Earlier today President Barack Obama made an unannounced appearance during the White House’s daily press briefing, during which he spoke at length about Trayvon Martin and lessons to be garnered from this tragic shooting. In a direct reference to his own race, President Obama noted “Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago,” before launching into an explanation of the wounds this incident has opened in the African American community.
Here’s the video.
Florida should at least rename their law ” Stain Your Ground “, because the Trayvon Martin murder certainly has done that.
Stevem
Bill Moyers and Tom Diaz called Florida the “Gunshine State” in this interview with excellent justification for doing so. A pointed discussion, a short clip but well worth watching:
http://billmoyers.com/segment/tom-diaz-on-the-relentless-marketing-of-guns/
I have to bow to the President. His talk was in exactly the right mode and his points went to exactly the right spots to disarm some of the insane vindictiveness that seems to be ingrained in the American public. No. There was no sympathy at all for a man who considered himself a protector of a neighborhood and became incarcerated for his life, if not actually, then de facto. No sympathy for his family at all, because that would have brought on a raging sea of protest. No mention that the only racist slur recorded in this travesty was by Trayvon to his girl friend. No, the President said exactly the right things and gave sympathy to the Martins for their endurance. As he should have, for this incident should have been examined by the Florida legal system from the very beginning. As once again the Sunshine State failed to shine a clear light on American justice.
Thanks Zach.
My guess is that the greedy, white supremacist, Juror B37, forced Obama to speak.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/a-swift-public-verdict-on-zimmerman-juror-b37/2013/07/18/d6a21144-efd0-11e2-9008-61e94a7ea20d_story.html
The fact that it was a Friday news dump is no surprise. I haven’t watched the video, but I’m sure Cat’s analysis is spot on. The words help.
Unfortunately, if the President were sincere, he would have long ago used the authority he already had w/r/t marijuana: “…If the administration, after examining the latest scientific research, determines that cannabis shouldn’t be Schedule I it has the power to move it to a lower schedule, which would make medical marijuana legal under federal law, or even unschedule it all together, which would effectively legalize it….”
http://justsaynow.firedoglake.com/2012/12/14/obama-doesnt-need-congress-to-change-federal-law-regarding-marijuana/
I would never encourage anyone, who did not have a serious illness, to use marijuana, but the prohibition of alcohol did not work either.
In terms of low hanging fruit for everyone in this country who is not 100% European-American, and many, many who are, legalization is the low hanging fruit. Simultaneously, it would deal a death-blow to drug cartels who get an estimated 60% of their income from pot, and create a bonanza of DIRECT local tax revenue. What a gift for organic aquaponics pioneers like T.C. Lynxx http://www.aquaponiclynx.com and http://www.brightagrotech.com
Hey Zach, btw, congrats on getting a celeb like TC to post at BB.
After the drug cartels, the two “biggest losers” of such a Presidential action would be the Prison-industrial complex and Big Pharma.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/04/27/the-smoke-and-mirrors-of-the-legalization-debate/
I think the POTUS did a brave thing by putting his neck on the line to discuss a very serious and sensitive subject such as racism in America. He is trying to encourage healthy dialogue about this matter. Praise Obama!
Tavis Smiley was kind of sour on the speech with his sweet comment: “Took POTUS almost a week to show up and express mild outrage. And still, it was weak as pre-sweetened Kool-Aid.”
The Kool-Aid allusion may have been a little harsh, but he might have had a substantive point in that Obama could have been more rhetorically forceful as the racist reality in this country certainly demands. Still, the visceral (and vicious) hysteria the speech evoked from the Racist Right Wing probably signals that Obama’s tone was appropriately modulated.
John,
Not sure what you are getting at with your cut on Obama and marijuana. I wouldn’t think it’s the letter of the law with respect to the Controlled Substances Act that is at issue with Holder and Obama deferring to congressional authority. I would think it’s the gravity and nuance of the legalities that are of import. I don’t know that for certain because I haven’t paid close attention to the debate or their public responses. However, I think at least the site you’ve linked to is misleading. The best course for marijuana’s status (if it is to be altered) is federalization through congress in order to specify legalization vs. decriminalization. Also establishing a potential regulatory framework in the case of legalization. All of that depends on the goals to be achieved for altering its status. The nuances and complexities of how our laws treat marijuana is too large a matter for an executive/AG authority through the CSA.
Given the piss-poor regulatory environment we have for drugs now, I wouldn’t consider altering marijuana’s status as advisable at this point. At this point, the potential for cartel corruption within any ill designed or state by state patchwork regulatory framework would seem to me to be very high. In addition it seems to me that some outstanding diplomatic efforts would need to occur to streamline goals between Canada, the U.S., Central and South America.
I understand that prohibition of alcohol is the obvious parallel; I’m not sure it has all the historical coherence necessary to make a sweeping generalization about the effectiveness of prohibitive measures.
