…..
P.P.S. “Letting” people talk about what they want to talk about is, I know, increasingly problematic in this era. It was bad enough when (as I thought) the internet was readily and frequently flooded with vileness that was apparently spewed out of, as the stereotype goes, lonely people in their parents’ spare rooms with nothing better to do than be nasty on the internet. But now that it seems to be getting clearer that a lot of the bile is being deliberately seeded on purpose to divide us — I dunno what the answer is. Another gray area between “letting” people talk, and not letting conversations descend into lunatic territory. I think that’s a reason to be glad ObWi is small and, despite occasional appearances, more or less friendly with and to each other.
P.P.S. “Letting” people talk about what they want to talk about is, I know, increasingly problematic in this era. It was bad enough when (as I thought) the internet was readily and frequently flooded with vileness that was apparently spewed out of, as the stereotype goes, lonely people in their parents’ spare rooms with nothing better to do than be nasty on the internet. But now that it seems to be getting clearer that a lot of the bile is being deliberately seeded on purpose to divide us — I dunno what the answer is. Another gray area between “letting” people talk, and not letting conversations descend into lunatic territory. I think that’s a reason to be glad ObWi is small and, despite occasional appearances, more or less friendly with and to each other.
Another gray area between “letting” people talk, and not letting conversations descend into lunatic territory
with people I know, I will sometimes ask if they really think that what they are saying is true. it pulls some folks back into reality.
not shotgun q anon guy, but we love him anyway. he just likes to be shocking. plus, he’s a good trumpet player.
but with folks I don’t know, I just find a polite way to change the subject. sometimes ‘polite way to change the subject’ is ‘let’s talk about something else’.
if they receive that as ‘you’re not letting me speak!’ then it’s time to excuse yourself and move on.
freedom to speak doesn’t mean others are obliged to listen.
sometimes folks seem to appreciate the ‘do you really believe that?’ question. it’s like waking them out of a nightmare.
Another gray area between “letting” people talk, and not letting conversations descend into lunatic territory
with people I know, I will sometimes ask if they really think that what they are saying is true. it pulls some folks back into reality.
not shotgun q anon guy, but we love him anyway. he just likes to be shocking. plus, he’s a good trumpet player.
but with folks I don’t know, I just find a polite way to change the subject. sometimes ‘polite way to change the subject’ is ‘let’s talk about something else’.
if they receive that as ‘you’re not letting me speak!’ then it’s time to excuse yourself and move on.
freedom to speak doesn’t mean others are obliged to listen.
sometimes folks seem to appreciate the ‘do you really believe that?’ question. it’s like waking them out of a nightmare.
When other people’s identities become fodder for arguments among people who have little or no experience with that identity, it is difficult to see any good coming out of it.
I guess when we’re talking about trans women, when women talk about it, women have a lot of experience as women which is the community of people that trans women are part of.
I don’t feel harmed by the existence or participation of trans people. However, there are some cultural/political questions that have been present in women’s discussions about equality for a long time that have become confused by the trans movement.
For example, women’s physical appearance is a commodity, and many women see that as a bad thing. Although many women enjoy enhancing their [culturally optimal] appearance with makeup, hairstyles, high heels, dresses, etc., doing so can be seen to reflect a political acceptance of the commodification of women’s beauty. Also, the practice of enhancing one’s femininity has been imposed on many women for them to hold certain jobs. This including plastic surgery to disguise aging. Many women have had to train themselves to understand that they are worthy and human without this artifice, and despite their beauty or lack of it.
Trans women’s focus on appearing like the gender identity they have adopted is in conflict with many women’s struggle to understand themselves apart from their appearance.
It’s difficult for me to understand some of the struggles of trans people because my body matches my identity. But when trans women adopt many of the cultural practices that non trans women are questioning, it seems worth thinking about.
I am not personally harmed by other people’s identity or self-definition. Being trans has its own challenges, and making people’s lives harder is not what I think I should be about. I’m happy to keep working on understanding and embracing the integration of trans people in our society without discrimination. At the same time, I listen, and try to be sensitive, to other people’s feelings of offense when they make the accusation of cultural appropriation, even though I sometimes have a hard time with the particular charge. I think it’s a bit unfair for non-trans women to be told, no, this is an identity issue, not a cultural appropriation issue, so we’re not going to listen to you.
