As I mentioned in this month’s subscriber thread, my comments have been an embarrassment of riches for the past few weeks. So much so, that I’ve struggled to decide which ones to share first. But things kicked into overdrive when I decided to weigh in on the “Dave Chappelle vs trans people” controversy.For anybody living under a particularly dense rock, Dave Chappelle released a new comedy special called The Closer a couple of weeks ago, and since then, he’s faced criticism ranging from the show being unfunny (which I kind of agree with), to it representing an existential threat to trans people (which I don’t).
It's a complicated issue. Several personal events come to mind. Events that I've mentioned but not explored.
When a private fraternal organization denied service to my wife because they were "white only" my thought was that "it was mighty white of you MFs to not tell me that before getting my membership dues." But it was a private club. I don't want to take my wife where she is not wanted because of bigotry. The best thing was to never go back.
When a bar tender at a VFW post denied service to a black member (reciprocal membership) it was a different matter that came close to a fist fight. It wasn't a public place, but the man was a member
I talked my mom into letting me go to an integrated vocational (non-district) high school before integrating schools was mandated. I was actually a minority and a large portion of the student body was from the projects. It wasn't the nicest school, stabbings and such. In my senior year coach Baily said, in the eight years of the school's existence we've taken 1st place, at least once, in every sport. But we've never won the sportsmanship award. So yes, people could integrate voluntarily even in the early 60s, even when there was reason to think it came with negatives. It was not the norm and as you said, it would have happened more slowly.
Affirmative action was and a double edged sword. It was early 80s when the newspaper announced that there would be x number of promotions to management and journeyman positions by government decree at a base I worked at as a civilian. A friend and coworker who was a black man had just been promoted to a supervisory position. He said to me, "I'll just be g-d damned. It's hard enough for a black man to get respect around here and they do this now. People will think I'm a token n****r!" It did need to be done, but timing is everything and it sucked for him. Not long after that I took another job to work as an expat and lost touch with him.
Did affirmative action make people wonder about qualifications of black doctors and other professionals? Does it still to some degree? Sucks but qualified people should never be held back because of race, gender, sexual status, etc. If it takes law for that to happen, so be it.
So yes, force has it's problems, but where would we be if the civil rights movement had never happened? Proximity does bring understanding. My mom, age 95, told me some months back that she had never had a black friend. I don't think it bigotry on her part. She retired early in a segregated society and didn't have much opportunity. She now has mixed race grandchildren (my part Asian children) and mixed race great grandchildren (black father). She has a tendency to blurt out what she thinks ("Don't say it mom!") but never busted out anything racist. While she was living with me our next door neighbors were a black family. Their daughter came to my house several times a week for music lessons. My mom was always excited to see her and asked about her is she missed a few days. Hugs. Proximity matters. But without "forced" integration, how much proximity would we have?
Sorry I got long winded but it is a subject dear to me, and it's complicated. The things I just mentions were not all the same and didn't have the same solutions.
"So yes, force has it's problems, but where would we be if the civil rights movement had never happened? Proximity does bring understanding"
Yep, this is it in a nutshell for me. I'm the last person to argue that affirmative action was perfect or that de-segregation was smooth. I grew up listening to stories about that time.
The point is, it was far and away the least worst option available. There's no magic wand that will change attitudes, but proximity is the next best thing. And it helps that that proximity also gave black people access to opportunities they'd previously been denied.
Today there are black people who are just as distrustful of white people as they were in the sixties. There are white people who are just as racist as they were in the sixties. But *most* people have gotten better. We have to take the wins where we can.
😄 I pretty much always engage if the person seems to have an actual argument and isn't rude. I view these conversations as an opportunity to make sure I'm not missing something so if somebody disagrees with me, I'll almost always explore it at least a little. If we hit a hard blockage, sometimes I'll just drop it, but usually I'll try to get to some kind of resolution. Some of my conversations run *veery* long. Too long to share here in fact.😅
Hey Catherine! I think we've already hashed this out pretty well, so I'll just reply to a few of these points:
"Note that there may be a misunderstanding between us here: what I mean by "coercion" is for example forcing people to work with a certain race"
So here again, our disagreement is about which side to focus on.
If, for example, a white employee hears that a black employee has been hired and doesn't like it, *they are free to leave*. They are welcome to lose out on that employment because of their unwillingness to work with a black person. They are not forced to work with a black person. This is also true if the manager hires the man who slept with his wife or killed his dog or who he hates for *any other reason*. He has a choice between sucking it up or leaving. This is right.