I’m also highly certain that legalization would not be a death blow to drug cartels, especially in absence of a well-coordinated legal framework throughout the Americas. Their marijuana profits might be lost, but drug cartels are international criminal operations intimately connected to global crime syndicates world wide and to terrorist networks worldwide. The existence of drug cartels isn’t dependent upon marijuana by any means. In addition, drug cartels have little to no licit alternatives for illicit operations. To assume that drug cartels would vanish or diminish even slightly is naive at best and underscores a fundamental ignorance of the realities of 21st century international crime-terrorism fusion.
If anything Big Pharma would benefit from legalization and they’d assume the market in no time. I wouldn’t put any bets on big pharma acting any more responsibly or ethically than they do now, and the prison-industrial complex requires a comprehensive solution. Decriminalization may very well be one component in that solution, however, decriminalization of marijuana alone will hardly be a death blow to that complex either nor would it solve the systemic, multilateral challenges which plague it.
I love the cut of this man’s jib.
Absolutely correct on all points. Now let’s get back to the topic of the thread.
Sean Hannity openly suggests President Obama suffered treatment similar to Trayvon Martin because he also did pot and blow. Seriously. See? It’s not about race after all!
Sorry about the diversionary thread there.
Ed Kilgore released a piece embedded with a good read penned by Paul Glastris from earlier this year. I’m not entirely in agreement with Glastris, but overall a worthwhile read:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_07/obama_breaches_the_cone_of_sil045925.php
PJ, congrats. For you, that’s a really short response.
PJ: “Not sure what you are getting at with your cut on Obama and marijuana.”
Which part confused you?
PJ: “I wouldn’t think it’s the letter of the law with respect to the Controlled Substances Act that is at issue with Holder and Obama deferring to congressional authority. ”
If Holder and Obama want to defer to Congressional authority, why are they cashing their paychecks? If they’re so enamored with Congressional authority, why don’t they just let Congress run the country?
PJ: “I would think it’s the gravity and nuance of the legalities that are of import.
When you’re sure, let me know.
PJ: “I don’t know that for certain because I haven’t paid close attention to the debate or their public responses.”
“Close attention,” or “any attention?”
PJ: However, I think at least the site you’ve linked to is misleading.
I’d be more concerned if you, or anyone else at OFA liked it. Jane Hamsher runs Firedoglake. Jane has this annoying habit of always being right. She and Marcy Wheeler (emptywheel) led the coverage of the Scooter Libby trial, aka Bush/Cheney lying us into war. She’s always been tough on Wall Street. If you think she’s wrong on something, please point it out.
PJ: “The best course for marijuana’s status (if it is to be altered)”
But above you wrote: “I don’t know that for certain because I haven’t paid close attention to the debate or their public responses.”
PJ: “is federalization”
So the Controlled Substances Act is not “federal?”
Do you have a link?
PJ: “through congress in order to specify legalization vs. decriminalization.”
CONGRESS passed the CSA in 1970. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act
They explicitly gave the EXECUTIVE BRANCH the authority. So now you’re saying Congress screwed up and should have kept that authority for themselves?
PJ: “Also establishing a potential regulatory framework in the case of legalization.”
I’ve never heard of a Congress establishing a “POTENTIAL regulatory framework” for anything. They write laws. That’s why we call them “law makers.”
PJ: “All of that depends on the goals to be achieved for altering its status.”
You mean like (1) not putting people in jail for using/selling/making pot and thereby saving money that would otherwise go to the Prison-industrial complex (2) taking away an estimated 60% of the revenue from the drug cartels (3) providing some low cost competition for some of Big Pharma’s markets (4) Providing badly needed local and state tax revenue? (5) Giving urban agriculture a cash crop?
Do you have other goals?
PJ: “The nuances and complexities of how our laws treat marijuana is too large a matter for an executive/AG authority through the CSA.”
Are you just insulting the Obama administration or does this apply to all Executive Branches w/r/t the CSA. Which “nuances and complexities” can’t they handle? Please be specific.
PJ: “Given the piss-poor regulatory environment we have for drugs now,”
I love it when you talk dirty about the FDA, please, give us some examples.
PJ: “I wouldn’t consider altering marijuana’s status as advisable at this point.”
What’s the worst that could happen?
PJ: “At this point, the potential for cartel corruption within any ill designed or state by state patchwork regulatory framework would seem to me to be very high.”
Huh?
Please, explain how cartel corruption would be worse than it currently is?
PJ: “In addition it seems to me that some outstanding diplomatic efforts would need to occur to streamline goals between Canada, the U.S., Central and South America.”
What would Henry Kissinger do?
PJ: I understand that prohibition of alcohol is the obvious parallel;
Be still my beating heart.
PJ: “I’m not sure it has all the historical coherence necessary to make a sweeping generalization about the effectiveness of prohibitive measures.”
Ok, select a better one.
PJ: “I’m also highly certain that legalization would not be a death blow to drug cartels,”
Ok, maybe “death blow” went a hair too far. Moonshine continues to this day, but it’s not even a fraction of the craft-beer market. Yes, ending the prohibition of alcohol force the mobs into other drug trafficing. Of all those drugs, marijuana is the most profitable and generates the most revenue.
PJ: “especially in absence of a well-coordinated legal framework throughout the Americas.”
The current “legal framework” is very “well-coordinated.” It just doesn’t work.