The issue is interesting. In the end, I want people to feel welcome and appreciated in our society. Honest attempts at communicating and understanding, whether here, or through art, seem to further the cause of empathy, not hinder it.
When other people’s identities become fodder for arguments among people who have little or no experience with that identity, it is difficult to see any good coming out of it.
I guess when we’re talking about trans women, when women talk about it, women have a lot of experience as women which is the community of people that trans women are part of.
I don’t feel harmed by the existence or participation of trans people. However, there are some cultural/political questions that have been present in women’s discussions about equality for a long time that have become confused by the trans movement.
For example, women’s physical appearance is a commodity, and many women see that as a bad thing. Although many women enjoy enhancing their [culturally optimal] appearance with makeup, hairstyles, high heels, dresses, etc., doing so can be seen to reflect a political acceptance of the commodification of women’s beauty. Also, the practice of enhancing one’s femininity has been imposed on many women for them to hold certain jobs. This including plastic surgery to disguise aging. Many women have had to train themselves to understand that they are worthy and human without this artifice, and despite their beauty or lack of it.
Trans women’s focus on appearing like the gender identity they have adopted is in conflict with many women’s struggle to understand themselves apart from their appearance.
It’s difficult for me to understand some of the struggles of trans people because my body matches my identity. But when trans women adopt many of the cultural practices that non trans women are questioning, it seems worth thinking about.
I am not personally harmed by other people’s identity or self-definition. Being trans has its own challenges, and making people’s lives harder is not what I think I should be about. I’m happy to keep working on understanding and embracing the integration of trans people in our society without discrimination. At the same time, I listen, and try to be sensitive, to other people’s feelings of offense when they make the accusation of cultural appropriation, even though I sometimes have a hard time with the particular charge. I think it’s a bit unfair for non-trans women to be told, no, this is an identity issue, not a cultural appropriation issue, so we’re not going to listen to you.
The issue is interesting. In the end, I want people to feel welcome and appreciated in our society. Honest attempts at communicating and understanding, whether here, or through art, seem to further the cause of empathy, not hinder it.
There has been traditional anti-Judaism in Islam from early on, likely originating from personal conflicts Mohammed had with the Jewish community in Mecca
On the other hand, Mohammed was quite explicit that his followers should respect the “people of the book” — i.e. Jews and Christians. For example, adherents of other religions could be converted by force, but people of the book were to be left to follow their faith.
There has been traditional anti-Judaism in Islam from early on, likely originating from personal conflicts Mohammed had with the Jewish community in Mecca
On the other hand, Mohammed was quite explicit that his followers should respect the “people of the book” — i.e. Jews and Christians. For example, adherents of other religions could be converted by force, but people of the book were to be left to follow their faith.
Thinking about identity at the same time as talking about cultural appropriation leads to a mess, imho
I see that. But imho it’s an unavoidable issue. You can’t talk about cultural appropriation without establishing who is and who is not validly a member of the group.
And as a side note, I would observe that the power dynamic isn’t always as clear cut as we might assume. I recall a white jazz player early in the last century. In order to travel with and stay with his band, he claimed to be an “albino black” — at that time and place it was necessary to “pass” in order to work.
Thinking about identity at the same time as talking about cultural appropriation leads to a mess, imho
I see that. But imho it’s an unavoidable issue. You can’t talk about cultural appropriation without establishing who is and who is not validly a member of the group.
And as a side note, I would observe that the power dynamic isn’t always as clear cut as we might assume. I recall a white jazz player early in the last century. In order to travel with and stay with his band, he claimed to be an “albino black” — at that time and place it was necessary to “pass” in order to work.
On the other hand, Mohammed was quite explicit that his followers should respect the “people of the book” — i.e. Jews and Christians. For example, adherents of other religions could be converted by force, but people of the book were to be left to follow their faith.
Question for the peanut gallery here: Was anti-semitism rampant in the Arab world prior to the 20th century and the western imperialist expansion into the arab world after WWI?
