Left2Right is a promising new blog whose mission is described in its first post:
In the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, many of us have come to believe that the Left must learn how to speak more effectively to ears attuned to the Right.
Does “Left2Right” Get It Right?
Say What? (21)
Say What?
Previous Entry: The Revival Of Liberalism?
Next Entry: Gratz Plaintiffs Sue Again
John,
Your statement makes a supposition that the ONLY thing preventing blacks and hispanics from moving en-masse to exurbia is a bank lending policy.
Could you please detail for me WHY you believe this to be true.(of course I disagree with you, but before I present an opposing case with facts, I want to see exactly what information led you to make this kind of statement.)
Second, given the documented, indisputably VIOLENT reactions to minority integration by whites throughout American history, from Boston to Biloxi, what is the genesis for your belief that the removal of preference programs will do ANYTHING to prevent future anti-integration violence?
–Cobra
Neither segregation of private or de jure class, nor racial discrimination would be the problems that racial policies of government would seek to solve. The problem for officials and their dependent professoriate, is the lack of rapid progress towards more power for themselves, and dictatorship for the country in general. The means are the ends, or pieces of the end, which is absolute power. What carte blanche one gives to malice, if one assumes automatically that they have virtuous motivations; who say they want to uplift the black man, and are only lacking in power.
John S. Bolton writes:
>>>Neither segregation of private or de jure class, nor racial discrimination would be the problems that racial policies of government would seek to solve. The problem for officials and their dependent professoriate, is the lack of rapid progress towards more power for themselves, and dictatorship for the country in general. The means are the ends, or pieces of the end, which is absolute power. What carte blanche one gives to malice, if one assumes automatically that they have virtuous motivations; who say they want to uplift the black man, and are only lacking in power.”
Does this mean you take the opposing position to those you say “want to uplift the black man?”
And please explain the existance of Plessy vs. Fergussen, Brown vs. Board of Education, or Civil Rights Act of 1964 if it’s not in the government’s interest to examine segregation.
–Cobra
‘Doesn’t integration, when it is either produced directly (as it was with school busing) or indirectly (as it is when it results from racial double standards, preferences, etc.) — require the use of policies and principles it was designed to eliminate, namely treating people differently based on their race?’
Its not that illogical to be race conscious when addressing racial problems.
If economics isn’t the only thing keeping blacks out of “exurbia”, then what is doing it? Racism is still an issue, but it’s not an issue on the scale it was circa 1960. MOST WHITE PEOPLE ARE NOT RACISTS! Last time I checked, there aren’t lynch mobs beating up black folk who try to move into the suburbs anymore.
And, while I doubt removing preferences would totally eliminate interracial tensions, they certainly don’t help, unless, Cobra, you are attempting to argue that affirmative action is some sort of magic cure-all. What is the origin of your belief that racial preference programs in college admissions and employment do ANYTHING to eliminate residential segregation if the problem is a racist, violent white conspiracy?
I apologize for the tone of this post, Cobra, but you make it very difficult to debate when it seems that you refuse to accept anything less then the admission that the entire country is a vast machine with the sole purpose of keeping the black man down. It’s extremely frustrating- I’ve tried to defend you in the past but it becomes increasingly difficult when you label my beliefs “apologist”, “idealistic”, and “racist”. I understand that you are also extremely frustrated by the deplorable condition of life for many black Americans, and I admit that racism still exists.
That being said, we have made significant progress since the 1960’s, and acting as though we haven’t only deepens racial tensions. White Americans who, though perhaps misguided by naivete, genuinely want equality are confused- why do all the black people think we hate them?
We still must deal with the effects of our regrettably racist past. Some of the wounds will take many more years to heal. However, the answer to these problems is not to live in a 1960’s “the man is holding me down” mentality. Solving these problems will require trust and cooperation between the races, and that trust cannot and will not exist when justifiably frustrated African Americans justify discrimination against whites because of discrimination against blacks. This will only serve to create more distrust and deepen racial divides. Affirmative action CREATES racists- whites feel that blacks are getting an unfair advantage, and blacks are conditioned to believe that they can’t succeed without special preferences because the white race is out to hold them back.
We will never create a perfect society. However, we should make our laws, as much as possible, perfect. We will never eliminate crime- we might be able to, but it would require eliminating civil freedoms, so we do our best to punish the criminals. The same is true with racism. We can’t eliminate racism entirely, but we can punish it. In doing so, we must punish the guilty, but not restrict the rights of the innocent and not sacrifice our ideals. The law and the very ideals we strive to live by in America state that we should not discriminate based on race, gender, or religion. Affirmative action flies in the face of these laws and ideals, no matter how good its intention. By justifying discrimination, you make discrimination justifiable- and that is an extremely dangerous precedent. Racism is ultimately a moral issue, and to defeat it we must maintain the moral, idealistic (and yes, often unrealistic) high ground and not stoop to the low of becoming what we strive to destroy.