After FDR ended prohibition, people in overwhelming numbers preferred to buy alcohol that did not put them at risk of getting arrested. That’s a sure-fire marketing advantage over something that’s ILLEGAL.
Sure, just like alcohol, and tobacco, and caffeine, you have to regulate the dose. We already have plenty of medical marijuana outlets who function just fine. Your concerns are complete unwarranted.
PJ: “Their marijuana profits might be lost,”
Nope, no “might.” People overwhelmingly prefer to buy stuff that doesn’t land them in the jail.
PJ: “but drug cartels are international criminal operations”
And people say you’re dumb.
PJ: “intimately connected to global crime syndicates world wide”
What meaning does this phrase convey, that the one just before it did not?
PJ: “and to terrorist networks worldwide.”
Thanks for making my point. Take away their largest source of revenue.
PJ: “The existence of drug cartels isn’t dependent upon marijuana by any means.”
No, it is. Prostitution, loan sharking, and other drugs can’t match the revenue or the profits.
PJ: “In addition, drug cartels have little to no licit alternatives for illicit operations.”
So the New York Times got this wrong?
“Mexican Drug Cartel’s Connection to US Horse Racing”
The brother of a top Mexican drug lord was arrested Tuesday. Jose Trevino Morales, his wife, and several other people were arrested at his horse ranch in Oklahoma. They were charged with laundering millions in drug cartel money through a horse breeding and racing operation….
http://www.theworld.org/2012/06/mexican-drug-cartels-connection-to-us-horse-racing/
Did Bloomberg get it wrong too?
“Money-Laundering Banks Still Get a Pass From U.S.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-31/money-laundering-banks-still-get-a-pass-from-u-s-.html
PJ: “To assume that drug cartels would vanish or diminish even slightly is naive at best.”
Dead wrong. They wouldn’t vanish, but they wouldn’t be able to destabilize governments south of our border.
PJ: “and underscores a fundamental ignorance of the realities of 21st century international crime-terrorism fusion.”
Where would they make up the 60% of lost revenue?
PJ: “If anything Big Pharma would benefit from legalization and they’d assume the market in no time.”
Big Pharma wants to force consumers to buy their product. Obviously, they’re unable to get anything to market that can remotely compete with what the drug cartels currently provide.
PJ: I wouldn’t put any bets on big pharma acting any more responsibly or ethically than they do now,
Wasn’t planning on it.
PJ: “and the prison-industrial complex requires a comprehensive solution.”
Re-scheduling pot under the CSA is as comprehensive as it gets.
Unless they’re violent, or break other laws, stop putting drug addicts in prison.
“Netherlands closing prisons due to lack of prisoners”
http://now.msn.com/netherlands-closing-prisons-due-to-lack-of-prisoners
PJ: “Decriminalization may very well be one component in that solution,
Long overdue.
PJ: however, decriminalization of marijuana alone will hardly be a death blow to that complex either nor would it solve the systemic, multilateral challenges which plague it.
Noted. If we legalize pot, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America will invade.
Please tell the folks at OFA they need better talking points.
John,
Try as I might, I can’t refute your asinine retorts in under 2,072 words. So I’ll summarize in this way:
Here is the official White House position: http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining-to-marijuana. Now you have Obama’s talking points. You and anyone else who is interested can evaluate the value of the analysis (or lack thereof) of your link with the administration’s position.
A teensy weensy little slice of the crime-terrorism nexus:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/R41004.pdf
And finally, I’m unsurprised that you are unaware of Congress’s REGULATORY functions, after all…
“Congress shall have the power to REGULATE Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.”
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, United States Constitution
Emphasis mine, by the way.
Now, can you please stay on topic?
Rich Benjamin’s take – whoa – starts out reasonably enough with disappointment that Obama’s message and tone were insufficient but ends ugly, in vitriol and with a conclusion similar to Glastris – White America is racist. Period. White Americans don’t engage and don’t want to engage in meaningful racial debate.
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/19/obamas_safe_overrated_and_airy_speech/
I can’t concur with Glastris’s “compromise” thesis on Obama’s mollifying rhetoric or with Benjamin’s “angry black man-Obama’s Inner N***er,-Rogue Negro” essay either.
Racism persists in this country, in our institutions, in our “national character” because Conservatism persists – hanging on like the life-sucking leech that it is. What stifles discourse in this country is fear of the irrational, violent and vicious backlash from the conservative right wing. Fear of that irrational backlash is really a terroristic kind of hold on American culture, American society, American governance.
PJ, another nice obfuscation.
@jonrog1
White folk worrying about a “race war” while their benefits & salaries are looted by other, richer white folk is the perfect sad/funny.
The oligarchs fund people like Charlie Sykes and other wingnut media, because they know what Jay Gould said was true, “I can always hire half the working class to kill the other half.”
Under that cover, Obama and the duopoly can continue the wealth transfer.
John,
I will reply to your retort asap.