On the other hand, Mohammed was quite explicit that his followers should respect the “people of the book” — i.e. Jews and Christians. For example, adherents of other religions could be converted by force, but people of the book were to be left to follow their faith.
Question for the peanut gallery here: Was anti-semitism rampant in the Arab world prior to the 20th century and the western imperialist expansion into the arab world after WWI?
Just for a change of pace
Just for a change of pace
…, he claimed to be an “albino black”
Harry Connick Jr., who as a kid, wished he was black so he could fit in better with his friend Branford Marsalis and the other black jazz musicians he grew up with in New Orleans.
…, he claimed to be an “albino black”
Harry Connick Jr., who as a kid, wished he was black so he could fit in better with his friend Branford Marsalis and the other black jazz musicians he grew up with in New Orleans.
sapient’s 10:51 has sent me off on a long meditation, the headlines of which are:
1. Byron White and Frank Ryan
2. Painted toenails (no, not, as far as I know, the name of a band)
3. Who cushions the rest of us against economic downturns
4. Rachel Dolezal
5. Who owns the definitions? And when do the definitions matter?
This is obviously volumes 8-22 of the encyclopedia, so I can only make a start.
Frank Ryan was a quarterback for the Cleveland Browns when I was growing up an hour away from Cleveland. As Wikipedia says, “He led the Browns to their most recent National Football League title in 1964.” Meanwhile, he was earning a Ph.D. in math at Rice, and
He had just recently started teaching at Case when I did an NSF summer program in math on the campus in the summer of ’67.
Then there was Byron “Whizzer” White, who
Oh, and by the way, he was a justice of the Supreme Court from 1962 to 1983.
Both these people were famous when I was growing up, in part for having two careers, either of which alone would have been worth some attention, to put it mildly.
Since I first heard of them as football players, and when I was quite young, for a long time I thought of them as football players with some (quite amazing) “secondary” talents.
Later I asked myself: are they football players who happened to be good enough at math and law to do some other good work too? Or are they a high-status, high-achieving math nerd and a similarly endowed legal mind, both of whom happened to have enough athletic talent to play in the NFL? (N.b. enough to come close to a Heisman in one case, and to help his team win a championship in the other.)
Well the answer is obviously, duh, neither/both, because, wait for it, people are complicated and multi-faceted.
sapient’s 10:51 has sent me off on a long meditation, the headlines of which are:
1. Byron White and Frank Ryan
2. Painted toenails (no, not, as far as I know, the name of a band)
3. Who cushions the rest of us against economic downturns
4. Rachel Dolezal
5. Who owns the definitions? And when do the definitions matter?
This is obviously volumes 8-22 of the encyclopedia, so I can only make a start.
Frank Ryan was a quarterback for the Cleveland Browns when I was growing up an hour away from Cleveland. As Wikipedia says, “He led the Browns to their most recent National Football League title in 1964.” Meanwhile, he was earning a Ph.D. in math at Rice, and
He had just recently started teaching at Case when I did an NSF summer program in math on the campus in the summer of ’67.
Then there was Byron “Whizzer” White, who
Oh, and by the way, he was a justice of the Supreme Court from 1962 to 1983.
Both these people were famous when I was growing up, in part for having two careers, either of which alone would have been worth some attention, to put it mildly.
Since I first heard of them as football players, and when I was quite young, for a long time I thought of them as football players with some (quite amazing) “secondary” talents.
Later I asked myself: are they football players who happened to be good enough at math and law to do some other good work too? Or are they a high-status, high-achieving math nerd and a similarly endowed legal mind, both of whom happened to have enough athletic talent to play in the NFL? (N.b. enough to come close to a Heisman in one case, and to help his team win a championship in the other.)
Well the answer is obviously, duh, neither/both, because, wait for it, people are complicated and multi-faceted.
TBC.
TBC.
Fab posts, sapient and Janie. This thread is quite a ride!
Fab posts, sapient and Janie. This thread is quite a ride!
“And many Palestinians and other Arabs were overtly and loudly pro-Nazi, as you surely know. Hardly a good place to start if you want to live in peace with Jewish neighbors.”
