As I’ve said many times, the key battles in the various culture wars are usually battles over words. Specifically, the meaning of words. 150 years ago, society argued about whether the word “citizen” should include people who weren’t white and male. More recently, people argued about whether the word “marriage” should include people of the same sex. And today, amongst other things, we’re arguing about what the word “racism” even means. In my article, Who Cares If America Is A Racist Country, I wrote about
Steve, "systemic racism" came up in this convo. Have you written about that?
I find the usage of that term to often seem, well, lazy and fuzzy. It's not that there is nothing one might put in that box, but I've never seen the examples justify the degree of centrality and ubiquity ascribed to it, so it often seems like a conveniently formless and mostly invisible bogeyman. It's impossible to assign a magnitude to it, or to measure it, or tell if it's increasing or decreasing. It explains everything by explaining nothing. People will give a definition sometimes, but then use the term in ways inconsistent with that.
Or it's used like Kendi's concept of racism - any different outcome can only be explained by discrimination and (systemic) racism, because to admit that not all people make the same use of a given opportunity would be to offend the gods of strict egalitarianism. It's "the system's" fault!
But if you have found more meaning to the term, I would listen. Or if you have your own deconstruction it would be interesting to compare.
"Steve, "systemic racism" came up in this convo. Have you written about that?"
No, I've never written specifically about it. I think people who are arguing in good faith use terms like "systemic racism," to describe the complex interactions of racism-like things that impact black people or perceptions of black people. Racism that isn't attributable to overt anti-black sentiment or even individual actions, but kind of underlying societal norms.
One of my favourite examples of this is the music and film industry. Black people are overwhelmingly more likely to be portrayed as criminals and thugs and gangsters in the films and on TV. The only music where it's appropriate to talk about drug abuse and crime and murder is "black" music. Advertisers and corporate sponsors don't put their money behind this kind of rhetoric for people of any other skin colour. But it ingrains those stereotypes about black people ever more deeply into the public psyche. It's hard to measure that effect statistically, but anybody who claims it doesn't have an effect isn't a serious person.
But yeah, I don't use the term unless the person I'm talking to uses it, and especially not in my writing, because it's almost uselessly vague. And the people who *aren't* arguing in good faith use it precisely because of that vagueness. It allows them to complain without being specific.
One of the music genera that I frequently listen to is the blues. Some of the older stuff has overtly cringeworthy subject matter. "Good morning little schoolgirl" and songs with reference to backdoor midnight creping. But at the same time "she was just seventeen, and you know just what I mean" and "Hey Joe" crossed color lines. I also listen to old-time music, a blend of white and black, with murder ballads like "Pretty Polly" and "The Banks of the Ohio." The Motown music of my teens was and is much loved across the races. Law breaking stuff, "Copperhead Road" and the drug music of the 70s was white bands. Music seems far more universal than movies to me and for that I am thankful.
I think that the Chess Brothers era of "race music" divided from "white music" was more about money than musical taste, though I may have a more liberal view of music than many. SiriusXM and Spotify are Godsends for good music not found on your local top 40 FM dial.
Top 40 was always a wasteland except for a few precious years in late 60s / early 70s. The Guess Who are still good. “No Time,” “ American Woman.” Those parallel fifths in the vocals were like synthesizers.
I'm a big fan of Ry Cooder. On his album "Pull Up Some Dust and Sit Down" in "John Lee Hooker for President" he channels John Lee Hooker perfectly. Everything on the album is profound in the way he can sing about social issues without venom which I consider to be activism done right. https://open.spotify.com/album/3IVWmaFJtcx2awW1QPV8GD
One point of clarification: are you saying that you think systemic racism only involves Blacks? Or was that just an example?
> "Black people are overwhelmingly more likely to be portrayed as criminals and thugs and gangsters in the films and on TV. "
Gotcha.
I wonder how quantitatively true that is in recent films and TV? (Ie: while I accept that your example likely has been true historically, would it still be true today - to what quantitative degree would that form of systemic racism still be operative in recent films).
For example, if one were to go through Netflix or Amazon originals and catalog their films, to what degree would that still be true? It would be interesting if some academic wanted to assess this. (Although I suspect that it would likely be easier to publish if the answer was 'to a large degree'; if it was found to no longer have much weight, that might not fit The Narrative)
I think there could be questions of whether to count crime dramas set in urban areas. Would it be racist if some of the cops/detectives are Black and a good portion of the criminals are Black, or would that reflect reality in, say, Baltimore or Philly or whereever the film/TV series was set?
However, if science fiction or a films about rural life or sports or something were clearly showing Blacks overwhemingly as the bad guys or the thugs, that should definitely count. And I honestly don't know what the result would be.
"One point of clarification: are you saying that you think systemic racism only involves Blacks?"
No, definitely not. There are clear examples of systemic racism against white people and even moreso, Asian people today. But I do think that, given America's history, the people most affected by "systemic racism" are most likely to be black.
But a) I'd say the discrimination in the case of non-black people hasn't been as severe, b) impact takes time to accrue and the discrimination has obviously targeted black people for longer, and c) there are more examples of positive discrimination for white people than for black people to act as a counterbalance.
The example of this that always makes me chuckle is that affirmative action, almost universally seen as positive discrimination for black people (which indeed it is) has still benefited white women more than any other group (https://time.com/4884132/affirmative-action-civil-rights-white-women/).
As for films, yeah, it's tricky. I don't have data to support this, but if anything, I feel as if there are more films coming out at the moment that portray black people as criminals or on the fringes, because it jibes nicely with the "America is indelibly racist and life as a black person is always and everywhere a battle for survival" narrative.
Even "positive" depictions of black people being needlessly harassed by the police often show us looking angry and embattled, wearing hoodies and sagging jeans because that's just how black people dress and shouldn't be viewed as a sign of criminality by the police.
I'm still infuriated by the "gritty" reboot of the Fresh Prince of Bel Air. That took a funny, universally positive representation of black people and turned it into a violence and drug fuelled piece of oppression porn.
One very effective way to close the racial wealth gap would be more good union jobs. Unionized black workers earn 16.4% than non-unionized black workers, unionized Latinos 40% more! I'm amazed how little attention gets paid to labor policy by anti-racist activists and thinkers. Not knowing them or what motivates them, I can't assume they're "grifters" but I do have some very different political priorities than they do.
Yeah the wealth gap is a tricky one. I think union jobs would definitely help. But for the time being, this would always feel more like a fix for the income gap than the wealth gap.
Accruing wealth takes time, usually generations. So I think it's going to be a source of grievance for a long time to come. It's a lingering reminder of the injustices of the past.
But yeah, honestly the thinking of a lot of "antiracist" activists is a mystery to me. I really wonder what the net effect of activism has been in the past ten years or so. I'd be genuinely surprised if it was positive.
Steve, I think a note from the trenches is in order. First, I want to say that any progress ever made in this country was the work of activists – years and years of unpaid, un-recognized and thankless work. So please, do not conflate activists with fans, fashionistas, and wanna-bees. We need a new term for these people.
Activists have been coping with newbies forever. Newbies are the bane of our existence, but cope with them we must. Whenever a new fad is a “cause” activists must stop work and do everything possible to keep newbies from de-railing years and years of work. Coping with newbies, is like herding cats. I offer you an example of the difference between an activist and what I call, fluster-clucks.
Her name is Marjorie Taylor Greene. While seasoned activists know that people like Greene are dangerous, the internet made it impossible for us to manage them any longer. In 2017, Greene decided she was an activist and launched her newest career. Two years later Greene was sworn into office as a United States Senator. Marjorie Taylor Greene is a fluster-cluck, not an activist.
Stacey Abrams is an activist. Abrams earned her title “activist” with a mile long list of accomplishments. I would follow Abrams to the end of the earth. I wouldn’t follow Greene to the bathroom.
"First, I want to say that any progress ever made in this country was the work of activists – years and years of unpaid, un-recognized and thankless work. So please, do not conflate activists with fans, fashionistas, and wanna-bees."
You're absolutely right. A really unfair conflation on my part. Yes, we need a new term. It's the curse of so many issues at the moment that the loud, irritating minority get lumped in with the quiet, sensible majority. I'm usually better at differentiating between the two.
Not sure what revised title to use. I'll try to think of something suitably scathing and report back 😁
Can you offer an objective definition of "activist" which includes the folks you think should be included and excludes those you think should be excluded?
For example, is the divide between liberal/progressive "activists" (all true activists) versus conservative "activists" (all being cluster-fucks)? Or does it have to do with some specific behaviors, regardless of political affiliation?
I used to consider myself an activist (intermittantly, depending on whether I was at that time engaged in activism (beyond voting, donating, talking w friends, writing letters to the editor or to representatives, which I didn't consider activism per se). If I was travelling to Nicaragua on Sandinista solidarity delegations or editing a local newsletter or helping organize protests, those were the times I thought of myself as engaging in activism rather than just ordinary civil engagement. I didn't tend to describe myself to others as an "activist", I just did it.
Today if somebody self-identifies as an "activist", the main thing that conveys to me is that they most likely have massive confirmation biases and have a weaponized and over-simplified concept of the world. Close to identifying themselves as an ideologue. Not always (everyone can be understood as an individual), but most often. That they have self-identified is one potential clue. Being an "activist" is highly valorized today, a positive thing to enhance one's social status. That social status seeking was never part of the activism I engaged in.
Passion - you really are guided by reason. I love your reply. No, I cannot offer an objective definition of "activist", but let's try to find one. Remember, objectivity is not my strong suit, so keep that in mind - okay?
I belong to a multi-disciplinary activist network. Most activists I know have anywhere from 10 to 40 years’ experience as activists, organizers and civic entrepreneurs. A lot of activists lend their professional expertise and knowledge to the work (lawyers, accountants, doctors, linguists, etc.). Rural land-use and cultural planning is my specialty. I also bake cakes and cookies.
There are no college degrees in activism, so activists must teach themselves, learn from others, learn from mistakes, and eventually teach new activists.
Newbie activists have no frigging idea what they’re doing and no respect for those who do. They walk into some meeting, look around and decide, they are the most qualified person in the room. Near as I can tell, they make this decision based on our appearance.
Activism is the people’s game, not a game show. Activists have power, The know how to use it. And they do not squander it or give it away. Activists don’t look like powerhouses; we don’t wear fancy suits, drive fancy cars and a lot of us wear thrift store clothes. But Senators, Congressmen and elected officials take our calls, and they take our meetings. National political parties send people to meet with us. We raise millions of dollars to fund our own work. If we call, 500 people show up. Politicians and VIPs, and CEOs, do not mess around with people power. More often than not, they try to hire us.
True story. One year a newbie joined one of our activist organizations. About six months later, Mary was on our agenda, but was late, so we waited for her report. Mary finally arrived and began her report. When newbie, Debby realized that Mary had just come from a meeting with our Senator, she came unglued. Off she went on a lecture about “our image” and the appropriate attire for a meeting with a “Senator” and proper etiquette (OMG). Newbie Debby had no frigging idea who she was talking to.