I won’t contest any assertion that Obama enables the oligarchical subversives that have undermined our republic. I’m not following you as to obfuscation. Are you suggesting I’m obfuscating? If so, how am I obfuscating? You’ll have to spell it out as rudimentarily as you possibly can. Consider me a senseless foolish idiot if it’s easier for you. How do you articulate your position to a senseless idiot? Please lay it out point by agonizing point. You’ve lost me. Are you saying that oligarchy is the root cause of racism in contrast to my position that Conservatism is the root cause of racism?
I will reply to your previous retort asap. Meanwhile, perhaps you can tell OFA they need better talking points yourself if you are so inclined. I’m not familiar with their talking points. I’m not even opposed to decriminalization or the legalization of marijuana, I just don’t find your Libertarian approach credible or responsive to the empirical realities that need to be addressed in order to do so. I realize the Libertarian position you are promoting makes sense from a magical thinking perspective, but empiricism nonetheless exists no matter how much you engage in rationalization rather than rationalism. Perhaps your umbrage would be better placed with your NeoConfederate compatriots because ultimately it is the “states righters’ that end all possibility for any comprehensive action on any front including the issue of marijuana.
Again, I’ll get to your previous retort asap.
You two make me dizzy sometimes.
A kind way of phrasing it. I take full responsibility for dizzying you and I apologize for it. I shouldn’t have indulged the Marijuana diversion.
It’s not surprising to me that you all lost the main hypothesis of my post. Conservatism is not the root cause of racism in this county. It is primarily the fact that you don’t acknowledge the “history” that our President so effectively alluded to, but didn’t allude to: and that is the history of black crime and violence in this nation. Martin Luther understood that. Conservatives want someone to acknowledge that they have some reason to “lock their car doors,” etc. George Zimmerman was referring to “history” in his mind when he followed Martin through the neighborhood. If he had instigated the attack, however, he woulden’t have ended up down on the concrete having his head bashed in, he would have simply shot Martin right away and that would have been the end of it. The President knew that presenting that “history” would not have served his purpose, which was to show that he was against violence, would not have instigated violence. Thus presenting the best example possible to controlling further vindictiveness and rage.
Catkin,
Disagree. It is precisely because Conservatives don’t acknowledge history; rewrite history for the purpose of subverting it to their own ends; or distort history under the guise of conserving “tradition” or “traditional values” to maintain a despicable status quo (like racism, inferiority, Jim Crow…) that racism persists in this country. The Conservative element that drives racism isn’t confined to our own time or our own culture, and I suppose one has to say it isn’t confined to Conservatives. But it is that Conservative element that is at the root of racism.
There are any number of examples from Ancient History onward outlining the Conservative core in xenophobia (fear of strangers). Take the Greek word for “hotel” – it means “box for strangers.” Benjamin Franklin was progressive in most respects but he was a racist abolitionist. Thomas Jefferson was progressive in most respects, and more progressive than most slaveholders in his attempts to alter slavery in Virginia and the NW territories, but still regarded African Americans as biologically inferior humans – albeit a meager improvement over many of his Southern peers who regarded African Americans and indigenous peoples as subhuman.
While you can parse out reciprocating terms or conditions like ethnicity, imperialism, nationalism, culture, heritage, citizenship or race – the pivotal axis underlying all and which shifts all of the above toward domineering oppressiveness is a Conservative, fearful attitude toward others.
Catkin,
Another way of identifying that conservative element is paring it down to its essentially tribal nature where the smallest unit of social organization revolves around the family unit or larger kin structure. Another etymological example related to “hotel” noted earlier is the Greek notion of “hospitality” which was an extension toward or acceptance of or a welcoming of those outside the tribe by allowing them to co-exist in some fashion within the tribe.
Or take the recent bill sponsored by Andre Jacque to make English the official language of Wisconsin – here we see a classic example of xenophobic localization of the “barbarian” at play. Again, etymologically, “barbarian” refers to those outside the tribe – for the Greeks, barbarians were those who spoke insensibly – who spoke gibberish – who spoke a foreign language, who couldn’t be understood because all they could say was “bar, bar, bar” hence the term “barbarian.” Again the conservative impetus that forms a xenophobic “othering” of people. That fearful “othering” manifesting often in hostile terms, ostracizing or exclusionary action – like Jacque’s attempt to separate people who don’t speak English from people who do. An action that preferences, prioritizes the superiority of English and by extension English speakers. At the same time the effort suppresses languages other than English. Concomitant with that suppression of language, the suppression of people. The immorally hideous result of that legislation is that it suppresses “othered” speakers of languages “other” than English.
I’d take that principle even farther on two scores, English as the official language is a Conservative political movement and English-Only policies have been adopted in primarily (though not exclusively) red states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming.
Here we see the Conservative effort at homogenization disrupting and resisting diversity. In this case diversity of language. Diversity relies on co-existence of differing elements. Homogeneity seeks to eradicate differing elements. This is the tribal, Conservative impetus that creates “othering” or creates outcasts of people who are not members of the tribe.
I’d go as far to say as the unit of “state” especially in America is an oppressive tribal unit, essentially conservative, and the Constitutional creators who sought to eliminate the state in order to redesign the colonial structure were probably right. The facilitation of institutionalized racism and “othering” in this country can be further identified in the tribalism inherent in “states” and “statehood.” I’ll leave it at that lest I digress.