I agree. I don’t think the Palestinians as a whole are innocent. But coming to an already inhabited land with the intent of taking it over and after having the imperialist power grant you that right is, well, not something that would make Zionism popular. The Balfour declaration was inexcusable arrogant and after that, violence sooner or later was inevitable.
“I’m willing to bet that some Jews saved Palestinians as well. Good for both groups.”
Agreed.
“I don’t think this is accurate. The invasion started the day Israel declared independence, more than a month after Deir Yassin, an act, by the way, condemned at the time by mainstream Israeli organization, including Haganah.”
It’s a fairly standard claim that about half of the Palestinian refugees were generated or whatever the word is before the official birth of Israel and the other Arab countries invaded p, which, by the way, in practice mostly meant invading the portions that were supposed to go to the Arab state. Transjordan invaded specifically to take that territory. Merton Benvenisti gives a refugee figure of 380,000 on page 124 of “ Sacred Landscapes”.
As for massacres and deliberate expulsions, they were committed by the Israeli army, not just Irgun. And of course by the Arab side as well. And Ben Gurion decided that no refugees would be allowed back in June 1948. Unlike Hartmut, I doubt the Nazi influence made the conflict that much worse— look at any conflict involving outsiders coming in to claim land from the natives ( and that is what this conflict is, even if the invaders are trying to establish a safe haven for themselves) and you will see atrocities on both sides. American history gives plenty of examples. Just change the word “ terrorists” to “ savages” and it reads the same as a history of the I- P conflict.
I minimize the Arab armies because I see people commonly cite the Arab armies and then cite the relative populations of the Arab countries vs Israel, giving a drastically misleading impression of the situation.
As for the UN partition agreement, it was ludicrously unfair to the Palestinians. Better than what they ended up with, but that doesn’t change the fact that Palestinians were basically bullied. I don’t have much good to say about any Arab leader, but the Palestinians were screwed by the West.
On “The Death of Klinghoffer”, I didn’t see it or “Munich” either, though I read the script of the latter, but I think artists try to humanize both sides by taking some famous atrocity and humanizing the Palestinian terrorists. Which irritates me, because in an utterly predictable fashion all the freaking controversy is about whether the work is too sympathetic to terrorists and I the case of Munich, the Israeli assassins are depicted as conscience stricken. Shooting and crying is the term. Just once I would like to see one of these jerks write a movie or play from the POV of Palestinian victims and then people can argue if it does too much humanizing of their Israeli oppressors.
“And many Palestinians and other Arabs were overtly and loudly pro-Nazi, as you surely know. Hardly a good place to start if you want to live in peace with Jewish neighbors.”
I agree. I don’t think the Palestinians as a whole are innocent. But coming to an already inhabited land with the intent of taking it over and after having the imperialist power grant you that right is, well, not something that would make Zionism popular. The Balfour declaration was inexcusable arrogant and after that, violence sooner or later was inevitable.
“I’m willing to bet that some Jews saved Palestinians as well. Good for both groups.”
Agreed.
“I don’t think this is accurate. The invasion started the day Israel declared independence, more than a month after Deir Yassin, an act, by the way, condemned at the time by mainstream Israeli organization, including Haganah.”
It’s a fairly standard claim that about half of the Palestinian refugees were generated or whatever the word is before the official birth of Israel and the other Arab countries invaded p, which, by the way, in practice mostly meant invading the portions that were supposed to go to the Arab state. Transjordan invaded specifically to take that territory. Merton Benvenisti gives a refugee figure of 380,000 on page 124 of “ Sacred Landscapes”.
As for massacres and deliberate expulsions, they were committed by the Israeli army, not just Irgun. And of course by the Arab side as well. And Ben Gurion decided that no refugees would be allowed back in June 1948. Unlike Hartmut, I doubt the Nazi influence made the conflict that much worse— look at any conflict involving outsiders coming in to claim land from the natives ( and that is what this conflict is, even if the invaders are trying to establish a safe haven for themselves) and you will see atrocities on both sides. American history gives plenty of examples. Just change the word “ terrorists” to “ savages” and it reads the same as a history of the I- P conflict.