Mary never went to college, or law school. She taught herself the law, passed the bar the first time, got her license and had been practicing labor law for decades. At night, Mary taught the law to farmworker’s children. Just like Mary, her students pass the bar on the first try, get their license and practice law. If Mary makes the call, 1,500 people show up. You don’t speak that way, to a woman like Mary.
So, Passion, what do we do with newbie activists? How do we manage their expectations? And what do we call them?
Fixing the tax system to tax the wealthy in a fairer manner would help a lot. I'm not in favour of taking the money they have and redistributing it, but in making them pay their fair share of taxes - the more money you have/make, the more you should pay - some of their money will slowly get redistributed and affect everyone else. Sorry, but we have too many billionaires and some insanely wealthy billionaires. If Jeff and Elon can afford rocket ships, they can afford to pay higher taxes and help feed and house the poor more, since *no one* needs to have as much money as they have.
On the one hand, I see the concentration of wealth among a tiny fraction as corrosive to democracy, and wealth inequality as one of our key problems. My concern is about the societal effects, not about envy or resentment. New taxation is one approach to potentially reducing that disparity.
On the other, I'm not too much inclined to make billionaires the new bogeymen, to fuel resentment and ill will through anti-wealth populism. I think it's misleading to frame things like SpaceX and Blue Origin as if Musk and Bezos had purchased some new toy like a Lamborgini. The money they have invested in space technology is very much working capital, and appear to be creating more innovation than NASA or the ESA. Even Bezos going up in one of his rockets is a PR stunt, demonstrating in the most visceral way that he himself considers it safe enough for passengers. Their wealth is not a bunch of coins and bills sitting in huge vaults so they can swim in it (like Scrooge McDuck), it consists of a partial ownership interest in a functioning business, whose value is in turn partially derived by investors trusting their management. If say, the US Government decided to confiscate Bezos' wealth (which I know you are not advocating, but others do), it would not come from bank vaults, but would instead mean taking ownership and control of Amazon, AWS, etc. I don't really think they would run it well, on many fronts. And it would be hard to sell, having dropped in value greatly, plus they might in turn confiscate it again from the next buyer. If the government did get some cash for it, they would likely spend most of that on consumption, rather than reinvesting it in new wealth generation - which would languish by comparison to how that wealth is used now.
Most ordinary folks think of personal wealth in terms of what they could buy for personal consumption, but at the top it often is more about having (partial) control over a complex enterprise which one can try to guide towards functionality and growth. Becoming a high level politician is another way to get (partial) control over a complex enterprise, similarly (but with many differences). Musk and Bezos will personally consume only a tiny fraction of their wealth on paper. Their wealth is invested in enterprises which provide services, employs people at all levels, and advances technology - very little is spent on toys for their own consumption. Removing their influence from those enterprises would not make those enterprises better, in my best guess.
People envision Musk and Bezos as being motivated by acquisitiveness and having more money to spend on buying happiness. I think they are more in it to build the best businesses they can - facing and solving problems, coming up with creative strategies, hiring the right people and delegating appropriately, guiding policies. The business itself IS the "toy", interpreted broadly - in the same sense that a carpenter who builds a house whose craftsmanship they are proud of could be said to have that as their "toy".
And I am, I admit, somewhat tired of hearing "their fair share". Musk recently paid the largest tax assessment in history, by selling of 10% of his stock and paying the unmitigated top-bracket taxes on it. "Fair" is just so incredibly subjective, and the implied resentment is so populist (uninformed), that it's hard to jump on that bandwagon. In that direction lies "equity, not equality" and other semantic pitfalls.
People love hearing about how little some rich people pay in taxes, but that is removed from context and usually cherry picked. In California, half of all state taxes are paid by 1% of the population (it's a problem in that it varies greatly as the economy changes). Even after any "tax schemes" the wealthy do pay for a great deal of the government already. I think that needs to be tweaked higher, but not based on the false idea that they are all getting by super cheaply now.
All that said, I still think we need to do more to reduce income and wealth inequality. I just think we need to be wise about it, and not cause "unintended consequences" at a large scale.
So yes, more progressive taxation (ie: higher marginal rates for higher incomes) is needed, and likely some kind of "wealth tax", done very carefully. Wealth taxes on unrealized paper assets can be extremely tricky to do right.
But I am wary of the social forces, motivated by hostile caricatures of the actual dynamics and fueled by resentment and envy, jumping in to make billionaires "pay their fair share" without much thought or care about the consequences. It needs to be done soberly and carefully, in thoughtful service to creating a better society, not disguised vengeance against those who are more successful.
And we need to avoid exaggerating how much we can "feed and house the poor" from that money. Even if we outright confiscated all of Bezos' and Musk's wealth accumulated over decades, it would be gone in a couple of years, after which we'd have to look for the next goose. The US spent 6.82 trillion in 2021 alone; adding a one time infusion of 400 billion would not have a huge impact on the overall spending during the next decade.
A non-destructive wealth tax would bring in less than that (in the short term), tho it might bring in money for decades to come. We need to avoid over-promising the size of the bonanza, leading to dissapointment and resentment from the masses, who imagine the divided up spoils will change their lives materially.
And I'm not directing that at you per se, Nicole; your comment just stimulated these thoughts to crystalize. Sometimes my muses emerge unbidden, rather than accepting a pre-defined task I'd like to assign them.
Many arguments have been made re why the rich and the super-rich are paying more taxes than we think, but in the last 20-25 years Republican policies have clearly favoured tax breaks for the them and that's where the bulk of income inequality really got juiced. It's not about envy of those who are more successful; it's funny how when we talk about asshole billionaires Warren Buffett's name never seems to come up. He's the one talking about how he pays less taxes than his secretary, and as we learned a few years ago, Donald Trump paid $750 in his annual taxes a few years ago. I don't know how well-paid Elon Musk's employees are but the conditions at Amazon's warehouses for the rank and file are notoriously bad and underpaid. So while Bezos play with his rocketship, and he's doing it for the coolness factor, not because he's trying to demonstrate safety (only the superrich can afford it anyway), his warehouse people are struggling to make ends meet.
We can blame ourselves for that as well; we've been partly trained by the Walmart mentality to value low prices and ignore sweatshops in the Third World and even in our own land; until recently Walmart was the dirt standard for lousy, shitty pay. But bargain basement prices are now a necessity as wealth funneled from the bottom to the top. My sister-in-law commented to me last year that she and my brother are almost getting to the point where it would be worth it for them to vote Trump, but they won't do that because they have a responsibility to everyone who can't afford a seat at their table. And while they do well for themselves, they're nowhere close to being Bezos, Musk or Trump.
Perhaps raising minimum wage would be a good start, along with bringing back the perks of a job that contributed to how well-off someone was, like affordable healthcare. Since the rich famously hate anyone getting 'government handouts', maybe tax them higher is their employees' salaries don't meet a certain standard; those employees would then quality for a gov't UBI stipend.
It's a complicated subject, but higher wages = higher prices = all boats lifting. Costs would be reduced all around in other, less tangible ways in the forms of lower poverty and crime rates. I'm not interested in 'punishing' people for being successful, but an awful lot of their wealth in recent decades came from tax breaks by Republicans, not because of increased effort, and Darwin knows Bezos has never sweated his ass off in his life. The money flowed upward, much of it unearned; now it's time to reverse some of that, esp since they'll feel a lot less pain than the poor and middle class did.
>"Accruing wealth takes time, usually generations."
I know that's conventional wisdom. But I wonder how broadly true it is today. (A theme for me today it seems :-)
First, let's be clear what type of wealth we are talking about. When the question is about a wealth gap, it's usually measured at the median (50 percentile), so we are not talking about the wealth of the top 10%, 1% or 0.1%. So wealth among ordinary people consists of net assets - add up all that one owns and subtract all of one's debts.
I see people around me to earn similar incomes, but use it in different ways. Some borrow constantly, buying cars and boats and taking vacations; some are more frugal and save a larger portion of their income. Their net assets (ie: wealth) can vary wildly on the same income, depending on spending and investing habits. How large is this effect, compared to inherited wealth, among ordinary people?
I know that I personally inherited no wealth (indeed needed to support my mother), but managed to make it into a frugal middle class. I always saved the maximum possible on work plans (invested in tax free stock market funds), and had additional savings as well. My partner and I bought a house as soon as we were able, which along with subequent residences have appreciated at about 10% per year on average (no bonanzas, but ongoing growth). As a result, I'm doing OK - not wealthy but comfortable.
Others I know have had different trajectories, up or down from their parents. The state of their net assets today has depended more on their personal behaviors and choices, than their parent's status.
I do understand that I've been focusing on inherited money, and that intergenerational wealth correlations may sometimes involve more than money, like inculcated attitudes about handling money. So even if a child does not get much money from their parents, they might gain from wise attitudes regarding use of income to build wealth. Or even if they get financial assistance from a parent, they may use that to build net assets, or spend it on consumables. But the information about spending habits which build wealth rather than consumption, can be transferred laterally, and can be learned in a single generation.
I am NOT saying that there is no effect from having parents who can afford to fund a good university education, or an earlier down payment for their kids. I'm just questioning the degree to which that is the dominant factor in accumulating net assets today, for those in the middle of the income and/or wealth spectrum. Admittedly, my wanting to look more deeply is inspired by looking around me at ordinary people who do not seem to follow the same patterns as wealth among the 1% does. That's enough to raise questions, but not to answer them.
TL;DR: When we speak of wealth we can too easily have unconscioiusly in mind the dynamics we associate with rich people, say elite1% and above, while the gap is measured at the 50 percentile, where wealth (net assets) has as much to do with choices as with inherited money. This difference could taint our "intuitions", and thus would need deeper analysis.
Where I live, many of those in the trades are non-white. We just got solar in, and a majority of the crew were Latino or Black. It was a non-union job (tho at least one of the crew was a former union electrician). All the ones I spoke with liked the company and seemed content with the pay. So I don't think the route to increased wealth is only through unions, tho obviously than can play a part.
More good points. I agree with almost all of them.
As a side point, you might want to revise your first examples, tho. The US Constitution uses citizen many times, but did not give all citizens the right to vote, a separate thing. Originally voting was restricted to landed white males, but other (white) males - and females - were still citizens. Over the decades, non-landowning white males, Black males, women, and 18 year olds got the right as well. Even minors and felons without voting rights are citizens. So the argument was about which citizens could vote, not about citizenship itself, or the definition of the word.
Also, the fight over gay marriage was not fundamentally about the definition (altho for rhetorical purposes one side sometimes framed it that way, tho the other did not). But the core meaning didn't change when homosexuals got the right. (Now if polyamorous people get marriage rights, THAT would inherently change the meaning in very significant ways; gay marriage had no similar semantic complexities).
I'm not sure if we can find good historical examples, because this tactic of top-down prescriptive redefinitions of words seems like a more recent one, perhaps inspired by post-modernism. But perhaps someone else can find good examples from history.