Bottom line – racism persists because Conservatism persists (majuscule and miniscule “c”).
PJ, I could never hope to make any argument as well as you. But while much of what you say is true, the facts are that tribalism and “otheringz” goes away even among conservatives when the “other” is seen as a valuable member of society and living up to a set of standards.
You don’t blame auto insurance companies for charging teenagers much more than over 25s. You don’t see many folks these days attacking airport security for criminalizing travelers by searching them and their belongings, even though people have had items stolen by the security. If you’re a teenager buying car insurance, you simply pay more for insurance and try to maintain a good record so that your price goes down. And that’s what must happen when any “other” tries to join a group, no matter what group. Culture is a vital part of any business. Are you going to be accepted into a conservative business culture if you are from an unsympathetic culture? Are you as a musician going to be accepted into a hip hop band if you have no sympathy for the genre? The “other” has a responsibility to make him or herself function within the culture?
Nature dictates that we protect our own, and the more threatened out own becomes the more radical we have to become to protect it.
Travis Smiley, someone whom I’ve always admired and respected is angry with the President because he didn’t “lead” on hitting hard against racism when he had the chance. Evidently that’s what Smiley would like to see happen since he has not been able to make the progress he would like as a celebrity. And even though the President made some good recommendations along those lines in his “too late coming” Trayvon Martin talk, it wasn’t enough for Travis. What happes then, more quotas?
Some people start poor, some start ill and some start disadvantaged. As parents, conservative or not, we try to give our own some joy and advantage in life. Real Conservatives don’t care what race you are if you help us do that. We’ll cheer Adrian Peters and Tiger Woods. We’ll laugh at Bill Crosby and Chris Rock. We’ll embrace Collin Powell, Al Roker and Steve Harvey. We’ll vote for President Obama. But don’t tell us how to raise our children or do our jobs– or tell us to hire someone who may well destroy the things we’ve worked so long to achieve.
OK, there are many “conservatives” out there who only want advantages over the “others.” But real conservatives will jail or prosecute them when they break the law. But only if the law is being upheld universally and in a fair and impartial manner by the general public including all “others” in our society.
Catkin,
I’m not understanding what you are trying to say. Are you are attempting to offer a defense for racism? Are you making the case for justifiable instances of discrimination? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Your first comment misses the point about tribalism. Certainly there are grades of tribalization. The point with a conservative tribal attitude is that very few and typically a narrow set of selected individuals are viewed as valuable members with conservative tribalism. It’s by definition that the social bonds of unification are small (exclusionary) rather than diverse (inclusionary). As is resistance (reactionary) to a broader suite of individuals.
Your remarks concerning auto insurance aren’t an example of separation in the sense of “othering” nor is it even truly emblematic of any kind of “rite of passage” from youth to adulthood within a society. It’s an example of industry exploitation and not any organic societal process. It is an example of the institutionalization of oppressive power structures which develop when avarice and ambition go unchecked. “Business” in the sense you’re using it is arbitrary, inorganic and unset with respect to societal dictates – in other words, society doesn’t dictate the conditions of insurance companies. Society should, but it doesn’t.
Your airport security/criminalization and culture/business remarks I don’t fathom at all. When you ask the question does the “other” have a responsibility to make him or herself function within the culture, you must first ask the question: is that “other” a member of society who has been wrongly discriminated against – “othered” by the society? If so, then you must ask is it society’s responsibility to embrace and accept they who they’ve “othered?” If your dynamic is that of immigration or influx of foreigners into an established population the question remains the same. Has the new group experienced unjust exclusion during their adjustment to being new members of society? A conservative society will respond with exclusionary norms and mores – like racism. Does the “other” have a responsibility to make him or herself function within the culture? Yes. But does an individual have a responsibility to submit voluntarily to oppressive bias, discrimination, and hate in order to conform? Absolutely not. Does an individual or group have the right to retain their own culture inside their new culture? Yes, with one exception – but that exception really slices both ways for newcomers and established populations alike – accommodation/assimilation doesn’t include that which is objectively harmful to fellow human beings. Lawfulness is another kettle of fish best resolved via open-minded public discourse.
Likewise the gist of your final remark about “others” in society misses the point of what “othering” means. “Others” are functionally excluded from society on whatever level and by whatever means. “Others” are members that are treated as if they aren’t (“others” are met with varying grades of hostility, overt, covert…) or as if they are unworthy of full participation within a society. In a tribalized, conservative system “others’ do not receive impartial justice – they are treated differently, hence they’ve been “othered.”
“Nature dictates that we protect our own, and the more threatened our own becomes the more radical we have to become.” Hitler couldn’t have said it better. To some extent, what you say is true. The concern is: what or whom is considered threatening? If it is “others” or the assimilation of differing peoples within a society then that radical protection just might be xenophobic hysteria preserving racial or ethnic purity. If the threat idea is that some part of society’s essential self will lose by adding diverse elements into it then the reaction might be to expel that perceived threat. And therein lies a big clue for identifying inherent conservatism – that reactionary trait of expulsion, punishment, mistreatment et cetera. Conservatism, by definition, is reactionary.