I minimize the Arab armies because I see people commonly cite the Arab armies and then cite the relative populations of the Arab countries vs Israel, giving a drastically misleading impression of the situation.
As for the UN partition agreement, it was ludicrously unfair to the Palestinians. Better than what they ended up with, but that doesn’t change the fact that Palestinians were basically bullied. I don’t have much good to say about any Arab leader, but the Palestinians were screwed by the West.
On “The Death of Klinghoffer”, I didn’t see it or “Munich” either, though I read the script of the latter, but I think artists try to humanize both sides by taking some famous atrocity and humanizing the Palestinian terrorists. Which irritates me, because in an utterly predictable fashion all the freaking controversy is about whether the work is too sympathetic to terrorists and I the case of Munich, the Israeli assassins are depicted as conscience stricken. Shooting and crying is the term. Just once I would like to see one of these jerks write a movie or play from the POV of Palestinian victims and then people can argue if it does too much humanizing of their Israeli oppressors.
But imho it’s an unavoidable issue. You can’t talk about cultural appropriation without establishing who is and who is not validly a member of the group.
I second this. How does cultural appropriation even exist without identity?
But imho it’s an unavoidable issue. You can’t talk about cultural appropriation without establishing who is and who is not validly a member of the group.
I second this. How does cultural appropriation even exist without identity?
Question for the peanut gallery here: Was anti-semitism rampant in the Arab world prior to the 20th century and the western imperialist expansion into the arab world after WWI?
There were certain rulers that persecuted Jews but usually Christians at the same time, so it was not specific anti-Jew but anti-‘infidel’.
In the case of Mohammed, the records are split. The Koran accuses the Jews of having distorted G#d’s original true message but does not call for persecution (iirc). But in the reported sayings of Mohammed and some other parallel traditions there is to my knowledge some truly vicious anti-Jew stuff. Those parts were deliberately ignored for most of Islamic history. A common theory is that Mohammed initially had hopes that the Jews would convert to Islam quickly and support him but got disappointed and then switched to hostility (similar to Martin Luther btw).
Iberia during and after the reconquista is a special case. Jews and converts of Jewish descent repeatedly became the target of both Christians and Muslims, each side claiming that the Jews worked for the other side, played both sides and the conversions were in bad faith.
Otherwise Jews were just another minority in the Islamic/Arabic world and as such had to serve as lightning rod on occasion.
Mainstream anti-Judaism grew in the colonialist but imo with no racial component. That part had to be deliberately introduced from Europe and, as I said, it was the Nazis that did it.
Hostility towards Israel would be there even absent that but the specific form used by Arab regimes (and Iran) takes its cues to a significant degree from the Nazis, including the old Christian demonization tales they revived (like blood libel).
In other words the Nazis are responsible for the specific shape of anti-Jewish propaganda and sentiments in the Arab World (and Iran) today. Imo the old anti-Judaism would be far less exploitable for political means (although attempts would be made in any case). The Nazis provided a new blueprint and breathed new life into old stuff (I doubt that e.g. the Protocols of the Elders of Zion would be known to more than just a few experts, if Hitler had not pushed them into new prominence. They are now very popular in the Middle East).
Question for the peanut gallery here: Was anti-semitism rampant in the Arab world prior to the 20th century and the western imperialist expansion into the arab world after WWI?
There were certain rulers that persecuted Jews but usually Christians at the same time, so it was not specific anti-Jew but anti-‘infidel’.
In the case of Mohammed, the records are split. The Koran accuses the Jews of having distorted G#d’s original true message but does not call for persecution (iirc). But in the reported sayings of Mohammed and some other parallel traditions there is to my knowledge some truly vicious anti-Jew stuff. Those parts were deliberately ignored for most of Islamic history. A common theory is that Mohammed initially had hopes that the Jews would convert to Islam quickly and support him but got disappointed and then switched to hostility (similar to Martin Luther btw).
Iberia during and after the reconquista is a special case. Jews and converts of Jewish descent repeatedly became the target of both Christians and Muslims, each side claiming that the Jews worked for the other side, played both sides and the conversions were in bad faith.