All of the other stuff about word definitions seems on target. I loved your excerpt from Kendi and our tautological taunt.
"So the argument was about which citizens could vote, not about citizenship itself, or the definition of the word."
Not exactly. Yes, voting rights were a separate issue, but the Fourteenth Amendment, amongst other things, dealt specifically with the question of citizenship. The first line (also known as the Citizenship Clause) specifically addresses the 1857 decision of the Supreme Court (Dred Scott vs Sandford) that stated:
"Persons of African descent cannot be and were never intended to be citizens under the U.S. Constitution."
As for same-sex marriage, I'm not sure whether the definition of marriage was officially a legal argument, but yeah, it was most definitely a central part of the rhetoric, no? That's the whole reason why there was the discussion about whether civil unions should be enough to satisfy gay people.
Obama himself made that argument numerous times; that marriage was between a man and a woman (https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/). He saw civil unions as a compromise that gave gay people rights without "compromising" the idea that marriage was for straight people only.
My point stands. Citizenship is separate from the right to vote, so the struggle for voting rights was not a struggle about the definition of the word "citizen".
Blacks were granted citizenship by the 14th amendment (which made clear that all persons, male or female, Black or white, adult or minor, felon or not, were citizens.) That citizenship however did not give them the right to vote, so...
The 15th amendment was needed. It guaranteed that the right to vote would not be denied or abridged "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude". Notice that it does not prohibit voting restrictions on the basis of age, sex, or criminal conviction.
You could make argument that the struggle for the emancipation of slaves consisted in part of redefining "citizen" to include all persons in that definition. I think that's more of a modern reframing, rather than being how it was conceived or argued at the time, but one gets to do that. But in the other cases (non-landed white men, women, 18 year olds) there was no question of citizenship involved, much less a struggle over the definition of the word.
For example, the campaign for female enfranchisement never tried to say "we decree that the word 'citizen' henceforth means 'person entitled to vote', and since women are citizens, that means we are entitled to vote, QED". They just argued that female citizens should have the right to vote.
So I'm agreeing with your overall point, just suggesting that you refine your examples so that a less friendly audience doesn't focus on them as discrediting your real points.
"My point stands. Citizenship is separate from the right to vote, so the struggle for voting rights was not a struggle about the definition of the word "citizen"."
Exactly, agreed. But I didn't mention voting rights. That's a point you introduced tangential to my point about citizenship. I don't consider "citizen" and "person entitled to vote" to be synonyms. Neither did the Supreme Court. Which, as you say, is why the 15th Amendment was necessary.
The 14th Amendment, as you might imagine, was heavily contested by people who didn't want black people to be granted this status. If memory serves, it has been described as one of the most hotly contested pieces of legislation in American legal history. That's the "argument" I was referring to in the example.
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. That satisfies many of my concerns, which I will drop.
The remaining one is that I do not see the Black emancipation movement of the 19th century to have been a struggle over "definitions". That is, it was not fought in terms of who gets to control the definitions of words, expecting that control of language to yield the desired effects.
An example of the latter could be the attempt to redefine woman to mean "anybody who identifies as a woman" and thereby automatically get covered by any and all prior uses of the word when it was written to mean something else (as contrasted with directly seeking specific protections for trans folks). Similarly for "racism" - trying to control the definition as a tactic for shaping the discussion and making it harder to discuss clearly. This sense of explicitly fighting over (or simply asserting control over) definitions as a keystone path to social change appears to have come from postmodernism with its emphasis on using language as a weapon for social change.
I don't see similar dynamics in the 19th century. The struggle to end slavery, and grant citizenship and voting rights to the former slaves, did not center on a tactic of changing the meaning of "citizen" with the rest to follow.
But none of this is meant to detract from your conclusions in the article and discussion. Your basic argument does not depend on this one example, the example was just meant to help illustrate it.
A small correction. It took centuries, not decades, for people to gain the right to vote. Even then, that right must be defended, from constant attack.
The US Constitutio9n used PERSONS which included all people free and slave. We are a Republic so the idea that everyone should vote was not to be expected. We are not a democracy where voting is supreme. Voting was never intended to be supreme in Republic which is based on inalienable rights which are the supreme law. In a democracy, people get to vote on rights. That is the essence of Dobbs. Alito treated the nation as if it were a democracy so now each state gets to vote on inalienable rights and the Constitution is worth less that cacadoodoo. How did we get in this mess? Fools have been screaming that we are democracy. Well, the Republic gave us Roe v Wade and Gay Rights. Alito's Popular sovereign Democracy has taken away Roe v wade and will take away Gay Rights which Kennedy based on Liberty.
But the use of PERSON is related to help understand the mind set of the Framers. Where they wanted to open some to everyone, i.e. inalienable rights, they sued the widest category. When they realized that they had to restrict a category, e.g. voters, in order to protect the rule of law, they were more restrictive. When they wanted to avoid mention of slavery so that no one could argue they endorsed it, they used 3/5 of all others, while including free Blacks in PERSONS.
Good morning Rick Abrams - you addressed the single most divisive issues of our times. IMHO, the Republic versus Democracy divide is the foundation of the racial divide, the red state/blue state divide, the urban/rural divide, the wealth/poverty divide and most every other divide as well.
Until very recently, the vast majority of Americans believed we were a Democracy. Naturally, people were shocked to discover we were still a Republic. At this point, the gap between belief and reality is almost impossible to bridge in our minds.
I do not like your analysis, but I largely agree with it. That said, I am cautious of extremism. What I mean by extremism here, is positing an extremely complicated question as an extremely simplistic question - Republic or Democracy? I reject the notion that this is an either-or-question.
Republic or Democracy is a structural question, not an ideological one (and Alito damned well knows this). The power structure in this country is designed to support a Republic, not a Democracy. The much-detested government bureaucracy is, in fact, layers upon layers of quasi-governing bodies designed to protect the Republic’s representatives, from the will of the people. The greater the separation between the Republic’s representatives and the people, the greater the power held by representatives.
This structure of a Republic guarantees that any attempt to form a Democracy will fail. If we want a Democracy, and I think we do, we must craft a governing structure capable of supporting one.
In Denmark, Finland, and Norway, government is structured as a Democracy. It is Democracy – not socialism – that explains these countries’ extraordinary prosperity, good health, and peaceful civic life. American conservatives slander these countries, because they are terrified of losing “their” Republic to Democracy.
Its raining here and the bluegrass is smiling Time for breakfast.
I think there is another critical aspect beyond Republic vs. Democracy that you 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 read the running debate preserved in The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers and The Constitutional Debates. Many read the Federalist Papers, but they are only getting half of the conversation.
The Articles of Confederation clearly defined a federation of sovereign states and a central government with very limited authority. There was great concern about the increased central government power and a loss of state sovereignty.
The concerns of the Anti-Federalists have come to pass. The commerce and the equal protection clauses have been used to crush the local governance that comes with state sovereignty. The state equality of two Senators per state with a House that can restrain the Congress which is more based upon the democracy that come with population size was considered to be an essential part of the division of Federal power.
The 3rd rail issues like abortion and gun rights go to the heart of this conflict. The "democracy" crowd who want to end the electoral college and impose their majority will upon all of America are 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲. They will leave people with different views nowhere to run and when you back someone into a corner the only way out is thru you. If anything is to spark the most horribly violent civil war the world has ever seen, that will be it.
The electoral college is not a guarantee of minority representation. It might have some chance of doing that if its representation was proportional.
In real life we have had 12 years out of the last 22 with presidents who lost the popular vote. Sorry but these men have done enormous damage, I doubt a civil war could do much more.
I don't intend to argue the definition of words like racism, prejudice, etc. with this. My root focus is on the idea that none of these things can exist without negative or positive views of whole groups as if they are monoliths. There are writers on Medium who write a new negative "white people", "whiteness" article every day. What word(s) could properly be assigned to them?
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." -Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, 1964
This is an often-used standard which often seems reasonable as a test for many things, including racism. The problem lies in the fact that people tend to see what they are looking for thru the filters of their biases.
I think one way we can reclaim our power from lefty verbal obfuscationists is to start defining what we mean at the start. Like M could say, "I define prejudice as blah blah blah and racism as blah blah blah and this is what separates the two. We don't have to demand that everyone accept our definitions, but we can lay it out and use them with our verbal adversaries and not let them misuse the words when they're talking to *us*. "No, what you're talking about is *prejudice*, not racism. There's a difference." We don't have to let them set or play by the rules; we create our own and stick to them ourselves. This is the same sort of crap you get with the woman/transwoman debate or in feminism, what constitutes sexual assault or rape. And silence isn't violence, and if you think so you don't know what violence is. But it is *complicity* in violence and that's a critically important moral crime and distinction. I won't lump in the 'good little German' civilians in with the Nazis who committed the actual violence against others, but I will hold them accountable for letting it happen, just as I'm now holding Americans accountable for the state of the country.
Re BLM & the missing funds: My ex-partner was a reporter and journalist who'd once done an investigative story on charities and non-profits, and he found a high percentage of fraud and sticky fingers in the industry, like around 50%. He said you have to be very careful about charities as you never know where the money is actually going. Sure, there are administrative costs & salaries to pay, but when the money rolls in good charities, good people can suddenly be tempted and then justify to themselves why they're doing what they're doing. this is what happened to Christian televangelists who famously live pretty high off the hog on the donations and 'love offerings' or whatever that roll in from gullible viewers. I interned at a Christian TV station for two summers in college and I saw how this worked and I was appalled. I can't say they were misusing the funds but one guy was definitely feeding people horse shit to get them to send more money, and I'd see the cheques come in where the people were saying, "I'm an old lady on a limited income but I can give you this one or two dollars." Or "I can't give much because my medication is very expensive but here's a dollar or two."
Before you give to any non-profit or charity, look at their financials. If they're not transparent, they don't get my money. Make sure your money is really going toward helping the people you want to help, and not lining the pockets of the senior managers. Not surprised that BLM has become as corrupted by The Cause as so many others have.
> Like M could say, "I define prejudice as blah blah blah and racism as blah blah blah and this is what separates the two."
Small suggestion: "In this conversation, I will use 'prejudice' to mean ...."
That is, it can help to be explicit that in using a provided definition, one is not trying to sneakily win the society wide contest over definitions, nor to compel others, but only seeking to be clear about one's own speech.
That a key difference between using definitions as underhanded weapons (either to win "by definition", or to obfuscate and confuse any pushback), and using them to facilitate good faith communications.
Nonsense. "Prejudice" means "to judge before," meaning making presumptions about someone based on physical characteristics and not actually knowing. Black man in a dark suit? Must be a security guard. Can't be anyone important.
Racism is overt and easily identified; prejudice is more insidious and harder to recognize. The security guard example is something I've experienced myself.