I don’t understand what your meaning is with Tavis Smiley and quotas.
PJ, if you start with the conviction that conservatives are Nazis then I can’t argue sensibly on this matter. You have chosen to put the onus on any conservative society to accommodate any other that wants in without reservation. That’s not only against human nature and common sense, it is foolish. HR departments would all be removed. Requirements for Police, military and academic institutions would be banned. Insurance companies would not be allowed to research statistics to assess their risks. We couldn’t function in your utopia, Plato Jack.
Catkin,
I’m not starting with the conviction that Conservatives are Nazis. Though the reverse was certainly true. Nazis were Conservatives. Even if I had started with the conviction that Conservatives were Nazis it wouldn’t be evidence that I wasn’t arguing seriously. I’m very familiar with Nazism and from numerous angles, rhetorically-linguistically, historically, philosophically… I always argue seriously. But I wasn’t arguing in my comments. I was relaying what I understand racism to be from perspectives that I am most familiar with. If you choose to disagree, then we can debate. If you are going to dismiss historical conservatism you are not arguing seriously. I commented on your remark because it is definitely a maxim that Nazism ascribed to. Racial, ethnic, genetic, national purity to be preserved at all cost by exterminating the people that tainted that desired purity. If you were making a Darwinian and not a Social-Darwinian suggestion, you may have clarified that. Even then, I’d counter it because that “dog-eat-dog” concept in nature isn’t altogether true. Conversely, altruism and all manner of “adoptive” inclusionary behaviors occur in nature. I didn’t accuse you of being a Nazi; my commentary was a query on your precision. I’m unsure of the meaning you are trying to convey.
I haven’t placed an onus on anything. Every society regardless of its dominant features is under constant pressure to accommodate differing elements within it. Conservative or tribal systems generally permit small or select groups for full inclusion. That’s not my doing. That’s the evolution of humankind. I didn’t stipulate without reservation – as a matter of fact I specifically added that qualified element in my comments. Listen, you are talking about HR departments so you are talking about business. Hence you are attempting to extrapolate sociologically recognized, historical structures of human organizations from a culturally-specific, historically specific, inorganic condition inapplicable to the larger whole – it can’t be done. We are talking at cross purposes it seems. Now if you want to make a case for institutionalized racism and HR departments please do.
I’m not Plato, Burton, More, Bacon, Gott, Winstanley, or Huntington outlining a Utopia. Perhaps you might consider re-reading my comments from a less telescoped lens – that’s not a cut – it’s a suggestion to consider what I’m saying from a perspective other than one of business or HR because neither apply well to the perspective that I’ve conveyed. The president and this thread called for widening the dialogue on race in this country. That is what I am attempting to do. My lens is exceptionally wide – maybe too wide. Sometimes we need to adjust how we view things until we see them in a way we understand them best. I would reiterate and strongly encourage you to give your insights on race from the lens you know best – if that’s business and HR, please please share it. Our nation needs you to share your thoughts. So, ignore what I’ve written if you choose. Instead, share your perspective on race in America in a way that resonates with you.
OK, PJ, You want my perspective. It’s hands on starting with the Vatican II movement in our inner city parish in a city in which Martin Luther King was killed trying to establish a peaceful protest movement. I worked with trained professional socialists, the best I had ever seen or heard of then or since. before that, I worked as a staff artist in an advertising agency whose owner was on the Little Rock School Board and advocated integrating Little Rocks public schools. Our major account exec had been elected State Senator on the Democratic ticket and had many friends in the JF Kennedy administration. In Memphis, I worked for Holiday Inns as a free lance artist and was hired on as Art Director and pre-Press supervisor. I hired and developed my own 3 shift staff of round the clock production artists. There were unsuccessful union attempts on Holiday Press. But no unions existed in Memphis except Scripts Howard newspapers and the Public worker unions. I opened my own marketing and design company after 6 years of dealing with very bitter workers at Holiday Press. I hired a couple of black artists and attempted to train them for the work that was available. They never got comfortable with the work and soon left. As many fledgling Black owned business offered them a more comfortable culture. Our inner city parochial school was equipped with reactionary Vatican II nuns and a Monseignor who marched with King and the Memphis sanitation workers. There was open violence in the city after King was killed and the National Guard was called in. Armed trucks rolled right through my neighborhood with all the kids watching curbside. We formed a scout troop and took our integrated children camping, swimming and canoing. I believe those little black kids would have followed me into a raging storm. We were testing their swimming ability for camp contests and each boy went right into the deep water whether he could swim or not. One particularly solid thirteen year old sunk like a rock and I had to go in after him. The school’s athletic teams were the best in the league in football and basketball. But we had to put on a carnival and sponsor bingo games to pay for equipment. This was aided by local businesses who contributed food, games and prizes. I designed promotional posters and had an editor friend give us a half page afternoon paper photo and article and we prospered. So integration went without a hitch, right? Wrong. The boys got along OK, But the girls never mixed. There were two dress uniforms for the girls, a red and blue check and a brown and gold check for a change. but the white girls all wore the red and blue dresses and the black girls all wore the brown and gold check dresses. The white mothers, many single mothers, had nothing to do with the black mothers or their children. If they had to work together on a project there always had to be a nun in between.On the playground the boys were used to playing together in sports so they didn’t gang up by race like they do in prison. Besides putting in tables and taking out individual desks, the nuns made one major concession for the black children and that was no English grammar. My son didn’t know what a preposition was when he hit high school. However our kids performed well in high school, in fact better on the whole, than kids from the privileged eastern schools. I may have mentioned that my senior patrol leader became the first black student president at Christian Brothers High School. Still trying to make my point, 1) that race doesn’t matter much in a balanced, regulated space; abd 2) Blacks are usually as uncomfortable in a white venue as whites are in a black venue.