What is *not* right, is that a black person should have to lose out on that employment because of another person's bigotry.
As I've said, I believe a person's right to be free from bigotry is greater than another persons' right to inflict it. This seems to be our fundamental disagreement, but I don't think there's any possibility you'll change my mind on this point.
Fundamentally, you're arguing against the civil rights act. It's astonishing to me that you can't see what an unjust argument this is. But if you can't, I don't think I'm going to convince you today.
I was only joking about California, no strawmanning intended😁. My point was simply that your argument made no sense. Businesses that continued to refuse to serve black people would have continued to see business and indeed would likely have seen increased business because all of the racists would have frequented their stores. And in 1960s America, pretty much all white people were racist!! You seem to have no understanding of people's attitudes back then.
The reason legislation was necessary was precisely because these changes weren't just magically going to happen by themselves. There was no other country with a similar racial profile with the exception of South Africa. And guess what; they had to outlaw Apartheid too!!
Racism existed all over the world in the 60s (well, obviously it still exists today, but it was much worse then). My parents and grandparents told me all kinds of stories about the things they experienced. Nobody forced white people to be nice to them. There were no hate speech laws back then. No reliable protection from the police. But at least there was the possibility of them getting an education and a job. The changes in attitude had to happen over time.
But the reason why racial tension in America today is higher than in Europe isn't because of anti-segregation laws, IT'S BECAUSE SEGREGATION AND SLAVERY HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! De-segregation only happened 60-odd years ago in America. Of course there's still tension. But again, the laws "forcing people together" weren't the problem, it was the laws that originally forced people *apart*. Especially as those laws were 100% to the detriment of black people.
If segregation really had offered equal opportunities to black people and white people, and if black people weren't punished for succeeding as they were in Tulsa for example, perhaps things would still be segregated now and everybody would be fine with it. We shall never know.
Lastly, no. I don't believe people are evil by nature. I believe people instinctively resist change. Especially if there's no clear benefit to them. I believe the status quo stays in place unless something is done to alter it. The status quo in 1960s America was that life was pretty good for white people and pretty terrible for black people. I think that situation needed to change as quickly as possible.
The civil rights act was the quickest possible way of making that change because it meant, even with the hatred and challenges they faced, black people gained a degree of protection under the law. They gained new opportunities that had previously been withheld from them. Just waiting until all the racist white people decided to hire black people and let them attend previously white-only schools is just such a ridiculous idea that I don't quite believe you're suggesting it. But I can't see how else to interpret your arguments.
I think you're just repeating the same argument using different words, so I'll put this as plainly as I can:
I am against any hiring practice where people are discriminated against for things that don't affect their practical ability to do the job. This is what equality of opportunity means. I am in support of any law that "forces" people not to be bigots. This was the aim of the civil rights act.
To make your example a little less cartoonish; if an I.T. manager refused to hire anybody but white men, yes, I think he should be forced to hire women and people of other races too, as long as they can do the job (or he should quit if he doesn't want to be "forced" to do his job properly).
There are enough white men in the world that he would never *need* to hire women or people of other races. His business would likely be fine if he was allowed to continue these discriminatory practices (especially back in the 60s). But I think denying people opportunities because of things they can do nothing about is wrong. It's fine if you don't (hopefully you're not in charge of hiring at a company). But I don't see any value in continuing to go in circles on this point.
"You didn't answer the most important question/argument: WHO decides whether that someone is racist/sexist, etc"
If somebody discriminates agains somebody else based on their sex or the colour of that person's skin then they are a sexist/racist. Nobody needs to "decide". That's literally what words mean. In the examples you gave, the manager would obviously be a racist.
Any "victims" who want to take action against an employer for discrimination *have to prove they've been discriminated against*!! The burden is on them, as it should be, to show there's a problem. If they can prove that there is racist or sexist discrimination in court (as has happened on numerous occasions), then what exactly is the problem?
If you think that anti-discrimination laws are equivalent to totalitarianism then I'm not going to waste any more time trying to convince you otherwise. There's obviously a reasonable middle ground that you're refusing to acknowledge, between "you must hire exactly 13% black people and 76% white people" and "it's completely fine if your company is 100% white males". And this was far more relevant during the racially segregated 60s than it is today.