I have taken to using racism generically to include anti-S. We Jews are NOT a race as we include all the standard races. I include Gays and that gaggle of Letters and even anti religious bias like anti-Catholic. When I use racism this way in an article, I note my usage. The behavior of dislike, hatred, prejudice, and ignorance is essentially the same when some one is disliked on the basis of the group to which he/she belongs. Hence, I use racism generically
Oh yes, our problem is NOT racism. It is Predation. If we were not a predatory society, we would not think of harming someone because he/she was from a different group . We would not think of harming others period! BLM despite its name focused on ending predatory behavior against everyone, not just Blacks. That really pissed of Pelosi.
"We Jews are NOT a race as we include all the standard races"
😁 Careful, Whoopi Goldberg got cancelled for saying that! Yeah, I had a long conversation with somebody once about the use of the word racism.
For me, it's just a question of precision. As you say, properly speaking, Jews are nor a race. Nor are gay people. To me, it makes no more sense to describe discrimination against those groups as racism than to describe discrimination against straight black people as homophobia.
These issues are important enough that we need to be able to talk about them accurately. So I tend to stick to broadly understood and accepted definitions.
Actually this is a good point. As I’ve said before, “race” is a term I avoid whenever possible because, as you say, it has no meaningful definition. But “racism” is widely understood to be discrimination based on skin colour. So when I want to talk about that particular problem, I use the word “racism.”
But yes, to your point, *no* skin colour is “properly speaking” a race. Imprecise on my part. But black people/white people/brown people/etc. are thought of as “races“ for the purposes of discussions about racism.
I am 87% Ashkenazi, more than most Israelis. OK, three of my grandparents were Jewish but how my Irish grandfather got to be half Jewish will forever remain a mystery.
I don't buy "race is a social construct" any more than gender. It doesn't take too many generations of geographic isolation between two colonies of a species before they can no longer interbreed.
There are differences. They're just not superiorities or inferiorities.
Personally, I think these ancestry businesses are for the birds. I'm not included in 23andme Jewish ancestry because my people are Sephardic. It gets even more complicated in Israel.
In Ethiopia, people have been practicing Judaism for 3,000 years. As his Holiness Abuna Paulos, patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, who holds a PhD in theology from Princeton University, explains: "We've had 1,000 years of Judaism, followed by 2,000 years of Christianity, and that's why our religion is rooted in the Old Testament."
When Christianity, and forced conversion, arrived in Ethiopia in the 4th century (AD), people who continued to practice Judaism were called “Falasha” (a derogatory term meaning outsider).
Sixteen hundred years later, during the political unrest of 1991, more than 14,000 Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel. Unfortunately, Ethiopian Jews who had converted to Christianity were left behind. Ethiopian Israelis, known as Beta Israel (meaning House of Israel) have been trying to bring their family members to Israel ever since. Suffice to say, Israel’s immigration issues are as divisive as ours, and for much the same reason (religion).
The covenant of the ark, containing the two tablets with the Ten Commandments carried down the mountain by Moses is said to be in Ethiopia. The Smithsonian published a good article about this legend.
Conflation of ancestry via genetics vs. religious conviction? The point being that there is an identifiable genetic ancestry path, and there are also people who self-identify as Jews thru their religion. Thus, the two sides of the argument pertaining to a racial component.
"I tend to stick to broadly understood and accepted definitions."
Beware this. Language maps poorly to reality and the mapping is getting a lot worse with the explosive growth in neologisms and enclave vocabulary.
In software this has gotten completely out of control, with accurate terms being replaced with fuzzy and often meaningless ones. Everyone talks about "refactoring" but a dozen mentions could have eight different meanings.
The controversy over "woman" is just shocking, and the fact that a "trans woman" refers to a man should be setting off alarms. Words should have precise and clear meanings, since they are all we have to bridge between minds.
“Beware this. Language maps poorly to reality and the mapping is getting a lot worse with the explosive growth in neologisms and enclave vocabulary.”
True. But enclave vocabulary (lovely term) tends to only work within those enclaves unless it’s validated.
Case in point, I don’t think anybody is confused what I mean when I use the word “women.” I’m referring to what the overwhelming majority of people mean when they say “woman.” I deliberately differentiate between women and trans women for this reason.
I don’t validate the enclave vocabulary simply by using language the way everybody already understands it. And the people pretending not to understand give themselves away by getting mad at me for not playing their game.
I adamantly do the same. I refuse to use he/she or (s)he or the singular they, defiantly continuing with the generic "he" and using "people" instead of "someone" so I don't have to pair the latter with "they."
I say "invitation" and "request" instead of using invite and ask as nouns. I still say "contact" instead of "reach out" ... you get the picture. Not all of these are enclave but they're part of the "warmth" defilement of the language that I refuse to go along with.
Since I do a lot of technical writing I dread that the time may come when an employer tells me to use "they" because I know what my answer will be.
The "woman" thing is a scent-mark like "Trump won." Well, I'm not a member of the pack.
From my time in the technical arm of the corporate word it became clear to me that the more fuzzy-buzzy words people used the less likely they were to have a real understanding of the subject matter. They were typically trying to baffle with bullshit.
And when their meetings are 100% buzz you better start distributing your CV because things are not going to last.
I was in a meeting at a company that started doing that agile horseshit. Someone mentioned "stories," which is what we used to call user scenarios. Nobody asked what it meant but they figured it out and within minutes everyone was shoehorning "stories" into every sentence. Nodding vigorously, so compulsive in their conformity I wanted to vomit.
We don't need to die to go to hell. It's right here.
The Oxford English Dictionary's first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902. Who the heck was Richard Henry Pratt? I turn to a piece from NPR for the answer.
Instead of racism, Pratt is better remembered for coining the phrase “Kill the Indian...save the man.”
"A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one," Pratt said. "In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man."
We're still living with the after-effects of what Pratt thought and did. His story serves as a useful parable for why discussions of racism remain so deeply contentious even now.”
Pratt advocated for the assimilation of Native Americans into white life and convinced Congress to let him try out his ideas.
Pratte pushed for the total erasure of Native cultures and the Carlisle Indian Industrial School would become a model for dozens of other boarding schools for Indian children.
If you are interested in the rest of this ghastly story, here is the link to the NPR story.
For now, I think the NPR conclusion said it best. “In the century since Pratt used the word racism, the term has become an abstraction. But always buried somewhere underneath it are actions with real consequences. Sometimes those outcomes are intended. Sometimes they're not. But it's the outcomes, not the intentions, that matter most in the end.”
Steve, let me offer some nuance to your great example of the Black VP in a dark suit. I have argued for many years that accurately observing and internalizing an ACCURATE statistical trend as this example shows, is as you point out, not evidence of racism or bias on the part of the speaker, rather it is a reflection of reality in that building. I still believe this is true in a narrow sense.
But there is a second vantage on this issue. What is the effect on the VP? Particularly if it is a dramatic and systemic assumption made by EVERYONE in that location. It could be big.
So for me, this was a big mind shift. I don't need to deny the statistical reality here, nor do I need to in accurately accuse the speaker of a bias they do not have, and I can still register the very real harm that can nonetheless happen as a consequence.
Knowing this, now requires contentious people to take into account those kinds of effects and to put extra filters on their speech, and even thoughts as much as they are able. Not because they are secretly racist or even biased. Nope, simply because there is high propensity for those kinds of STATISTICALLY VALID assumptions to cause damage even as they remain valid.
I am not a fan of vilifying the speaker.. some acknowledgment of actual statistical realities should be made. At the same time, saying well this accurate should not be accepted as a defense either. We know what can cause harm, and as a member of civil society it is our duty to avoid it.
You don't say ``Hey fatso. can you come here?'' even if it is an accurate descriptor.
So that is the mind-shift for myself and for all others that could be in a position to speak in this way.
my thought for those who are spoken TO in this way is not such a popular one: It is to recognize that even when such words are said, if there is a clear statistical reality, we cannot know this person is biased, nor has ill intent. We do know they are insensitive, but we should leave it at that. Why? Because knowing that someone is good natured and bears us no ill will, but is rough and insensitive, is very different than knowing they mean you harm, or actively dislike you even after they find out the error in their assumption. Both things could be true of course, but society runs better, and we achieve more, when we assume the best interpretation when there is a real choice.
(I have the sense that maybe you already see things in the way I have frame this... somehow I decided to write it anyway ;-) )
Excellent conversation - especially after that last one that went nowhere! Nice to see an example of a good faith discussion.
M: "I do think that some people behave as if they are trying to use accusations of racism to keep white people continually off balance."
Sadly, true in my experience. I have a couple friends who are my page, one white & one POC, and we try to check each other on this - usually by shamefacedly bringing up what we did and then being willing to accept criticism (and, well, mockery) from each other. That checking of ourselves is bracing & refreshing. For the white friend, she's come clean about how she's brought up the phrase "white supremacist behavior" to shut down an irritating colleague. For my POC friend, he's also used that confounded "white supremacist" phrase to shut down disagreement from someone who annoyed him. (And he's guiltily brought up his use of the word "Latinx" because everyone else in the room was doing it. None who were actually Latin - which he is!) For me (also a POC), it was saying something like "that's very Karen of you" to someone who seemed to be trying to shut down what I was saying. I've also used the intent vs. impact line of reasoning to check someone (ugh). In all of those instances, we knew what we were doing was questionable because we each had that weird gut feeling of "this isn't how I usually talk."
For people who are familiar with the soft points of woke folk, their tendency towards group-think, and their fear of being seen as "problematic," the temptation can be almost irresistible to ether passively conform or to aggressively use their language against them.
But of course we shouldn't be doing either. I'm lucky in that I have friends who check me if I'm being hypocritical and who I can also check.
I highly recommend this article, it really opened my eyes about how to look at the often-misused word Racism and how to stop being a lazy thinker when it comes to even thinking about racism:
LOL, I keep editing this comment! But I forgot to mention how much I loved you ending on equality versus equity. That's such a big topic. And I think that equity is another one of those words & ideas that is, as the woke enjoy saying, "problematic." The idea that equity is somehow replacing equality is wild to me. And by "wild" I mean frustrating & depressing & infuriating.
Steve, "systemic racism" came up in this convo. Have you written about that?
I find the usage of that term to often seem, well, lazy and fuzzy. It's not that there is nothing one might put in that box, but I've never seen the examples justify the degree of centrality and ubiquity ascribed to it, so it often seems like a conveniently formless and mostly invisible bogeyman. It's impossible to assign a magnitude to it, or to measure it, or tell if it's increasing or decreasing. It explains everything by explaining nothing. People will give a definition sometimes, but then use the term in ways inconsistent with that.
Or it's used like Kendi's concept of racism - any different outcome can only be explained by discrimination and (systemic) racism, because to admit that not all people make the same use of a given opportunity would be to offend the gods of strict egalitarianism. It's "the system's" fault!
But if you have found more meaning to the term, I would listen. Or if you have your own deconstruction it would be interesting to compare.
"Steve, "systemic racism" came up in this convo. Have you written about that?"
No, I've never written specifically about it. I think people who are arguing in good faith use terms like "systemic racism," to describe the complex interactions of racism-like things that impact black people or perceptions of black people. Racism that isn't attributable to overt anti-black sentiment or even individual actions, but kind of underlying societal norms.