Catkin,
Thank you for sharing and contextualizing your experiences. A few questions – I’m not challenging your experience, I’m merely trying to flesh it out a little.
Why were the African American artists you trained at Holiday Press uncomfortable with the work they were doing? Were there any measures you or Holiday Press could have taken to make them more comfortable? and
Was that discomfort reciprocated? Were you or Holiday Press uncomfortable with having African American artists in your employ?
Why did all the African American girls wear brown and gold dresses and all the white girls wear read and blue dresses? Your narrative suggests that this behavior was voluntary – self-segregation.
Why did the white mothers shun the black mothers? And how did they shun them? Did those in authority address this shunning in any way?
Was the shunning reciprocated? Did black mothers shun the white mothers? If so, did those in authority address this shunning in any way?
If your experience tells you race doesn’t matter much in a balanced, regulated space, what suggestions do you have for replicating that balanced, regulated space for society at large?
If your conclusion is that African American and Caucasian individuals alike are more comfortable in homogenous venues, what suggestions do you have for society at large (which is not homogenous) in terms of people of varying races feeling more comfortable with each other?
I wasn’t given the opportunity to hire a black artist at Holiday Press. None showed up. These were people I hired at my marketing business. I suppose I was just not as much fun as the black grooming product companies that greedily hired them away as there were few trained production artists and almost no black TPAs in the area. I didn’t protest their lack of loyalty after I had put in time with them, due to the nature of the business I couldn’t blame them.
You tell me. The only fights we had at the school were between white and black girls. Maybe because we didn’t have a scout troop for the girls as we did for the boys. The mothers probably had something more to do with it. Race relations in the city were especially caustic at the time.
A for instance: I was elected president of our carnival, which had become a yearly event. I had one volunteer for campaign manager who was the African American wife of the president of the major black owned bank in Memphis. Most of the white mothers were barely able to afford to send their children to our parochial school, and were seeing their property values decrease significantly by black realtors working their neighborhoods and hastening white flight out east. White mothers actually scorned requests to help this woman, who was as kind and gentle a soul as I ever knew. Allegra never complained but delivered well on her duties and the carnival was another success. I had a party at my house to celebrate and only one black couple showed up. They were basically shunned as no black couples were ever invited to other white couples parties. and vice-verse.
Elect more people like the president who understand that government must represent all human citizens and remembers that we are also stewards of this planet. Halt the resurgence of 250 year old Corporate Rule. #movetoamend.org
It will take time to build individual relationships, unfettered by “quotas,” irrational street protests, pandering to minorities, law breakers, political opportunists, or pcrsonal and corporate greed. Plus reinforcement with media reminders and rewards for the better community ideas and successes. We must somehow get children to believe again that morality works–which can only be done by example and having fun–not scandalizing and finger pointing.
Catkin,
My mistake regarding Holiday Press versus your marketing business. I have more questions. Don’t feel compelled to answer them if you’ve grown tired of my 20 questions 🙂 I’m just trying to piece together the racism dynamic here. I find it fascinating since it is a perspective from the South. Thanks for being open about it.
You characterized your African American workers as uncomfortable in your employ, but you don’t know why? How do you know they were uncomfortable? Why is it that you describe the black grooming product companies as greedy? I’m asking because I’m curious to know how you see these experiences fitting into the larger picture of racism in America.
Regarding the “why” of the self-segregation you described – please, you tell me. I wasn’t there. Was it self-segregation or policy? I’m not perceiving its relevance – why did you mention it as far as the conclusions you’ve drawn?
On shunning: Are you trying to say that the white mothers shunned the black mothers because the white mothers were of lower economic standing and that their property values decreased due African American businesses (realtors) operating in the neighborhood? How were African American realtors decreasing property values? Again, I’m asking to get some perspective on the racist dynamic at play. I’m not sure I’m quite getting it.
I don’t know what you mean by quotas – are you referring to Affirmative Action? If so, you haven’t explained how Affirmative Action affected the scenarios you highlighted.
I thought I knew why. That’s why I didn’t squawk when they chose to leave. I’m meticulous executing my work and that’s the way I train. Some folks are uncomfortable with that. When they don’t open up to you after working with you a while you know they’re uncomfortable. You give them lighter tasks, but in these cases it didn’t help.
They definitely did that on their own. I never asked anyone why, not wishing to appear naive, I suppose. Nor start a school wide debate on the subject. As long as the school was quite functional except for the occasional girl fight, I let sleeping cats lie. I supposed the nuns looked at it as ethnic pride and didn’t want to interfere.
