I don’t think so, but apparently Boalt Hall (University of California, Berkeley) law school dean Christopher Edley does.
A good while ago I described Edley, then a Harvard law professor, as follows:
… former White House aide, co-author of President Clinton’s “mend it, don’t end it” review of affirmative action policies, advisor to Clinton’s race commission, fervent advocate of racial preferences (he described Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom’s America in Black and White as “a crime against humanity”), and advisor to the Gore campaign….
Edley was invited to a recent meeting of the University of California Board of Regents to rebut the presentation of UCLA law professor Richard Sander, who had been invited to discuss his research findings (discussed here, and several times subsequently) by retiring regent Ward Connerly.
Sander presented regents with a succession of graphs and charts to support his findings that blacks admitted by affirmative action struggle. He argued that if those students had gone to lower-tiered law schools without affirmative action they would have done better with the net result that more would have passed the bar.
Edley, the first black to serve as dean of a major U.S. law school, took issue with Sander’s findings. He said the elimination of affirmative action would result in far fewer blacks going to law school and questioned the assumption that blacks not admitted to the school of their choice would be willing to go elsewhere.
Lower-tier law schools tend to be in places like Montana and Wyoming, Edley said, “places that are remarkably – What’s the word I’m looking for? – white.”
Edley is smart, but this comment, not to put too fine a point on it, is so dumb you’d think he’d be embarrassed to utter it. Does he really believe California, Massachusetts, New York, Texas, etc., don’t have second tier law schools that are not … “what’s the word I’m looking for? -‘white?'” I doubt it.
Edley also said that judicial openings and other important jobs tend to be filled by students from top colleges. “All of that would be in jeopardy and we would face a resegregation of those institutions at a time when the door is just beginning to open,” he said.
I have argued before (such as here) against the concept of “resegregation.” Among other problems, it is offensive to suggest that the decline in minority students at elite schools that would follow, at least initially, the abandonment of race preferences is in any way comparable to the legally enforced segregation that was present in much of American history.
Edley’s comment does, however, have the virtue of revealing how little the demand for preferences has to do with “diversity” and how much it resembles the discarded policy of busing to promote integration. “Diversity” admissions are nothing more than busing graduated and gone to college.
‘Sander presented regents with a succession of graphs and charts to support his findings that blacks admitted by affirmative action struggle. He argued that if those students had gone to lower-tiered law schools without affirmative action they would have done better with the net result that more would have passed the bar.’
The one thing that struck me about Sander’s finding is that we can see its arguement as paternalistic. It says that Affirmative Action hurts black students who accept its advantages, and therefore it should be ended. But the counter arguement is that the black student can weight these factors and choose whether to accept the advantage or not.
Now, I think this is a particularly weak criticism, but I wonder if there’s any liberty or anti-nanny type advocates making it.
My impression is that most critics of racial preferences base their criticism on their belief that preferences violate a fundamental principle, that it is wrong to distribute either benefits or burdens on the basis of race. Although critics have argued that preferences are bad for their beneficiaries because they reinforce the stereotype that minorities are incapable of making it on their own, that all successful minorities owe their success to special privileges extended to them, etc., Sander is the first (to my knowledge) to offer extensive research findings of non-psychological damage caused by affirmative action. Perhaps one reason little effort is devoted to analyzing whether preferences are good for blacks is, of course, that today’s preferred justification for preferences is “diversity,” i.e., the benefit the presence of blacks confers on whites, not the benefit of granting admission to better schools than the “beneficiaries” would attend without preferences.
I had commented about this Sanders article a few times in this forum. If schools like U of Montana are Wyoming are heavily white, it probably has more to do with the geographical and democratic texture of the population than because of other reasons. I gess calling a law school as a second tier school has more to do with one’s subjective view of a school rather than an objective appraisal of what a law school graduate can do. frankly I do not care very much about Edley’s opinion ( Cobra has accused me of calling Edley a liberal academic devil, just like his academic colleague Lani guinier at harvard ). What are we gonna call law schools like Boalt, Stanford ,Harvard or UCLA law schools ? Are we gonna call them first tier, second tier, 3rd tier etc law schools? How about law schools liek Whittier Law, Chapman law, California Western, University of the Pacific , Loyola etc. ? A rural law school like the University of the Pacific has fewer non -whites than urban schools like Hastings, Southwestern, University of Santa Clara or Loyola. Blacks are a real scarcity at U of Pacific law than at Loyola. Is it because U of Pacific is more racist than Loyola ? I doubt that really , the scarcity of blacks at U of Pacific has probably more to do with the scarcity of blacks in the Stockton area than in LA.