One of my favourite examples of this is the music and film industry. Black people are overwhelmingly more likely to be portrayed as criminals and thugs and gangsters in the films and on TV. The only music where it's appropriate to talk about drug abuse and crime and murder is "black" music. Advertisers and corporate sponsors don't put their money behind this kind of rhetoric for people of any other skin colour. But it ingrains those stereotypes about black people ever more deeply into the public psyche. It's hard to measure that effect statistically, but anybody who claims it doesn't have an effect isn't a serious person.
But yeah, I don't use the term unless the person I'm talking to uses it, and especially not in my writing, because it's almost uselessly vague. And the people who *aren't* arguing in good faith use it precisely because of that vagueness. It allows them to complain without being specific.
One of the music genera that I frequently listen to is the blues. Some of the older stuff has overtly cringeworthy subject matter. "Good morning little schoolgirl" and songs with reference to backdoor midnight creping. But at the same time "she was just seventeen, and you know just what I mean" and "Hey Joe" crossed color lines. I also listen to old-time music, a blend of white and black, with murder ballads like "Pretty Polly" and "The Banks of the Ohio." The Motown music of my teens was and is much loved across the races. Law breaking stuff, "Copperhead Road" and the drug music of the 70s was white bands. Music seems far more universal than movies to me and for that I am thankful.
I think that the Chess Brothers era of "race music" divided from "white music" was more about money than musical taste, though I may have a more liberal view of music than many. SiriusXM and Spotify are Godsends for good music not found on your local top 40 FM dial.
Dock of the Bay still gives me chills
Light My Fire
The Age of Aquarius
I played that just two days ago, first time in 50 years.
We’ve lost so much...
Top 40 was always a wasteland except for a few precious years in late 60s / early 70s. The Guess Who are still good. “No Time,” “ American Woman.” Those parallel fifths in the vocals were like synthesizers.
I'm a big fan of Ry Cooder. On his album "Pull Up Some Dust and Sit Down" in "John Lee Hooker for President" he channels John Lee Hooker perfectly. Everything on the album is profound in the way he can sing about social issues without venom which I consider to be activism done right. https://open.spotify.com/album/3IVWmaFJtcx2awW1QPV8GD
Thanks for your thoughts on the matter.
One point of clarification: are you saying that you think systemic racism only involves Blacks? Or was that just an example?
> "Black people are overwhelmingly more likely to be portrayed as criminals and thugs and gangsters in the films and on TV. "
Gotcha.
I wonder how quantitatively true that is in recent films and TV? (Ie: while I accept that your example likely has been true historically, would it still be true today - to what quantitative degree would that form of systemic racism still be operative in recent films).
For example, if one were to go through Netflix or Amazon originals and catalog their films, to what degree would that still be true? It would be interesting if some academic wanted to assess this. (Although I suspect that it would likely be easier to publish if the answer was 'to a large degree'; if it was found to no longer have much weight, that might not fit The Narrative)
I think there could be questions of whether to count crime dramas set in urban areas. Would it be racist if some of the cops/detectives are Black and a good portion of the criminals are Black, or would that reflect reality in, say, Baltimore or Philly or whereever the film/TV series was set?
However, if science fiction or a films about rural life or sports or something were clearly showing Blacks overwhemingly as the bad guys or the thugs, that should definitely count. And I honestly don't know what the result would be.
"One point of clarification: are you saying that you think systemic racism only involves Blacks?"
No, definitely not. There are clear examples of systemic racism against white people and even moreso, Asian people today. But I do think that, given America's history, the people most affected by "systemic racism" are most likely to be black.
But a) I'd say the discrimination in the case of non-black people hasn't been as severe, b) impact takes time to accrue and the discrimination has obviously targeted black people for longer, and c) there are more examples of positive discrimination for white people than for black people to act as a counterbalance.
The example of this that always makes me chuckle is that affirmative action, almost universally seen as positive discrimination for black people (which indeed it is) has still benefited white women more than any other group (https://time.com/4884132/affirmative-action-civil-rights-white-women/).
As for films, yeah, it's tricky. I don't have data to support this, but if anything, I feel as if there are more films coming out at the moment that portray black people as criminals or on the fringes, because it jibes nicely with the "America is indelibly racist and life as a black person is always and everywhere a battle for survival" narrative.
Even "positive" depictions of black people being needlessly harassed by the police often show us looking angry and embattled, wearing hoodies and sagging jeans because that's just how black people dress and shouldn't be viewed as a sign of criminality by the police.
I'm still infuriated by the "gritty" reboot of the Fresh Prince of Bel Air. That took a funny, universally positive representation of black people and turned it into a violence and drug fuelled piece of oppression porn.
One very effective way to close the racial wealth gap would be more good union jobs. Unionized black workers earn 16.4% than non-unionized black workers, unionized Latinos 40% more! I'm amazed how little attention gets paid to labor policy by anti-racist activists and thinkers. Not knowing them or what motivates them, I can't assume they're "grifters" but I do have some very different political priorities than they do.
Yeah the wealth gap is a tricky one. I think union jobs would definitely help. But for the time being, this would always feel more like a fix for the income gap than the wealth gap.
Accruing wealth takes time, usually generations. So I think it's going to be a source of grievance for a long time to come. It's a lingering reminder of the injustices of the past.
But yeah, honestly the thinking of a lot of "antiracist" activists is a mystery to me. I really wonder what the net effect of activism has been in the past ten years or so. I'd be genuinely surprised if it was positive.
Yeah good point--I conflated income and wealth. This chart is intereresting b/c it looks at wealth and shows that union households have far more wealth but the gap b/w races is still huge and, in fact, the gap b/w black union and white union households is bigger than the gap b/w black non-union and white-union. https://www.forbes.com/sites/christianweller/2018/10/17/racial-wealth-gap-much-smaller-among-union-members/?sh=6e95b84d6c99
Steve, I think a note from the trenches is in order. First, I want to say that any progress ever made in this country was the work of activists – years and years of unpaid, un-recognized and thankless work. So please, do not conflate activists with fans, fashionistas, and wanna-bees. We need a new term for these people.
Activists have been coping with newbies forever. Newbies are the bane of our existence, but cope with them we must. Whenever a new fad is a “cause” activists must stop work and do everything possible to keep newbies from de-railing years and years of work. Coping with newbies, is like herding cats. I offer you an example of the difference between an activist and what I call, fluster-clucks.
Her name is Marjorie Taylor Greene. While seasoned activists know that people like Greene are dangerous, the internet made it impossible for us to manage them any longer. In 2017, Greene decided she was an activist and launched her newest career. Two years later Greene was sworn into office as a United States Senator. Marjorie Taylor Greene is a fluster-cluck, not an activist.
Stacey Abrams is an activist. Abrams earned her title “activist” with a mile long list of accomplishments. I would follow Abrams to the end of the earth. I wouldn’t follow Greene to the bathroom.
How do we handle this "title" problem?
"First, I want to say that any progress ever made in this country was the work of activists – years and years of unpaid, un-recognized and thankless work. So please, do not conflate activists with fans, fashionistas, and wanna-bees."
You're absolutely right. A really unfair conflation on my part. Yes, we need a new term. It's the curse of so many issues at the moment that the loud, irritating minority get lumped in with the quiet, sensible majority. I'm usually better at differentiating between the two.
Not sure what revised title to use. I'll try to think of something suitably scathing and report back 😁
Personally, I would appreciate scathing (cluster-fluck is my favorite). But, I want to draw people in, not turn them away, so... there's that.
Can you offer an objective definition of "activist" which includes the folks you think should be included and excludes those you think should be excluded?
For example, is the divide between liberal/progressive "activists" (all true activists) versus conservative "activists" (all being cluster-fucks)? Or does it have to do with some specific behaviors, regardless of political affiliation?
I used to consider myself an activist (intermittantly, depending on whether I was at that time engaged in activism (beyond voting, donating, talking w friends, writing letters to the editor or to representatives, which I didn't consider activism per se). If I was travelling to Nicaragua on Sandinista solidarity delegations or editing a local newsletter or helping organize protests, those were the times I thought of myself as engaging in activism rather than just ordinary civil engagement. I didn't tend to describe myself to others as an "activist", I just did it.
Today if somebody self-identifies as an "activist", the main thing that conveys to me is that they most likely have massive confirmation biases and have a weaponized and over-simplified concept of the world. Close to identifying themselves as an ideologue. Not always (everyone can be understood as an individual), but most often. That they have self-identified is one potential clue. Being an "activist" is highly valorized today, a positive thing to enhance one's social status. That social status seeking was never part of the activism I engaged in.
Passion - you really are guided by reason. I love your reply. No, I cannot offer an objective definition of "activist", but let's try to find one. Remember, objectivity is not my strong suit, so keep that in mind - okay?
I belong to a multi-disciplinary activist network. Most activists I know have anywhere from 10 to 40 years’ experience as activists, organizers and civic entrepreneurs. A lot of activists lend their professional expertise and knowledge to the work (lawyers, accountants, doctors, linguists, etc.). Rural land-use and cultural planning is my specialty. I also bake cakes and cookies.
There are no college degrees in activism, so activists must teach themselves, learn from others, learn from mistakes, and eventually teach new activists.
Newbie activists have no frigging idea what they’re doing and no respect for those who do. They walk into some meeting, look around and decide, they are the most qualified person in the room. Near as I can tell, they make this decision based on our appearance.
Activism is the people’s game, not a game show. Activists have power, The know how to use it. And they do not squander it or give it away. Activists don’t look like powerhouses; we don’t wear fancy suits, drive fancy cars and a lot of us wear thrift store clothes. But Senators, Congressmen and elected officials take our calls, and they take our meetings. National political parties send people to meet with us. We raise millions of dollars to fund our own work. If we call, 500 people show up. Politicians and VIPs, and CEOs, do not mess around with people power. More often than not, they try to hire us.
True story. One year a newbie joined one of our activist organizations. About six months later, Mary was on our agenda, but was late, so we waited for her report. Mary finally arrived and began her report. When newbie, Debby realized that Mary had just come from a meeting with our Senator, she came unglued. Off she went on a lecture about “our image” and the appropriate attire for a meeting with a “Senator” and proper etiquette (OMG). Newbie Debby had no frigging idea who she was talking to.
Mary never went to college, or law school. She taught herself the law, passed the bar the first time, got her license and had been practicing labor law for decades. At night, Mary taught the law to farmworker’s children. Just like Mary, her students pass the bar on the first try, get their license and practice law. If Mary makes the call, 1,500 people show up. You don’t speak that way, to a woman like Mary.
So, Passion, what do we do with newbie activists? How do we manage their expectations? And what do we call them?
"𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘦𝘹𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘵𝘸𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘭𝘪𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭/𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 "𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴" (𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴) 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 "𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴" (𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳-𝘧𝘶𝘤𝘬𝘴)? 𝘖𝘳 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘣𝘦𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘳𝘴, 𝘳𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘳𝘥𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯?"