Economics 101, PJ. When you have a rash of houses go on the market in a neighborhood where 60% of the population doesn’t want to buy because of perceived chances of violence or devaluation itself, the value of the houses decreases with each one on the market.
There was a huge fear of affirmaive action after the first black Mayor was elected in Memphis. Suddenly City Hall was full of black workers. Many Southerners are afraid that’s what will happen to every business that falls in a liberally controlled area.
Hope that helps you, PJ.
“Open Letter to George Zimmerman, By Alex Fraiser”
“Dear George Zimmerman,
For the rest of your life you are now going to feel what its like to be a black man in America.
You will feel people stare at you. Judging you for what you think are unfair reasons. You will lose out on getting jobs for something you feel is outside of your control. You will believe yourself to be an upstanding citizen and wonder why people choose to not see that.
People will cross the street when they see you coming. They will call you hurtful names. It will drive you so insane some days that you’ll want to scream at the top of your lungs. But you will have to wake up the next day, put on firm look and push through life.
I bet you never thought that by shooting a black male you’d end up inheriting all of his struggles.
Enjoy your ‘freedom.’
Sincerely,
A black male who could’ve been Trayvon Martin”
http://lafiga.firedoglake.com/2013/07/17/pass-the-mic-black-men-in-the-wake-of-the-zimmerman-trial/
Thank you for posting this, John.
Another etymological way to think about race: “racial” in terms of physically determined characteristics is relatively modern usage, emerging at the tail end of the 18th century, its sense of “tribe” or loosely “nation” emerged in English usage only in the 1560s. Prior to that “race” contained much wider, much more fluid connotations – pertaining to humanity “race” chiefly referred to “human race.” Let me qualify that assertion by noting the evolutionary, never static, naturally malleable state of language as continually changing.
As it happens, yesterday was Francesco Petrarca’s birthday. More commonly known as Petrarch, sonneteer and humanist scholar. In 1344 he wrote The Second Day of Christmas, a meditation on Italian mercenary warfare and a call for peace not only in Italy, but peace on earth for the human race. Perhaps by adding to our modern sense of race Petrarch’s usage, we might eliminate racism or transform racism from a self-destructive force into a force of good will for all humankind. Here is an excerpt from The Second Day of Christmas:
“[Italia mia.] Is not this precious earth my native land? And is not the nest From which my tender wings were taught to fly? And is not this the soil upon whose breast, Loving and soft, faithful and true and fond, My father and my gentle mother lie? ‘For love of God,’ I cry, ‘Some time take thought of your humanity And spare your people all their tears and grief! From you they seek relief Next after God. If in your eyes they see Some mark of Sympathy, Against this mad disgrace They will arise, the combat will be short for the stern valour of our ancient race Is not yet dead in the Italian heart.’
Look! rulers proud! The hours are pressing on, And life steals fast away. Behold pale Death above your shoulders stand! Tho’ now ye live, yet think of that last day When the soul, naked, trembling, and alone Shall come unto a dark and doubtful land; O, ere ye press the strand, Soften those furrowed brows of scorn and hate, (Those blasts that rage against the spirit’s peace) From strife and slaughter cease, From hatching grievous ills, and consecrate Your lives to a better fate, To deeds of generous worth, To gracious acts that cheer and bless mankind; Thus will you gather joy and peace on earth And heaven’s pathway opened wide will find.
Song, I admonish thee Thou speak thy speech with gentle courtesy, For thou among proud folk thy path must find. Steeped is the human mind in evil ways by old authority, Truth’s constant enemy. With the great-hearted few Thy fortune try. ‘Who bids my terrors cease’ I ask, ‘and which of you Upholds my cry “Return! O heaven-born peace’?”
Thanks, Catkin, for your input. Yes, it was helpful.
I was equal to a black man, an African-American, a discriminated minority only once in my lifetime.
It happened in a large southern city on a layover changing trains en route to Tyndall AFB in Panama City, Florida in January 1951 during the Korean War. Jim and Duane had been roommates for three months at a Wyoming USAF technical school in an early attempt to integrate the US military. Jim was from upstate New York with a year or so of junior college while I was a proud graduate of South Division High School. Since then, I have often jokingly complained that I was in the minority being a French Canadian student in an American=Polish high school. To be fair, we had a few Latinos, but no African Americans. On a more serious note, I remember during WWII the somber reading at the morning gathering by SD’s principal, Ray Kraut, of graduates who had recently given their lives.
But back to the equality of Jim and Duane. With several hours to kill, we decided to attend a movie in the adjacent downtown area. Finding one that suited our interests, we attempted to purchase tickets, but were told that Jim would have to sit in the balcony and I downstairs. We politely declined the seating arrangement. Several young men at the entrance took offense at our rejection and began to taunt and challenge us.
To get to the unhappy ending, Jim and I outran our uncivil rights challengers back to the safety of the train station. Neither of us thought that we would prevail in our “stand your ground” southern encounter.
Please excuse me if I’ve given this account previously.
Duane,
If you’ve previously relayed this account, I haven’t seen it so thank you for posting it again.