Cobra, I can understand your frustration, but I can’t understand your support for discrimination. You would tell me that I deserve to get into college less than you, purely because some people with skin the same color as mine did bad things to people with the same color skin as you?
Off soapbox. From a more practical perspective, you have demonstrated that a problem of segregation and underrepresentation exists, but you have never really said how affirmative action is going to solve it. How will letting a few black students into U of M desegregate Detroit? Affirmative action simply fails to provide a reasonable solution, because it only addresses the symptom of a much deeper problem. If anything, affirmative action is counterproductive because it creates the illusion of progress when the real problem is being ignored.
The underrepresentation of blacks in college and in high paying jobs begins earlier, with bad schools and bad living conditions. The solution to this, then, is not to lower standards or institute quotas so blacks can get into college, but rather to work through economic and educational reform to give blacks the confidence and ability to succeed in a colorblind system and insure through legislation that the system is indeed colorblind. This will ultimately be healthier, less divisive, and more effective than current strategies.
Cobra,
There isn’t going to be any significant anti-integration violence in America in the future because not nearly enough people care about segregation anymore. But thanks for the confirmation that you’re definitely living in the past!
My only question is, why would you prefer that? I can go to the mall (big mistake, this time of year, poor planning on my part) and see interracial copules of every possible configuration–lots of them–and guess that? NOBODY CARES! It’s perfectly fine to an overwhelming majority of people. I recommend you join the present America, and leave the 1930’s, when Jim Crow really did represent much of the South, behind.
What cp said.
The past cannot be changed, no matter how many affirmative action progams we have. We can have aa programs for the next 1000 years and that will not change the fact that in the 1950s there were segregated bathrooms. You cannot use quotas or any other means to rectify past problems because those are set in stone. You can determine whether or not those things are happening today (I don’t think they are) and what, if anything, needs to be done about them now.
The premise is faulty.
Segregation that was *mandated* was indeed a problem. But if mandated segregation is a problem, then the solution is not *mandated integration,* but… ending the mandates.
actus:
Its not that illogical to be race conscious when addressing racial problems.
Me:
Yes, but what is the problem? If the problem is imposing burdens on people because of race, then imposing burdens on people because of race does not strike me as a solution.
Garrick writes:
>>>The solution to this, then, is not to lower standards or institute quotas so blacks can get into college, but rather to work through economic and educational reform to give blacks the confidence and ability to succeed in a colorblind system and insure through legislation that the system is indeed colorblind. This will ultimately be healthier, less divisive, and more effective than current strategies.”
Not to sound sarcastic, but given that plan, I guess my solution to end world hunger is for citizens of all nations to cooperate and peacefully share the glory of nature’s bounty.
In order to have a TRUE “colorblind” society, there can’t be “color.” That means there can be no such thing as a “blacks”, “whites”, “yellows”, “reds” or “browns”. Simple legislation declaring America as a “colorblind society” will have the same impact as the national recognition of Arbor Day.
Those with power and access will keep it. Those on the outside will still remain outside. The evidence of a still racist, discriminatory American society coincides with my viewpoint.
–Cobra
Cobra:
In order to have a TRUE “colorblind” society, there can’t be “color.” That means there can be no such thing as a “blacks”, “whites”, “yellows”, “reds” or “browns”.
Being colorblind in the public arena doesn’t mean being blind, just as treating everyone as equal before the law does not mean that we don’t see actual inequalities among people. In this conversation colorblind means giving color no legal significance, assigning it no burdens or benefits.
If that is not a good idea, then we should repeal the 14th Amendment, abolish all the laws that purport to bar discrimination based on race, take the blindfold off the symbol of Justice, and give up the foolish fiction that all people should be equal before the law.
‘But if mandated segregation is a problem, then the solution is not *mandated integration,* but… ending the mandates.’
What if the mandates created a situtation that doesn’t fix itself?
John writes:
>>>Being colorblind in the public arena doesn’t mean being blind, just as treating everyone as equal before the law does not mean that we don’t see actual inequalities among people. In this conversation colorblind means giving color no legal significance, assigning it no burdens or benefits.
If that is not a good idea, then we should repeal the 14th Amendment, abolish all the laws that purport to bar discrimination based on race, take the blindfold off the symbol of Justice, and give up the foolish fiction that all people should be equal before the law.”