Oh my! Definitely without regard to political affiliation. This is legitimate activism, and its thoughts are appropriate for this discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bef-2FUbQcI&t=1183s&ab_channel=UncleTom
Fixing the tax system to tax the wealthy in a fairer manner would help a lot. I'm not in favour of taking the money they have and redistributing it, but in making them pay their fair share of taxes - the more money you have/make, the more you should pay - some of their money will slowly get redistributed and affect everyone else. Sorry, but we have too many billionaires and some insanely wealthy billionaires. If Jeff and Elon can afford rocket ships, they can afford to pay higher taxes and help feed and house the poor more, since *no one* needs to have as much money as they have.
I am of mixed mind here.
On the one hand, I see the concentration of wealth among a tiny fraction as corrosive to democracy, and wealth inequality as one of our key problems. My concern is about the societal effects, not about envy or resentment. New taxation is one approach to potentially reducing that disparity.
On the other, I'm not too much inclined to make billionaires the new bogeymen, to fuel resentment and ill will through anti-wealth populism. I think it's misleading to frame things like SpaceX and Blue Origin as if Musk and Bezos had purchased some new toy like a Lamborgini. The money they have invested in space technology is very much working capital, and appear to be creating more innovation than NASA or the ESA. Even Bezos going up in one of his rockets is a PR stunt, demonstrating in the most visceral way that he himself considers it safe enough for passengers. Their wealth is not a bunch of coins and bills sitting in huge vaults so they can swim in it (like Scrooge McDuck), it consists of a partial ownership interest in a functioning business, whose value is in turn partially derived by investors trusting their management. If say, the US Government decided to confiscate Bezos' wealth (which I know you are not advocating, but others do), it would not come from bank vaults, but would instead mean taking ownership and control of Amazon, AWS, etc. I don't really think they would run it well, on many fronts. And it would be hard to sell, having dropped in value greatly, plus they might in turn confiscate it again from the next buyer. If the government did get some cash for it, they would likely spend most of that on consumption, rather than reinvesting it in new wealth generation - which would languish by comparison to how that wealth is used now.
Most ordinary folks think of personal wealth in terms of what they could buy for personal consumption, but at the top it often is more about having (partial) control over a complex enterprise which one can try to guide towards functionality and growth. Becoming a high level politician is another way to get (partial) control over a complex enterprise, similarly (but with many differences). Musk and Bezos will personally consume only a tiny fraction of their wealth on paper. Their wealth is invested in enterprises which provide services, employs people at all levels, and advances technology - very little is spent on toys for their own consumption. Removing their influence from those enterprises would not make those enterprises better, in my best guess.
People envision Musk and Bezos as being motivated by acquisitiveness and having more money to spend on buying happiness. I think they are more in it to build the best businesses they can - facing and solving problems, coming up with creative strategies, hiring the right people and delegating appropriately, guiding policies. The business itself IS the "toy", interpreted broadly - in the same sense that a carpenter who builds a house whose craftsmanship they are proud of could be said to have that as their "toy".
And I am, I admit, somewhat tired of hearing "their fair share". Musk recently paid the largest tax assessment in history, by selling of 10% of his stock and paying the unmitigated top-bracket taxes on it. "Fair" is just so incredibly subjective, and the implied resentment is so populist (uninformed), that it's hard to jump on that bandwagon. In that direction lies "equity, not equality" and other semantic pitfalls.
People love hearing about how little some rich people pay in taxes, but that is removed from context and usually cherry picked. In California, half of all state taxes are paid by 1% of the population (it's a problem in that it varies greatly as the economy changes). Even after any "tax schemes" the wealthy do pay for a great deal of the government already. I think that needs to be tweaked higher, but not based on the false idea that they are all getting by super cheaply now.
All that said, I still think we need to do more to reduce income and wealth inequality. I just think we need to be wise about it, and not cause "unintended consequences" at a large scale.
So yes, more progressive taxation (ie: higher marginal rates for higher incomes) is needed, and likely some kind of "wealth tax", done very carefully. Wealth taxes on unrealized paper assets can be extremely tricky to do right.
But I am wary of the social forces, motivated by hostile caricatures of the actual dynamics and fueled by resentment and envy, jumping in to make billionaires "pay their fair share" without much thought or care about the consequences. It needs to be done soberly and carefully, in thoughtful service to creating a better society, not disguised vengeance against those who are more successful.
And we need to avoid exaggerating how much we can "feed and house the poor" from that money. Even if we outright confiscated all of Bezos' and Musk's wealth accumulated over decades, it would be gone in a couple of years, after which we'd have to look for the next goose. The US spent 6.82 trillion in 2021 alone; adding a one time infusion of 400 billion would not have a huge impact on the overall spending during the next decade.
A non-destructive wealth tax would bring in less than that (in the short term), tho it might bring in money for decades to come. We need to avoid over-promising the size of the bonanza, leading to dissapointment and resentment from the masses, who imagine the divided up spoils will change their lives materially.
And I'm not directing that at you per se, Nicole; your comment just stimulated these thoughts to crystalize. Sometimes my muses emerge unbidden, rather than accepting a pre-defined task I'd like to assign them.
Many arguments have been made re why the rich and the super-rich are paying more taxes than we think, but in the last 20-25 years Republican policies have clearly favoured tax breaks for the them and that's where the bulk of income inequality really got juiced. It's not about envy of those who are more successful; it's funny how when we talk about asshole billionaires Warren Buffett's name never seems to come up. He's the one talking about how he pays less taxes than his secretary, and as we learned a few years ago, Donald Trump paid $750 in his annual taxes a few years ago. I don't know how well-paid Elon Musk's employees are but the conditions at Amazon's warehouses for the rank and file are notoriously bad and underpaid. So while Bezos play with his rocketship, and he's doing it for the coolness factor, not because he's trying to demonstrate safety (only the superrich can afford it anyway), his warehouse people are struggling to make ends meet.
We can blame ourselves for that as well; we've been partly trained by the Walmart mentality to value low prices and ignore sweatshops in the Third World and even in our own land; until recently Walmart was the dirt standard for lousy, shitty pay. But bargain basement prices are now a necessity as wealth funneled from the bottom to the top. My sister-in-law commented to me last year that she and my brother are almost getting to the point where it would be worth it for them to vote Trump, but they won't do that because they have a responsibility to everyone who can't afford a seat at their table. And while they do well for themselves, they're nowhere close to being Bezos, Musk or Trump.
Perhaps raising minimum wage would be a good start, along with bringing back the perks of a job that contributed to how well-off someone was, like affordable healthcare. Since the rich famously hate anyone getting 'government handouts', maybe tax them higher is their employees' salaries don't meet a certain standard; those employees would then quality for a gov't UBI stipend.
It's a complicated subject, but higher wages = higher prices = all boats lifting. Costs would be reduced all around in other, less tangible ways in the forms of lower poverty and crime rates. I'm not interested in 'punishing' people for being successful, but an awful lot of their wealth in recent decades came from tax breaks by Republicans, not because of increased effort, and Darwin knows Bezos has never sweated his ass off in his life. The money flowed upward, much of it unearned; now it's time to reverse some of that, esp since they'll feel a lot less pain than the poor and middle class did.
>"Accruing wealth takes time, usually generations."
I know that's conventional wisdom. But I wonder how broadly true it is today. (A theme for me today it seems :-)
First, let's be clear what type of wealth we are talking about. When the question is about a wealth gap, it's usually measured at the median (50 percentile), so we are not talking about the wealth of the top 10%, 1% or 0.1%. So wealth among ordinary people consists of net assets - add up all that one owns and subtract all of one's debts.
I see people around me to earn similar incomes, but use it in different ways. Some borrow constantly, buying cars and boats and taking vacations; some are more frugal and save a larger portion of their income. Their net assets (ie: wealth) can vary wildly on the same income, depending on spending and investing habits. How large is this effect, compared to inherited wealth, among ordinary people?
I know that I personally inherited no wealth (indeed needed to support my mother), but managed to make it into a frugal middle class. I always saved the maximum possible on work plans (invested in tax free stock market funds), and had additional savings as well. My partner and I bought a house as soon as we were able, which along with subequent residences have appreciated at about 10% per year on average (no bonanzas, but ongoing growth). As a result, I'm doing OK - not wealthy but comfortable.
Others I know have had different trajectories, up or down from their parents. The state of their net assets today has depended more on their personal behaviors and choices, than their parent's status.
I do understand that I've been focusing on inherited money, and that intergenerational wealth correlations may sometimes involve more than money, like inculcated attitudes about handling money. So even if a child does not get much money from their parents, they might gain from wise attitudes regarding use of income to build wealth. Or even if they get financial assistance from a parent, they may use that to build net assets, or spend it on consumables. But the information about spending habits which build wealth rather than consumption, can be transferred laterally, and can be learned in a single generation.
I am NOT saying that there is no effect from having parents who can afford to fund a good university education, or an earlier down payment for their kids. I'm just questioning the degree to which that is the dominant factor in accumulating net assets today, for those in the middle of the income and/or wealth spectrum. Admittedly, my wanting to look more deeply is inspired by looking around me at ordinary people who do not seem to follow the same patterns as wealth among the 1% does. That's enough to raise questions, but not to answer them.
TL;DR: When we speak of wealth we can too easily have unconscioiusly in mind the dynamics we associate with rich people, say elite1% and above, while the gap is measured at the 50 percentile, where wealth (net assets) has as much to do with choices as with inherited money. This difference could taint our "intuitions", and thus would need deeper analysis.
Where I live, many of those in the trades are non-white. We just got solar in, and a majority of the crew were Latino or Black. It was a non-union job (tho at least one of the crew was a former union electrician). All the ones I spoke with liked the company and seemed content with the pay. So I don't think the route to increased wealth is only through unions, tho obviously than can play a part.
More good points. I agree with almost all of them.
As a side point, you might want to revise your first examples, tho. The US Constitution uses citizen many times, but did not give all citizens the right to vote, a separate thing. Originally voting was restricted to landed white males, but other (white) males - and females - were still citizens. Over the decades, non-landowning white males, Black males, women, and 18 year olds got the right as well. Even minors and felons without voting rights are citizens. So the argument was about which citizens could vote, not about citizenship itself, or the definition of the word.
Also, the fight over gay marriage was not fundamentally about the definition (altho for rhetorical purposes one side sometimes framed it that way, tho the other did not). But the core meaning didn't change when homosexuals got the right. (Now if polyamorous people get marriage rights, THAT would inherently change the meaning in very significant ways; gay marriage had no similar semantic complexities).
I'm not sure if we can find good historical examples, because this tactic of top-down prescriptive redefinitions of words seems like a more recent one, perhaps inspired by post-modernism. But perhaps someone else can find good examples from history.
All of the other stuff about word definitions seems on target. I loved your excerpt from Kendi and our tautological taunt.
"So the argument was about which citizens could vote, not about citizenship itself, or the definition of the word."