Otherwise Jews were just another minority in the Islamic/Arabic world and as such had to serve as lightning rod on occasion.
Mainstream anti-Judaism grew in the colonialist but imo with no racial component. That part had to be deliberately introduced from Europe and, as I said, it was the Nazis that did it.
Hostility towards Israel would be there even absent that but the specific form used by Arab regimes (and Iran) takes its cues to a significant degree from the Nazis, including the old Christian demonization tales they revived (like blood libel).
In other words the Nazis are responsible for the specific shape of anti-Jewish propaganda and sentiments in the Arab World (and Iran) today. Imo the old anti-Judaism would be far less exploitable for political means (although attempts would be made in any case). The Nazis provided a new blueprint and breathed new life into old stuff (I doubt that e.g. the Protocols of the Elders of Zion would be known to more than just a few experts, if Hitler had not pushed them into new prominence. They are now very popular in the Middle East).
“Effects of the Land Laws
“The provisions requiring registration, however, were ‘extensively ignored.’ The peasants were semi-literate and accustomed to a traditional society in which custom and oral evidence were sufficient to support an individual’s claim to property. Landholders saw no great need to register their claim and often did so only when they wanted to sell it to another party.
“Indeed, the peasants had strong incentives to not register or to under-register their land. One incentive was the tradition of mistrust of or opposition to government — what Granott calls the ‘indolence which characterizes the peasants’ attitude towards official regulations’ — and the desire to avoid granting unnecessary legitimization to the government. A second incentive was evasion of current and potential taxes on registered property. A third incentive to avoid registration was evasion of registration fees or penalties and fines for late registration. A fourth incentive was evasion of military conscription based on or traced through land holdings”
Ottoman Land Registration Law as a Contributing Factor in the Israeli-Arab Conflict: The Ottoman Land Code and Registration Laws of 1858 and 1859 contributed to the conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine and Israel.
“Effects of the Land Laws
“The provisions requiring registration, however, were ‘extensively ignored.’ The peasants were semi-literate and accustomed to a traditional society in which custom and oral evidence were sufficient to support an individual’s claim to property. Landholders saw no great need to register their claim and often did so only when they wanted to sell it to another party.
“Indeed, the peasants had strong incentives to not register or to under-register their land. One incentive was the tradition of mistrust of or opposition to government — what Granott calls the ‘indolence which characterizes the peasants’ attitude towards official regulations’ — and the desire to avoid granting unnecessary legitimization to the government. A second incentive was evasion of current and potential taxes on registered property. A third incentive to avoid registration was evasion of registration fees or penalties and fines for late registration. A fourth incentive was evasion of military conscription based on or traced through land holdings”
Ottoman Land Registration Law as a Contributing Factor in the Israeli-Arab Conflict: The Ottoman Land Code and Registration Laws of 1858 and 1859 contributed to the conflict between Jews and Arabs in Palestine and Israel.
Again taking some of sapient’s 10:51 as a jumping-off point….
As some of you know from my participation here, I consider myself at the very least to be gender challenged. I haven’t had the time or the patience to do a lot of abstract reading on this subject (e.g. Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble–which I started long ago but didn’t finish—much less anything later), but I do keep up with the topic a bit in my usual desultory way.
Not for the first time, I will mention that my all-time favorite book title is Kate Bornstein’s Gender Outlaw: Men, Women, and the Rest of Us. In some mild way, I think of myself as part of “the rest of us.”
An author whom I have followed more carefully, in part because she is so incredibly accessible (not to mention thoughtful and funny) is Jenny Boylan. Somewhere, probably in her first book about her transition from Jim to Jenny (She’s not There), she wrote about how tickled she was when she could finally be open about doing girl stuff like painting her toenails. (This is my paraphrase from a long-ago reading.)
This was eye-roll territory for me. I am supposedly a woman, formerly a girl, and I have never painted my toenails in my life, nor do I ever intend to.
