Stand or Nah?

Hawk said:
I don't know if it's really that complicated. We have 'banished' the overt trappings of systemic, institutional racism that prominently existed during the era in which the national anthem was penned.

I don't think the implication was that we exist in a post-racial society.

(But there is a chartable progression - no?)
Click to expand...

(a) I'm skeptical that the US has actually banished "the overt trappings of systemic, institutional racism", given, say, the asymmetries of police brutality, the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act, or the extent to which a non-trivial white nationalist constituency contributed to the election of the current President—just to name a few examples. Unless you think "chattel slavery" is the only manifestation of "overt trappings of systemic, institutional racism" this nation has to reckon with.

(b) I actually think it's an apt metaphor how far is left to go, despite real material progress, and how easy it is to slide into trite, solipsistic complacency on the topic. "I mean, we took out the bad verse, didn't we? What more do they want?"

(c) [And this is the
0686.png
take.] It's a ****ty poem. Its stupid jingoism is only matched by the banality of its sentiment and the heavy-handed obviousness of its language. It also explicitly frames patriotism and national pride as martial, codifying that attachment for many Americans. Wilson was mistaken to render it official, and Congress was mistaken to later confirm that decision. Not only that, but the song from which the poem took its music—The Anacreontic Song—is better-written, even if less-known.
 
Hawk said:
I don't know if it's really that complicated. We have 'banished' the overt trappings of systemic, institutional racism that prominently existed during the era in which the national anthem was penned.

I don't think the implication was that we exist in a post-racial society.

(But there is a chartable progression - no?)
Click to expand...

A fair point (particularly if you emphasize the "overt trappings" part) but I find that it harmonizes with a sentiment that I've been hearing for the last three+ decades...that people should chill out about racism because slavery is over or Jim Crow is over or there are black billionaires or we elected a black president (in roughly ascending order by decade).

Maybe it's hypersensitive, but it really sounds the same now as it did then. It comes off kinda paternalistic, like "shut up and appreciate what you've been allowed." I'm not specifically criticizing Jaw, or you, but I perceive a kind of unsatisfying sameness to that kind of argument.
 
@jp I don't think "chattel slavery" is the "only manifestation" of institutional racism. That's why I specifically added "during the era in which the national anthem was penned". I do think slavery is the primary root though, for what it's worth.

I get that you are skeptical of the contemporary situation - but I feel like that's less than relevant to the point Jaw made.
 
Julio3000 said:
A fair point (particularly if you emphasize the "overt trappings" part) but I find that it harmonizes with a sentiment that I've been hearing for the last three+ decades...that people should chill out about racism because slavery is over or Jim Crow is over or there are black billionaires or we elected a black president (in roughly ascending order by decade).

Maybe it's hypersensitive, but it really sounds the same now as it did then. It comes off kinda paternalistic, like "shut up and appreciate what you've been allowed." I'm not specifically criticizing Jaw, or you, but I perceive a kind of unsatisfying sameness to that kind of argument.
Click to expand...

I think that we have to view those examples you listed as proof positive that American society is making serious progress on the racial front. There's still a great deal of division, a great deal work to do, but I think that's part of the natural process and I question how much we can truly do to expeditiously affect it.
 
I question how much we can truly do to expeditiously affect it.

I'd guess that discerning people of genuine goodwill could make a good start by calling out obvious race-baiting and racist-pandering when we see it.
 
Hawk said:
I don't know if it's really that complicated. We have 'banished' the overt trappings of systemic, institutional racism that prominently existed during the era in which the national anthem was penned.

(But there is a chartable progression - no?)
Click to expand...

50 years after the Civil Rights Movement and you're still talking incrementalism.

It's the covert trappings of systematic racism that I believe are most concerning and most disheartening -- gerrymandering, slippery and/or non-existent justice, etc.
 
Runnin said:
50 years after the Civil Rights Movement and you're still talking incrementalism.

It's the covert trappings of systematic racism that I believe are most concerning and most disheartening -- gerrymandering, slippery and/or non-existent justice, etc.
Click to expand...

Um, hell yeah I'm talking about incrementalism.

I'd love to see you posit what you think an acceptable alternative might be though.
 
The answers right in front of you. You end systemic racism by ending the system that disproportionately target minorities. Otherwise known as the war on drugs. More specifically the war on pot because it is widely used by all races and the punishments are obscenely harsh being schedule 1. That means it has no medicinal value.....in a country where many states have medical marijuana.... and 97% support medical marijuana..... and even Jeff freaking Sessions admits that some elements of marijuana have medical value. Anyways, almost everything negative comes back to the war on drugs. Violence on the streets. Alcohol prohibition caused a spike in violence, prisoners, and dead cops. Black kids not having fathers. Thats because half of them are incarcerated. Champion of the negro cause Bill Clinton championed a bill cutting 10 billion in public housing and spending 12 billion on new prisons. So many black people were incarcerated the unemployment rate amongst blacks was at the lowest point since the slavery days.
 
Pot should 100% be legal. I'll never argue that point. However, other crimes are still being committed at disproportionate rates by minorities. There are other factors that need to be addressed such as the lack of a father figure and lack of economic independence.
 