In terms of absolute numbers , a school like the U of Santa Clara or Loyola has more graduates that pass the California bar exam than Stanford does. Loyola graduates over 400 people from its law school every year. In the past 10 years, the pass rate of Loyola grads in the California bar exam is between 75% and 84 %. Stanford Law graduates about 100 students a year. Its pass rate in the bar exam has ranged between 86% to 92 % in the past 10 years. In other words, you are more likely to run across a Loyola grad to handle your case than a Stanford law grad. I am of the opinion that stanford’s record is hardly exemplary. I already expressed my opinions about the Sander article in earlier posts. Mny of the commentaries made by Kidder, lampher or Edley about the article are simply wrong.
Extra Credit Assignment: Great Reading…
It’s the weekend, and even though grades are due on Monday, I can’t resist dropping in on a few….
Leo, Leo, Leo. The UOP McGeorge School of Law is actually located in (at least what used to be) the black ghetto of Sacramento, the equivalent of Harlem. The rate of passing the Bar exam is just one measure of the quality of a law school. Some students never intend to practice law and take the Bar as a flyer or not at all. My point? These matters require intense study to get them right.
John writes:
>>>Edley’s comment does, however, have the virtue of revealing how little the demand for preferences has to do with “diversity” and how much it resembles the discarded policy of busing to promote integration. “Diversity” admissions are nothing more than busing graduated and gone to college”
What would a person like yourself, who CLAIMS to favor the principle of color-blindness have against busing? Wouldn’t a true proponent of “color-blindness” would simply regard busing as a proximity issue, since the concept of segregation would be an anathema?
–Cobra
Cobra – What I find objectionable is that it was the result — and the method of implementing — assigning students to schools based on their race.
Perhaps you aren’t familiar with how it worked, so a brief digression: In the small town South where and when I grew up, busing (though it wasn’t called that then) was a way of preserving segregation. Both whites and blacks were often bused to schools far from their homes in order to maintain separate black and white schools. In most of those small towns, neighborhood schools would have been integrated.
When much of the (white) South resisted implementing Brown, however, the federal courts turned, in some desperation and with reservations, to requiring integrated schools (not merely the absence of racial school assignments), and when that concept was taken up in the North busing was necessary to produce integrations since the neighborhoods were much more racially segregated than in the small town South.
Thus what I object to is not buses per se, but racial school assignments. More fundamentally, I believe Brown went off track when it was interpreted to require actual integration as opposed to an absence of discrimination.
They didn’t even run schoolbuses in Memphis before busing for desegregation came in. Busing was all about not considering proximity, but busing kids across town to try to force racial balance in the individual schools. Prior to that time, kids were assigned to the schools closest to them, and could transfer to schools where they were in the racial minority with the city paying for their transportation, but that wasn’t good enough. That’s when the neighborhood schools started their death spiral. They gave up busing for desegregation some time ago, but it’s too late for the schools.
Don’t you remember learning about “de facto” vs. “de jure” segregation in high school civics class? I sure do, and I graduated from high school in 1978.
Or, Cobra, investigate the Wilmington, Delaware desegregation plan and tell me how “color-blind” and “democratic” that was!
Here’s an interesting article:
http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/23/Tampabay/Choice_may_allow_a_ra.shtml
“Choice may allow a racial backslide”
“Judging by parents’ applications, some Pinellas schools could become largely resegregated unless something is done to head it off….
“Nearly three years into choice, large numbers of Pinellas families – white and black – have ignored the district’s call to integrate voluntarily….
“A system of race ratios known as ‘controlled choice’ keeps many schools artificially integrated. But those controls expire at the end of the 2006-07 school year….
“District officials acknowledge it is probably too late to prevent at least a temporary return to a school system with significant pockets of segregation. “The public’s impulse to select schools close to home is simply too ingrained….