Equality of opportunity means rule of law only when laws are fair to all people. That's what the civil rights act was for!!! To ensure that black people were equal under the law. But that meant that people who had refused to treat black people as equals were now "forced" to. I have no idea (and dwindling interest in) where your fear is coming from.
It's a complicated issue. Several personal events come to mind. Events that I've mentioned but not explored.
When a private fraternal organization denied service to my wife because they were "white only" my thought was that "it was mighty white of you MFs to not tell me that before getting my membership dues." But it was a private club. I don't want to take my wife where she is not wanted because of bigotry. The best thing was to never go back.
When a bar tender at a VFW post denied service to a black member (reciprocal membership) it was a different matter that came close to a fist fight. It wasn't a public place, but the man was a member
I talked my mom into letting me go to an integrated vocational (non-district) high school before integrating schools was mandated. I was actually a minority and a large portion of the student body was from the projects. It wasn't the nicest school, stabbings and such. In my senior year coach Baily said, in the eight years of the school's existence we've taken 1st place, at least once, in every sport. But we've never won the sportsmanship award. So yes, people could integrate voluntarily even in the early 60s, even when there was reason to think it came with negatives. It was not the norm and as you said, it would have happened more slowly.
Affirmative action was and a double edged sword. It was early 80s when the newspaper announced that there would be x number of promotions to management and journeyman positions by government decree at a base I worked at as a civilian. A friend and coworker who was a black man had just been promoted to a supervisory position. He said to me, "I'll just be g-d damned. It's hard enough for a black man to get respect around here and they do this now. People will think I'm a token n****r!" It did need to be done, but timing is everything and it sucked for him. Not long after that I took another job to work as an expat and lost touch with him.
Did affirmative action make people wonder about qualifications of black doctors and other professionals? Does it still to some degree? Sucks but qualified people should never be held back because of race, gender, sexual status, etc. If it takes law for that to happen, so be it.
So yes, force has it's problems, but where would we be if the civil rights movement had never happened? Proximity does bring understanding. My mom, age 95, told me some months back that she had never had a black friend. I don't think it bigotry on her part. She retired early in a segregated society and didn't have much opportunity. She now has mixed race grandchildren (my part Asian children) and mixed race great grandchildren (black father). She has a tendency to blurt out what she thinks ("Don't say it mom!") but never busted out anything racist. While she was living with me our next door neighbors were a black family. Their daughter came to my house several times a week for music lessons. My mom was always excited to see her and asked about her is she missed a few days. Hugs. Proximity matters. But without "forced" integration, how much proximity would we have?
Sorry I got long winded but it is a subject dear to me, and it's complicated. The things I just mentions were not all the same and didn't have the same solutions.
"So yes, force has it's problems, but where would we be if the civil rights movement had never happened? Proximity does bring understanding"
Yep, this is it in a nutshell for me. I'm the last person to argue that affirmative action was perfect or that de-segregation was smooth. I grew up listening to stories about that time.
The point is, it was far and away the least worst option available. There's no magic wand that will change attitudes, but proximity is the next best thing. And it helps that that proximity also gave black people access to opportunities they'd previously been denied.
Today there are black people who are just as distrustful of white people as they were in the sixties. There are white people who are just as racist as they were in the sixties. But *most* people have gotten better. We have to take the wins where we can.
I was not able to finish this. How do you decide when to engage?
😄 I pretty much always engage if the person seems to have an actual argument and isn't rude. I view these conversations as an opportunity to make sure I'm not missing something so if somebody disagrees with me, I'll almost always explore it at least a little. If we hit a hard blockage, sometimes I'll just drop it, but usually I'll try to get to some kind of resolution. Some of my conversations run *veery* long. Too long to share here in fact.😅
That makes sense. I admire your patience!
Hey Catherine! I think we've already hashed this out pretty well, so I'll just reply to a few of these points:
"Note that there may be a misunderstanding between us here: what I mean by "coercion" is for example forcing people to work with a certain race"
So here again, our disagreement is about which side to focus on.
If, for example, a white employee hears that a black employee has been hired and doesn't like it, *they are free to leave*. They are welcome to lose out on that employment because of their unwillingness to work with a black person. They are not forced to work with a black person. This is also true if the manager hires the man who slept with his wife or killed his dog or who he hates for *any other reason*. He has a choice between sucking it up or leaving. This is right.
What is *not* right, is that a black person should have to lose out on that employment because of another person's bigotry.