With alcohol prohibition not all the crime was alcohol possession. As you know money makes the world go round. When we have a lucrative black market it creates violent crime and promotes criminality. We cant know the reason for every crime but I am willing to bet having a lot more fathers in their kids lives instead of being incarcerated will do a lot of good in that area. I also believe in the theory that if you treat someone like an animal they start to act like an animal. I dont know if you have heard of the blue eyes brown eyes experiment but I think this theory explains the deterioration of the morals of the poor black community. A lot of black kids grow up thinking the only way they can be successful in life is if they can entertain people, play pro sports, or sell drugs. The problem really is that we did provide them economic opportunity. By creating the lucrative black market we provided a poor black kid a chance to make money he could only have dreamed of. You look down on these kids for chasing the money but these are largely still kids. 18 year old kid gets busted for selling pot. Ok. Bad decision. He now will pay for that the rest of his life. Beyond the conviction on his record its the prison time that turns an immature 18 year old into a hardened 24 year old released back on the streets who only knows one way to support himself. That kid goes on to commit numerous actual crimes because of the path we started him down.

If you want pot to be legal the first step is refusing to vote for anyone who does not support legalization. And please for the love of all that is holy dont buy into the license crap they are going to pull so that they can give licenses to their cronies and partners to profit off this insanely lucrative market. When they say "regulate" what they mean is "yeah we are going to start issuing licenses to sell/grow marijuana... and by issue I mean auction them off the highest bidder except the one I plan to give my mistress".
 
Runnin said:
How about not backsliding into the dark ages of racial conflict?
Click to expand...

Incrementalism/rationalism/gradualism/conservatism is, by nature, forward moving. It’s just not as fast and as recklessly impulsive as you’d like.

But, again, would love to hear what solutions you think you have that aren’t materially identical to what I’ve put out here.
 
Hawk said:
Incrementalism/rationalism/gradualism/conservatism is, by nature, forward moving. It’s just not as fast and as recklessly impulsive as you’d like.

But, again, would love to hear what solutions you think you have that aren’t materially identical to what I’ve put out here.
Click to expand...

This is a little bit of that incredulity I mentioned.

De-fanging the VRA is not "slow forward movement", but back-sliding, making a lot of its protection unenforceable. Small forward-movement would be rewriting those coverage formulae to be Constitutionally enforceable, even in the eyes of this decidedly right-leaning Court.

On a related note, passing more restrictions on early- and remote-voting (options which tend to be used in much greater proportion by the working-poor—which is a group, in turn, that tends to include a greater proportion of ethnic minorities) is likewise a step back, not "slow forward movement". Same story with so many voter-identification laws. Opening up better and more efficient access to the ballot-box—that would constitute some forward movement, and needn't be reckless or impulsive.

Prohibitions against gerrymandering would constitute another potential "incremental" fix, with the convenient drawing in and out of racial groups not necessarily back-sliding, but certainly a side-stepping.

And, of course, the what he said with cajun's responses. Generally ending private-prisons, too, would hardly be a reckless step, and would certainly help gradually improve the lot of our nation's marginalized.

So yea: incrementalism can still be argued for. But you can't argue there hasn't been any back-sliding. And, while incrementalism and gradualism are, indeed, "by nature forward moving", it's a lot more dubious to claim conservatism is "by nature forward moving"—unless you just mean it is in that way in which all things, by Nature, move forward.
 
not that i wasn't being serious with my reply earlier

but i won't stand etc for it anymore

**** ultra nationalists

seriously **** them. if i wanted this treatment i would go live under a regime that didn't believe in freedom
 
goldfly said:
not that i wasn't being serious with my reply earlier

but i won't stand etc for it anymore

**** ultra nationalists

seriously **** them. if i wanted this treatment i would go live under a regime that didn't believe in freedom
Click to expand...

Freedom is just a cliche brah

Don't be a so - called freedom lover
 
goldfly said:
not that i wasn't being serious with my reply earlier

but i won't stand etc for it anymore

**** ultra nationalists

seriously **** them. if i wanted this treatment i would go live under a regime that didn't believe in freedom
Click to expand...

Nothing is actually stopping you from doing that now
 
Hawk said:
Incrementalism/rationalism/gradualism/conservatism is, by nature, forward moving. It’s just not as fast and as recklessly impulsive as you’d like.

But, again, would love to hear what solutions you think you have that aren’t materially identical to what I’ve put out here.
Click to expand...

You seem, in general, pretty amenable to big, bold, outside-the-box ideas. I know you've expressed a preference for single-payer healthcare. You notably supported Bush-era sprinkling of democracy pixie dust over the middle east, which, whatever one thinks of its efficacy, was a massive and experimental process. Your early support for Trump was couched in terms of blowing up a creaky system and figuratively knocking all the pieces off the board. You've mused about a nuclear first strike on NK. Hell, you've raised more than once the idea that liberal democracy itself is outmoded and should be replaced with some kind of benevolent fascism.

None of those things are particularly cautious, small-c conservative, or incrementalist. I think it's fair to say that some of them could be characterized as "recklessly impulsive," but certainly not indicative of timidity. ;-)

While I do think that the gradualist/conservative approach to race relations in America has not distinguished itself, I'm not arguing the merits here, just noting that you seem like an unlikely person to be planting that flag.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top