Not exactly. Yes, voting rights were a separate issue, but the Fourteenth Amendment, amongst other things, dealt specifically with the question of citizenship. The first line (also known as the Citizenship Clause) specifically addresses the 1857 decision of the Supreme Court (Dred Scott vs Sandford) that stated:
"Persons of African descent cannot be and were never intended to be citizens under the U.S. Constitution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
As for same-sex marriage, I'm not sure whether the definition of marriage was officially a legal argument, but yeah, it was most definitely a central part of the rhetoric, no? That's the whole reason why there was the discussion about whether civil unions should be enough to satisfy gay people.
Obama himself made that argument numerous times; that marriage was between a man and a woman (https://time.com/3816952/obama-gay-lesbian-transgender-lgbt-rights/). He saw civil unions as a compromise that gave gay people rights without "compromising" the idea that marriage was for straight people only.
My point stands. Citizenship is separate from the right to vote, so the struggle for voting rights was not a struggle about the definition of the word "citizen".
Blacks were granted citizenship by the 14th amendment (which made clear that all persons, male or female, Black or white, adult or minor, felon or not, were citizens.) That citizenship however did not give them the right to vote, so...
The 15th amendment was needed. It guaranteed that the right to vote would not be denied or abridged "on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude". Notice that it does not prohibit voting restrictions on the basis of age, sex, or criminal conviction.
You could make argument that the struggle for the emancipation of slaves consisted in part of redefining "citizen" to include all persons in that definition. I think that's more of a modern reframing, rather than being how it was conceived or argued at the time, but one gets to do that. But in the other cases (non-landed white men, women, 18 year olds) there was no question of citizenship involved, much less a struggle over the definition of the word.
For example, the campaign for female enfranchisement never tried to say "we decree that the word 'citizen' henceforth means 'person entitled to vote', and since women are citizens, that means we are entitled to vote, QED". They just argued that female citizens should have the right to vote.
So I'm agreeing with your overall point, just suggesting that you refine your examples so that a less friendly audience doesn't focus on them as discrediting your real points.
"My point stands. Citizenship is separate from the right to vote, so the struggle for voting rights was not a struggle about the definition of the word "citizen"."
Exactly, agreed. But I didn't mention voting rights. That's a point you introduced tangential to my point about citizenship. I don't consider "citizen" and "person entitled to vote" to be synonyms. Neither did the Supreme Court. Which, as you say, is why the 15th Amendment was necessary.
The 14th Amendment, as you might imagine, was heavily contested by people who didn't want black people to be granted this status. If memory serves, it has been described as one of the most hotly contested pieces of legislation in American legal history. That's the "argument" I was referring to in the example.
Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. That satisfies many of my concerns, which I will drop.
The remaining one is that I do not see the Black emancipation movement of the 19th century to have been a struggle over "definitions". That is, it was not fought in terms of who gets to control the definitions of words, expecting that control of language to yield the desired effects.
An example of the latter could be the attempt to redefine woman to mean "anybody who identifies as a woman" and thereby automatically get covered by any and all prior uses of the word when it was written to mean something else (as contrasted with directly seeking specific protections for trans folks). Similarly for "racism" - trying to control the definition as a tactic for shaping the discussion and making it harder to discuss clearly. This sense of explicitly fighting over (or simply asserting control over) definitions as a keystone path to social change appears to have come from postmodernism with its emphasis on using language as a weapon for social change.
I don't see similar dynamics in the 19th century. The struggle to end slavery, and grant citizenship and voting rights to the former slaves, did not center on a tactic of changing the meaning of "citizen" with the rest to follow.
But none of this is meant to detract from your conclusions in the article and discussion. Your basic argument does not depend on this one example, the example was just meant to help illustrate it.
A small correction. It took centuries, not decades, for people to gain the right to vote. Even then, that right must be defended, from constant attack.
Women didn't get the vote in the USA until 1920.
The US Constitutio9n used PERSONS which included all people free and slave. We are a Republic so the idea that everyone should vote was not to be expected. We are not a democracy where voting is supreme. Voting was never intended to be supreme in Republic which is based on inalienable rights which are the supreme law. In a democracy, people get to vote on rights. That is the essence of Dobbs. Alito treated the nation as if it were a democracy so now each state gets to vote on inalienable rights and the Constitution is worth less that cacadoodoo. How did we get in this mess? Fools have been screaming that we are democracy. Well, the Republic gave us Roe v Wade and Gay Rights. Alito's Popular sovereign Democracy has taken away Roe v wade and will take away Gay Rights which Kennedy based on Liberty.
The US Constitution uses "citizen" 24 times. Your argument regarding "persons" is a separate issue.
But the use of PERSON is related to help understand the mind set of the Framers. Where they wanted to open some to everyone, i.e. inalienable rights, they sued the widest category. When they realized that they had to restrict a category, e.g. voters, in order to protect the rule of law, they were more restrictive. When they wanted to avoid mention of slavery so that no one could argue they endorsed it, they used 3/5 of all others, while including free Blacks in PERSONS.
I take your point about using "persons" to include slaves rather than trying to endorse anything that suggested that they were not persons.
Good morning Rick Abrams - you addressed the single most divisive issues of our times. IMHO, the Republic versus Democracy divide is the foundation of the racial divide, the red state/blue state divide, the urban/rural divide, the wealth/poverty divide and most every other divide as well.
Until very recently, the vast majority of Americans believed we were a Democracy. Naturally, people were shocked to discover we were still a Republic. At this point, the gap between belief and reality is almost impossible to bridge in our minds.
I do not like your analysis, but I largely agree with it. That said, I am cautious of extremism. What I mean by extremism here, is positing an extremely complicated question as an extremely simplistic question - Republic or Democracy? I reject the notion that this is an either-or-question.
Republic or Democracy is a structural question, not an ideological one (and Alito damned well knows this). The power structure in this country is designed to support a Republic, not a Democracy. The much-detested government bureaucracy is, in fact, layers upon layers of quasi-governing bodies designed to protect the Republic’s representatives, from the will of the people. The greater the separation between the Republic’s representatives and the people, the greater the power held by representatives.
This structure of a Republic guarantees that any attempt to form a Democracy will fail. If we want a Democracy, and I think we do, we must craft a governing structure capable of supporting one.
In Denmark, Finland, and Norway, government is structured as a Democracy. It is Democracy – not socialism – that explains these countries’ extraordinary prosperity, good health, and peaceful civic life. American conservatives slander these countries, because they are terrified of losing “their” Republic to Democracy.
Its raining here and the bluegrass is smiling Time for breakfast.
I think there is another critical aspect beyond Republic vs. Democracy that you 𝗺𝘂𝘀𝘁 read the running debate preserved in The Federalist Papers, The Anti-Federalist Papers and The Constitutional Debates. Many read the Federalist Papers, but they are only getting half of the conversation.
The Articles of Confederation clearly defined a federation of sovereign states and a central government with very limited authority. There was great concern about the increased central government power and a loss of state sovereignty.
The concerns of the Anti-Federalists have come to pass. The commerce and the equal protection clauses have been used to crush the local governance that comes with state sovereignty. The state equality of two Senators per state with a House that can restrain the Congress which is more based upon the democracy that come with population size was considered to be an essential part of the division of Federal power.
The 3rd rail issues like abortion and gun rights go to the heart of this conflict. The "democracy" crowd who want to end the electoral college and impose their majority will upon all of America are 𝗽𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝗲. They will leave people with different views nowhere to run and when you back someone into a corner the only way out is thru you. If anything is to spark the most horribly violent civil war the world has ever seen, that will be it.
The electoral college is not a guarantee of minority representation. It might have some chance of doing that if its representation was proportional.
In real life we have had 12 years out of the last 22 with presidents who lost the popular vote. Sorry but these men have done enormous damage, I doubt a civil war could do much more.
It seems to me as though we are already in one.
How are you defining your terms?
What about Denmark, Finland and Norway makes them democracies, while say, Sweden is not?
I don't intend to argue the definition of words like racism, prejudice, etc. with this. My root focus is on the idea that none of these things can exist without negative or positive views of whole groups as if they are monoliths. There are writers on Medium who write a new negative "white people", "whiteness" article every day. What word(s) could properly be assigned to them?
I use the word racism. This whole "black people can't be racist" trope is so stupid.
The only bigotry that anyone can confidently claim to be unidirectional is ageism.
"I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"], and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." -Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, 1964
This is an often-used standard which often seems reasonable as a test for many things, including racism. The problem lies in the fact that people tend to see what they are looking for thru the filters of their biases.
I think one way we can reclaim our power from lefty verbal obfuscationists is to start defining what we mean at the start. Like M could say, "I define prejudice as blah blah blah and racism as blah blah blah and this is what separates the two. We don't have to demand that everyone accept our definitions, but we can lay it out and use them with our verbal adversaries and not let them misuse the words when they're talking to *us*. "No, what you're talking about is *prejudice*, not racism. There's a difference." We don't have to let them set or play by the rules; we create our own and stick to them ourselves. This is the same sort of crap you get with the woman/transwoman debate or in feminism, what constitutes sexual assault or rape. And silence isn't violence, and if you think so you don't know what violence is. But it is *complicity* in violence and that's a critically important moral crime and distinction. I won't lump in the 'good little German' civilians in with the Nazis who committed the actual violence against others, but I will hold them accountable for letting it happen, just as I'm now holding Americans accountable for the state of the country.
Re BLM & the missing funds: My ex-partner was a reporter and journalist who'd once done an investigative story on charities and non-profits, and he found a high percentage of fraud and sticky fingers in the industry, like around 50%. He said you have to be very careful about charities as you never know where the money is actually going. Sure, there are administrative costs & salaries to pay, but when the money rolls in good charities, good people can suddenly be tempted and then justify to themselves why they're doing what they're doing. this is what happened to Christian televangelists who famously live pretty high off the hog on the donations and 'love offerings' or whatever that roll in from gullible viewers. I interned at a Christian TV station for two summers in college and I saw how this worked and I was appalled. I can't say they were misusing the funds but one guy was definitely feeding people horse shit to get them to send more money, and I'd see the cheques come in where the people were saying, "I'm an old lady on a limited income but I can give you this one or two dollars." Or "I can't give much because my medication is very expensive but here's a dollar or two."
Before you give to any non-profit or charity, look at their financials. If they're not transparent, they don't get my money. Make sure your money is really going toward helping the people you want to help, and not lining the pockets of the senior managers. Not surprised that BLM has become as corrupted by The Cause as so many others have.
> Like M could say, "I define prejudice as blah blah blah and racism as blah blah blah and this is what separates the two."
Small suggestion: "In this conversation, I will use 'prejudice' to mean ...."
That is, it can help to be explicit that in using a provided definition, one is not trying to sneakily win the society wide contest over definitions, nor to compel others, but only seeking to be clear about one's own speech.
That a key difference between using definitions as underhanded weapons (either to win "by definition", or to obfuscate and confuse any pushback), and using them to facilitate good faith communications.