As I've said, I believe a person's right to be free from bigotry is greater than another persons' right to inflict it. This seems to be our fundamental disagreement, but I don't think there's any possibility you'll change my mind on this point.
Fundamentally, you're arguing against the civil rights act. It's astonishing to me that you can't see what an unjust argument this is. But if you can't, I don't think I'm going to convince you today.
I was only joking about California, no strawmanning intended😁. My point was simply that your argument made no sense. Businesses that continued to refuse to serve black people would have continued to see business and indeed would likely have seen increased business because all of the racists would have frequented their stores. And in 1960s America, pretty much all white people were racist!! You seem to have no understanding of people's attitudes back then.
The reason legislation was necessary was precisely because these changes weren't just magically going to happen by themselves. There was no other country with a similar racial profile with the exception of South Africa. And guess what; they had to outlaw Apartheid too!!
Racism existed all over the world in the 60s (well, obviously it still exists today, but it was much worse then). My parents and grandparents told me all kinds of stories about the things they experienced. Nobody forced white people to be nice to them. There were no hate speech laws back then. No reliable protection from the police. But at least there was the possibility of them getting an education and a job. The changes in attitude had to happen over time.
But the reason why racial tension in America today is higher than in Europe isn't because of anti-segregation laws, IT'S BECAUSE SEGREGATION AND SLAVERY HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! De-segregation only happened 60-odd years ago in America. Of course there's still tension. But again, the laws "forcing people together" weren't the problem, it was the laws that originally forced people *apart*. Especially as those laws were 100% to the detriment of black people.
If segregation really had offered equal opportunities to black people and white people, and if black people weren't punished for succeeding as they were in Tulsa for example, perhaps things would still be segregated now and everybody would be fine with it. We shall never know.
Lastly, no. I don't believe people are evil by nature. I believe people instinctively resist change. Especially if there's no clear benefit to them. I believe the status quo stays in place unless something is done to alter it. The status quo in 1960s America was that life was pretty good for white people and pretty terrible for black people. I think that situation needed to change as quickly as possible.
The civil rights act was the quickest possible way of making that change because it meant, even with the hatred and challenges they faced, black people gained a degree of protection under the law. They gained new opportunities that had previously been withheld from them. Just waiting until all the racist white people decided to hire black people and let them attend previously white-only schools is just such a ridiculous idea that I don't quite believe you're suggesting it. But I can't see how else to interpret your arguments.
I think you're just repeating the same argument using different words, so I'll put this as plainly as I can:
I am against any hiring practice where people are discriminated against for things that don't affect their practical ability to do the job. This is what equality of opportunity means. I am in support of any law that "forces" people not to be bigots. This was the aim of the civil rights act.
To make your example a little less cartoonish; if an I.T. manager refused to hire anybody but white men, yes, I think he should be forced to hire women and people of other races too, as long as they can do the job (or he should quit if he doesn't want to be "forced" to do his job properly).
There are enough white men in the world that he would never *need* to hire women or people of other races. His business would likely be fine if he was allowed to continue these discriminatory practices (especially back in the 60s). But I think denying people opportunities because of things they can do nothing about is wrong. It's fine if you don't (hopefully you're not in charge of hiring at a company). But I don't see any value in continuing to go in circles on this point.
"You didn't answer the most important question/argument: WHO decides whether that someone is racist/sexist, etc"
If somebody discriminates agains somebody else based on their sex or the colour of that person's skin then they are a sexist/racist. Nobody needs to "decide". That's literally what words mean. In the examples you gave, the manager would obviously be a racist.
Any "victims" who want to take action against an employer for discrimination *have to prove they've been discriminated against*!! The burden is on them, as it should be, to show there's a problem. If they can prove that there is racist or sexist discrimination in court (as has happened on numerous occasions), then what exactly is the problem?
If you think that anti-discrimination laws are equivalent to totalitarianism then I'm not going to waste any more time trying to convince you otherwise. There's obviously a reasonable middle ground that you're refusing to acknowledge, between "you must hire exactly 13% black people and 76% white people" and "it's completely fine if your company is 100% white males". And this was far more relevant during the racially segregated 60s than it is today.
Equality of opportunity means rule of law only when laws are fair to all people. That's what the civil rights act was for!!! To ensure that black people were equal under the law. But that meant that people who had refused to treat black people as equals were now "forced" to. I have no idea (and dwindling interest in) where your fear is coming from.