Man, these are two loaded paragraphs. Let’s see what the implications are. Color, in this case, is actually race and ethnicity. You don’t want the LAW, meaning GOVERNMENT, to recognize “race and ethnicity”, while reserving NO SUCH limitation or directive to the PRIVATE SECTOR or citizen. In a nutshell, it’s an theory designed to replace the current system with…what? A system that never existed before in American history? A system, that basically benefits the entrenched ruling, MAJORITY–no longer “encumbered” with the legal mandate for diversity. Exactly what, John, would keep the MAJORITY from reverting back to the behavior of historical precedence? You described it in an earlier post as simple human nature for most people to act in their own self interest. Your “color-blind” system would call for IN-human self-regulatory ethics and behavior by the MAJORITY IN CHARGE, (since I guarantee reparations or wealth redistribution would not be part of your plan.) which would, by any honest estimation, turn into a GREATER societal divide, both racially, and economically.
Please tell me where I’m wrong about your plan, John.
–Cobra
Left2Right is not going to work. Ideas have consequences. THe fundamental differences in the presuppositions of Lefties and Righties drive differing conclusions that, in many cases, can not accommodate a ‘middle ground’ or ‘common ground’ sort of thing.
It is wrong to use aggression; public statute doesn’t make it moral. The blacks have no right to equality of result given by government. There is no right to equality of opportunity either, if aggression is the method used to get it. The government may look at its own segregation policies, and its own racial policies, and should. No one cares to challenge the claim that those who say they want to uplift the black man, should have their motivations questioned.
Man, these are two loaded paragraphs. Let’s see what the implications are. Color, in this case, is actually race and ethnicity. You don’t want the LAW, meaning GOVERNMENT, to recognize “race and ethnicity”, while reserving NO SUCH limitation or directive to the PRIVATE SECTOR or citizen. In a nutshell, it’s an theory designed to replace the current system with…what?
Cobra – Usually I understand what you’re saying and disagree with it. Here I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say. But you do seem to have missed a distinction that is so basic I didn’t think it needed mentioning:
The 14th Amendment applies to governmental action. You know, “equal protection of the laws,” etc. Private actors are covered (where they are covered) by legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which mandated colorblind treatment. I’ve cited several of its provisions, such as Title VI, a number of times here.
If you believe that “simple human nature” requires everyone to act in his or her own self-interest, and further that that nature is so powerful that it cannot and so should not be subject to legal restriction, then heaven help the world’s minorities. Since, in the world you appear to favor, there is no right to be treated without regard to race, the only thing you can rely on for your well-being is the kindness of strangers, strangers whom you are at great pains to portray as unalterably hostile to you and yours.
John writes:
>>>If you believe that “simple human nature” requires everyone to act in his or her own self-interest, and further that that nature is so powerful that it cannot and so should not be subject to legal restriction, then heaven help the world’s minorities. Since, in the world you appear to favor, there is no right to be treated without regard to race, the only thing you can rely on for your well-being is the kindness of strangers, strangers whom you are at great pains to portray as unalterably hostile to you and yours.’
You know exactly what I’m talking about. It is the 14th Amendment–not the 1st or 2nd that finally gets around to equal treatment under law on paper for everybody. It took 190 years to get around to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, again…just on paper.
In both situations, as with ALL in American history, the white majority was in charge, and both did not go through without serious challenge by those opposing the measures.
Please explain to me three things, John. The REASON for the decades of hesitation on the part of whites in charge to allow basic equal rights in both these issues. The REASON for the Opposing position to these measures by a large number of whites, and the REASON why you feel your proposition for abolishing racial preferences isn’t a gateway drug to the documented equality hesitations and opposition movements by large groups of discriminating whites that still exist in society today?
–Cobra
Someone should explain why the aggrandizement of minorities on a racial basis is a proper objective, and one that allows for an increase in the sum of aggression indulged in by officials. More aggression being required to equalize any minority which is disadvantaged in that sense, it is already known that such a project is immoral.
I’ve been thinking about Cobra’s ideas and have come to the conclusion that he doesn’t trust whites. That since whites have been unjust in the past, that they will be unjust in the future. He gives no credence to the idea that many whites, perhaps most, have learned from their past.
Nobody Important writes:
>>>I’ve been thinking about Cobra’s ideas and have come to the conclusion that he doesn’t trust whites. That since whites have been unjust in the past, that they will be unjust in the future. He gives no credence to the idea that many whites, perhaps most, have learned from their past.”
If I had that high a level of paranoia, I’d be unable to function in my field of employment, or social endeavors. But you raise an interesting premise….TRUST. When I first started posting to this blog (which seems like YEARS AGO, when in reality, it only a few months) I mused about the concept of TRUST and the ending of Affirmative Action. John Rosenberg responded to that musing:
>>>
That is not a rational argument. If whites are a moral unity, above beyond and apart from anyone in particular, then so are the blacks. In a democracy, the majority has superior claim, and the moral unity of the groups eliminates any individual rights. If individual moral significance is acknowledged, the blacks have no social justice claim to make on the whites, who are not then a moral unity.