Nonsense. "Prejudice" means "to judge before," meaning making presumptions about someone based on physical characteristics and not actually knowing. Black man in a dark suit? Must be a security guard. Can't be anyone important.
That's what the word means.
Racism is overt and easily identified; prejudice is more insidious and harder to recognize. The security guard example is something I've experienced myself.
I have taken to using racism generically to include anti-S. We Jews are NOT a race as we include all the standard races. I include Gays and that gaggle of Letters and even anti religious bias like anti-Catholic. When I use racism this way in an article, I note my usage. The behavior of dislike, hatred, prejudice, and ignorance is essentially the same when some one is disliked on the basis of the group to which he/she belongs. Hence, I use racism generically
Oh yes, our problem is NOT racism. It is Predation. If we were not a predatory society, we would not think of harming someone because he/she was from a different group . We would not think of harming others period! BLM despite its name focused on ending predatory behavior against everyone, not just Blacks. That really pissed of Pelosi.
"We Jews are NOT a race as we include all the standard races"
😁 Careful, Whoopi Goldberg got cancelled for saying that! Yeah, I had a long conversation with somebody once about the use of the word racism.
For me, it's just a question of precision. As you say, properly speaking, Jews are nor a race. Nor are gay people. To me, it makes no more sense to describe discrimination against those groups as racism than to describe discrimination against straight black people as homophobia.
These issues are important enough that we need to be able to talk about them accurately. So I tend to stick to broadly understood and accepted definitions.
The DNA Genetics site does not use the word race. Do you think that identifiable race falls out of what they do measure? https://www.23andme.com/ancestry-composition-guide/
Note that genetic Ashkenazi Jewish is identifiable with a precision of 99.
Actually this is a good point. As I’ve said before, “race” is a term I avoid whenever possible because, as you say, it has no meaningful definition. But “racism” is widely understood to be discrimination based on skin colour. So when I want to talk about that particular problem, I use the word “racism.”
But yes, to your point, *no* skin colour is “properly speaking” a race. Imprecise on my part. But black people/white people/brown people/etc. are thought of as “races“ for the purposes of discussions about racism.
I am 87% Ashkenazi, more than most Israelis. OK, three of my grandparents were Jewish but how my Irish grandfather got to be half Jewish will forever remain a mystery.
I don't buy "race is a social construct" any more than gender. It doesn't take too many generations of geographic isolation between two colonies of a species before they can no longer interbreed.
There are differences. They're just not superiorities or inferiorities.
Personally, I think these ancestry businesses are for the birds. I'm not included in 23andme Jewish ancestry because my people are Sephardic. It gets even more complicated in Israel.
In Ethiopia, people have been practicing Judaism for 3,000 years. As his Holiness Abuna Paulos, patriarch of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, who holds a PhD in theology from Princeton University, explains: "We've had 1,000 years of Judaism, followed by 2,000 years of Christianity, and that's why our religion is rooted in the Old Testament."
When Christianity, and forced conversion, arrived in Ethiopia in the 4th century (AD), people who continued to practice Judaism were called “Falasha” (a derogatory term meaning outsider).
Sixteen hundred years later, during the political unrest of 1991, more than 14,000 Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to Israel. Unfortunately, Ethiopian Jews who had converted to Christianity were left behind. Ethiopian Israelis, known as Beta Israel (meaning House of Israel) have been trying to bring their family members to Israel ever since. Suffice to say, Israel’s immigration issues are as divisive as ours, and for much the same reason (religion).
The covenant of the ark, containing the two tablets with the Ten Commandments carried down the mountain by Moses is said to be in Ethiopia. The Smithsonian published a good article about this legend.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/keepers-of-the-lost-ark-179998820/
Conflation of ancestry via genetics vs. religious conviction? The point being that there is an identifiable genetic ancestry path, and there are also people who self-identify as Jews thru their religion. Thus, the two sides of the argument pertaining to a racial component.
"I tend to stick to broadly understood and accepted definitions."
Beware this. Language maps poorly to reality and the mapping is getting a lot worse with the explosive growth in neologisms and enclave vocabulary.
In software this has gotten completely out of control, with accurate terms being replaced with fuzzy and often meaningless ones. Everyone talks about "refactoring" but a dozen mentions could have eight different meanings.
The controversy over "woman" is just shocking, and the fact that a "trans woman" refers to a man should be setting off alarms. Words should have precise and clear meanings, since they are all we have to bridge between minds.
“Beware this. Language maps poorly to reality and the mapping is getting a lot worse with the explosive growth in neologisms and enclave vocabulary.”
True. But enclave vocabulary (lovely term) tends to only work within those enclaves unless it’s validated.
Case in point, I don’t think anybody is confused what I mean when I use the word “women.” I’m referring to what the overwhelming majority of people mean when they say “woman.” I deliberately differentiate between women and trans women for this reason.
I don’t validate the enclave vocabulary simply by using language the way everybody already understands it. And the people pretending not to understand give themselves away by getting mad at me for not playing their game.
I adamantly do the same. I refuse to use he/she or (s)he or the singular they, defiantly continuing with the generic "he" and using "people" instead of "someone" so I don't have to pair the latter with "they."
I say "invitation" and "request" instead of using invite and ask as nouns. I still say "contact" instead of "reach out" ... you get the picture. Not all of these are enclave but they're part of the "warmth" defilement of the language that I refuse to go along with.
Since I do a lot of technical writing I dread that the time may come when an employer tells me to use "they" because I know what my answer will be.
The "woman" thing is a scent-mark like "Trump won." Well, I'm not a member of the pack.
From my time in the technical arm of the corporate word it became clear to me that the more fuzzy-buzzy words people used the less likely they were to have a real understanding of the subject matter. They were typically trying to baffle with bullshit.
And when their meetings are 100% buzz you better start distributing your CV because things are not going to last.
I was in a meeting at a company that started doing that agile horseshit. Someone mentioned "stories," which is what we used to call user scenarios. Nobody asked what it meant but they figured it out and within minutes everyone was shoehorning "stories" into every sentence. Nodding vigorously, so compulsive in their conformity I wanted to vomit.
We don't need to die to go to hell. It's right here.
The Oxford English Dictionary's first recorded utterance of the word racism was by a man named Richard Henry Pratt in 1902. Who the heck was Richard Henry Pratt? I turn to a piece from NPR for the answer.
Instead of racism, Pratt is better remembered for coining the phrase “Kill the Indian...save the man.”
"A great general has said that the only good Indian is a dead one," Pratt said. "In a sense, I agree with the sentiment, but only in this: that all the Indian there is in the race should be dead. Kill the Indian in him, and save the man."
We're still living with the after-effects of what Pratt thought and did. His story serves as a useful parable for why discussions of racism remain so deeply contentious even now.”
Pratt advocated for the assimilation of Native Americans into white life and convinced Congress to let him try out his ideas.
Pratte pushed for the total erasure of Native cultures and the Carlisle Indian Industrial School would become a model for dozens of other boarding schools for Indian children.
If you are interested in the rest of this ghastly story, here is the link to the NPR story.
https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2014/01/05/260006815/the-ugly-fascinating-history-of-the-word-racism
For now, I think the NPR conclusion said it best. “In the century since Pratt used the word racism, the term has become an abstraction. But always buried somewhere underneath it are actions with real consequences. Sometimes those outcomes are intended. Sometimes they're not. But it's the outcomes, not the intentions, that matter most in the end.”
Steve, let me offer some nuance to your great example of the Black VP in a dark suit. I have argued for many years that accurately observing and internalizing an ACCURATE statistical trend as this example shows, is as you point out, not evidence of racism or bias on the part of the speaker, rather it is a reflection of reality in that building. I still believe this is true in a narrow sense.
But there is a second vantage on this issue. What is the effect on the VP? Particularly if it is a dramatic and systemic assumption made by EVERYONE in that location. It could be big.
So for me, this was a big mind shift. I don't need to deny the statistical reality here, nor do I need to in accurately accuse the speaker of a bias they do not have, and I can still register the very real harm that can nonetheless happen as a consequence.
Knowing this, now requires contentious people to take into account those kinds of effects and to put extra filters on their speech, and even thoughts as much as they are able. Not because they are secretly racist or even biased. Nope, simply because there is high propensity for those kinds of STATISTICALLY VALID assumptions to cause damage even as they remain valid.
I am not a fan of vilifying the speaker.. some acknowledgment of actual statistical realities should be made. At the same time, saying well this accurate should not be accepted as a defense either. We know what can cause harm, and as a member of civil society it is our duty to avoid it.
You don't say ``Hey fatso. can you come here?'' even if it is an accurate descriptor.
So that is the mind-shift for myself and for all others that could be in a position to speak in this way.
my thought for those who are spoken TO in this way is not such a popular one: It is to recognize that even when such words are said, if there is a clear statistical reality, we cannot know this person is biased, nor has ill intent. We do know they are insensitive, but we should leave it at that. Why? Because knowing that someone is good natured and bears us no ill will, but is rough and insensitive, is very different than knowing they mean you harm, or actively dislike you even after they find out the error in their assumption. Both things could be true of course, but society runs better, and we achieve more, when we assume the best interpretation when there is a real choice.
(I have the sense that maybe you already see things in the way I have frame this... somehow I decided to write it anyway ;-) )
Excellent conversation - especially after that last one that went nowhere! Nice to see an example of a good faith discussion.
M: "I do think that some people behave as if they are trying to use accusations of racism to keep white people continually off balance."
Sadly, true in my experience. I have a couple friends who are my page, one white & one POC, and we try to check each other on this - usually by shamefacedly bringing up what we did and then being willing to accept criticism (and, well, mockery) from each other. That checking of ourselves is bracing & refreshing. For the white friend, she's come clean about how she's brought up the phrase "white supremacist behavior" to shut down an irritating colleague. For my POC friend, he's also used that confounded "white supremacist" phrase to shut down disagreement from someone who annoyed him. (And he's guiltily brought up his use of the word "Latinx" because everyone else in the room was doing it. None who were actually Latin - which he is!) For me (also a POC), it was saying something like "that's very Karen of you" to someone who seemed to be trying to shut down what I was saying. I've also used the intent vs. impact line of reasoning to check someone (ugh). In all of those instances, we knew what we were doing was questionable because we each had that weird gut feeling of "this isn't how I usually talk."
For people who are familiar with the soft points of woke folk, their tendency towards group-think, and their fear of being seen as "problematic," the temptation can be almost irresistible to ether passively conform or to aggressively use their language against them.
But of course we shouldn't be doing either. I'm lucky in that I have friends who check me if I'm being hypocritical and who I can also check.
I highly recommend this article, it really opened my eyes about how to look at the often-misused word Racism and how to stop being a lazy thinker when it comes to even thinking about racism:
https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/
LOL, I keep editing this comment! But I forgot to mention how much I loved you ending on equality versus equity. That's such a big topic. And I think that equity is another one of those words & ideas that is, as the woke enjoy saying, "problematic." The idea that equity is somehow replacing equality is wild to me. And by "wild" I mean frustrating & depressing & infuriating.