As I pondered this story, and my reaction to it, one of my conclusions was that people like Jenny Boylan are experiencing gender quite differently from the way I am. Anyone who is willing to go through what someone like she went through to be able to live in the world as the gender she feels herself to be has a clarity about what that means that I just don’t share.
Luckily, IMHO, I don’t think Jenny Boylan is saying that everyone should experience gender in the way she does. Nor am I saying that everyone should experience it in the way I do. (No doubt there have been libraries written on these issues, but I am just trying to get a little clarity about the world as it looks from my vantage point. Bear with me if you can.) At the very least, I’m quite sure that although I’ve never felt like I fit very well with the dominant culture’s expectations of what a female human should be like and should do, how she should dress, etc., I’ve also most definitely never felt like I was, instead, a man.
Admittedly, when I was a little kid I often said I wished I was a boy, but even then I knew at some level that that was because in that world—the working class US Midwest in the 1950s (Catholic and Baptist parents, blah blah)—the boys got to do all the fun stuff, like play Davy Crockett and baseball, and say out loud that they liked math, and be altar boys. The girls were supposed to like dresses and play with dolls and wear mantillas and nice dresses in church.
Blech!
Hidden in plain sight in all this is the question: what is a woman?
Also, what is a man?
(And who are “the rest of us” and how do we fit in? Well, most of the time, unless we pretend that framing doesn’t exist, we don’t.)
And who gets to say? A few months ago there was a brief discussion on this blog of Germaine Greer’s insistence that trans women are not women. My answer to that is: who is she to say?
Who is anyone to say?
I think the answer circles back to questions of cultural appropriation, and also, as GftNC pointed out, to how we define certain groups for beneficial purposes, like countering discrimination. So my answer for the moment is: it depends. It depends on the purpose for which you’re trying to define people. If a group of self-declared lesbians without penises wants to get together and say, “We will never have sex with people with penises, no matter who they say they are,” then that seems to me to be their absolute right. You get to choose your own sex partners, there’s almost no right more fundamental. Beyond that, they have no more right to define the word “lesbian” than anyone else, which takes me back to the question of: for what purpose do we need to define this group?
TBC.
*****
This morning, I made a list of the high points of the thought train that sapient’s 10:51 (and more broadly, the whole gender strand of this thread) had triggered. I’m going to add another to the list, a question entailed for me by another question asked of me by a medicine walk leader (talk about cultural appropriation) after I finished my walk. His question was, “What gifts do you have for your people?” I couldn’t answer that question, because I don’t know the answer to this one:
6. Who are my people?
Again taking some of sapient’s 10:51 as a jumping-off point….
As some of you know from my participation here, I consider myself at the very least to be gender challenged. I haven’t had the time or the patience to do a lot of abstract reading on this subject (e.g. Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble–which I started long ago but didn’t finish—much less anything later), but I do keep up with the topic a bit in my usual desultory way.
Not for the first time, I will mention that my all-time favorite book title is Kate Bornstein’s Gender Outlaw: Men, Women, and the Rest of Us. In some mild way, I think of myself as part of “the rest of us.”
An author whom I have followed more carefully, in part because she is so incredibly accessible (not to mention thoughtful and funny) is Jenny Boylan. Somewhere, probably in her first book about her transition from Jim to Jenny (She’s not There), she wrote about how tickled she was when she could finally be open about doing girl stuff like painting her toenails. (This is my paraphrase from a long-ago reading.)
This was eye-roll territory for me. I am supposedly a woman, formerly a girl, and I have never painted my toenails in my life, nor do I ever intend to.
As I pondered this story, and my reaction to it, one of my conclusions was that people like Jenny Boylan are experiencing gender quite differently from the way I am. Anyone who is willing to go through what someone like she went through to be able to live in the world as the gender she feels herself to be has a clarity about what that means that I just don’t share.
Luckily, IMHO, I don’t think Jenny Boylan is saying that everyone should experience gender in the way she does. Nor am I saying that everyone should experience it in the way I do. (No doubt there have been libraries written on these issues, but I am just trying to get a little clarity about the world as it looks from my vantage point. Bear with me if you can.) At the very least, I’m quite sure that although I’ve never felt like I fit very well with the dominant culture’s expectations of what a female human should be like and should do, how she should dress, etc., I’ve also most definitely never felt like I was, instead, a man.
Admittedly, when I was a little kid I often said I wished I was a boy, but even then I knew at some level that that was because in that world—the working class US Midwest in the 1950s (Catholic and Baptist parents, blah blah)—the boys got to do all the fun stuff, like play Davy Crockett and baseball, and say out loud that they liked math, and be altar boys. The girls were supposed to like dresses and play with dolls and wear mantillas and nice dresses in church.
Blech!
Hidden in plain sight in all this is the question: what is a woman?
Also, what is a man?
(And who are “the rest of us” and how do we fit in? Well, most of the time, unless we pretend that framing doesn’t exist, we don’t.)
And who gets to say? A few months ago there was a brief discussion on this blog of Germaine Greer’s insistence that trans women are not women. My answer to that is: who is she to say?
Who is anyone to say?
I think the answer circles back to questions of cultural appropriation, and also, as GftNC pointed out, to how we define certain groups for beneficial purposes, like countering discrimination. So my answer for the moment is: it depends. It depends on the purpose for which you’re trying to define people. If a group of self-declared lesbians without penises wants to get together and say, “We will never have sex with people with penises, no matter who they say they are,” then that seems to me to be their absolute right. You get to choose your own sex partners, there’s almost no right more fundamental. Beyond that, they have no more right to define the word “lesbian” than anyone else, which takes me back to the question of: for what purpose do we need to define this group?
TBC.
*****
This morning, I made a list of the high points of the thought train that sapient’s 10:51 (and more broadly, the whole gender strand of this thread) had triggered. I’m going to add another to the list, a question entailed for me by another question asked of me by a medicine walk leader (talk about cultural appropriation) after I finished my walk. His question was, “What gifts do you have for your people?” I couldn’t answer that question, because I don’t know the answer to this one:
6. Who are my people?
This last comment, Janie, the best in a series of important ones on this thread, is a gift to us, so I guess we are your people, if you’ll have us.
This last comment, Janie, the best in a series of important ones on this thread, is a gift to us, so I guess we are your people, if you’ll have us.
Count, yes, I am honored.
Count, yes, I am honored.
One of the things I love here is hearing about the experiences of people whose lives have been different from my (mostly) generic one.
And Janie, for my money you honor us by being one of us.
One of the things I love here is hearing about the experiences of people whose lives have been different from my (mostly) generic one.
And Janie, for my money you honor us by being one of us.
Thanks for this Janie, some people wonder why I keep coming back here, this is why.
Thanks for this Janie, some people wonder why I keep coming back here, this is why.
I recall a white jazz player early in the last century. In order to travel with and stay with his band, he claimed to be an “albino black” — at that time and place it was necessary to “pass” in order to work.
that was red rodney, when he as with charlie parker.
the issue there was not that he would not be able to work as a white jazz musician. the issue was that all of the other guys in parker’s band were black, and a mixed race ensemble was not acceptable, particularly in the south.
race has been, and to some degree still is, a fraught topic in jazz. but there have been white players since the very beginning of the style.
And Janie, for my money you honor us by being one of us.
seconded
I recall a white jazz player early in the last century. In order to travel with and stay with his band, he claimed to be an “albino black” — at that time and place it was necessary to “pass” in order to work.
that was red rodney, when he as with charlie parker.
the issue there was not that he would not be able to work as a white jazz musician. the issue was that all of the other guys in parker’s band were black, and a mixed race ensemble was not acceptable, particularly in the south.
race has been, and to some degree still is, a fraught topic in jazz. but there have been white players since the very beginning of the style.
And Janie, for my money you honor us by being one of us.
seconded
We’ve got 5 pages of comments, so I’m going to close this and start another thread, especially because the Count and Russell’s comments are enthusiastically seconded by me and because I’m worried Typepad can’t take it. Thanks everyone.
We’ve got 5 pages of comments, so I’m going to close this and start another thread, especially because the Count and Russell’s comments are enthusiastically seconded by me and because I’m worried Typepad can’t take it. Thanks everyone.