“He said it is time for Pinellas to ask fundamental questions about what is best for its schools. “Is it so bad for some schools to be nearly all-black if they get the same resources as predominantly white schools? Or is that heresy in a district that has worked for decades to stay racially integrated?…
“‘What do families want?’ Wilcox asked. Bostock said that will be ‘the big question’.”
Imagine that. Asking families what they want.
So am I to interpret from the past three posts that there is no compelling need for American society to be truly “integrated?” By the statements expressed in these posts, a neutral observer would be led to believe that the ONLY problem with segregation was that it was enforced by the government.
There is no accounting in the statements for the quality of education, resources available, or the REAL REASON why segregation existed.
I’d love to hear that from at least one poster.
–Cobra
If segregation isn’t enforced by the government, is it segregation?
‘If segregation isn’t enforced by the government, is it segregation?’
By the dictionary it sounds like it. I guess it can operate via private power as well as public.
How about if it’s not enforced by anybody? How about if it just happens?
‘How about if it’s not enforced by anybody? How about if it just happens?’
Still seems to meet the dictionary.com definition. But its ‘just happening’ by the people who make it.
And if those people are black, and don’t have a problem with it, is it a problem?
Ah, Ah, Laura. Only blacks, with their inherent inborn racial superiority in such matters (what other qualifications are ever demanded of them?) can give a valid opinion on whether or not black voluntary segregation is OK. Your role is limited to citing the raw numbers. Because of your skin color your opinion is racist and worthless. What they might mean is reserved to someone of the appropriate skin color to determine. Also, whether or not Condi Rice or Justice Thomas is doing OK, and whatever various other areas of black expertise they choose to arrogate to themselves. Whites are inherently inferior in these matters and ought to act as men-Fridays to the black Robinson Crusoes who have superior knowledge of this black world. Correct that, only liberals can be men-Fridays; liberals who have demonstrated the appropriate appreciation of the black superiority mentioned above. Those who say that blacks are equally interchangeable with whites need not opine. Have I received your message correctly, Cobra? The trouble with Thomas and Condi is that they do not support and acquiesce in this black superiority line.
‘And if those people are black, and don’t have a problem with it, is it a problem?’
If people don’t have a problem then its not a problem.
My suspicions are correct again. Apparently, the AAA-types who responded answered my question in predictable fashion.
Typical.
–Cobra
Somebody is correcting me here, UOP law school is in SAcramento, not in Stockton , well he may be right. I know UOP was in STockton not Sacto. Anyway there are more blacks in the Bay area than in SACto or Stockton. There are indeed many factors that affect people’s choice of a law school. I had mentioned in a previous e – amil that I don’t really care much about the concept of second tier or whatever tier of law school? Anyway the data that I had presented comes from the LSAC itself and from what I had seen from the California bar exam. Sorry for the bleep if I said UOP law school was in Stockton, never been to that school anyway.
cobra says,
” So am I to interpret from the past three posts that there is no compelling need for American society to be truly “integrated?” By the statements expressed in these posts, a neutral observer would be led to believe that the ONLY problem with segregation was that it was enforced by the government.
There is no accounting in the statements for the quality of education, resources available, or the REAL REASON why segregation existed.
I’d love to hear that from at least one poster. ”
Tuh, tuh ……. careful Cobra,,,,,,whether the real reason for segregation was created by the acquiescence of the gov’t ( meaning local or national I suppose ) or average white folks, the achievements of black schoolchildren might have less to do with adding more money to ” improve the quality of education, enhance resources etc…. ”
Cobra, your arrow has found its mark. I was ready for a lot of different responses to my comment, but characterizing it as
I guess it is really a simple issue — Cobra and his ilk do not believe minority children (especially black children) can learn without being exposed to their intellectually superior white counterparts. Absent the presence of their betters, they simply can’t learn.
Now the mere fact that there exist spectacular institutions of higher learning that are historically black, institutions that produced men and women of incredible intellect and talent, is lost on him.
The problem is not segregation per se — it is the artificial limits put on folks by de jure segregation. De jure segregation implies inferiority. De facto segregation does not, in most instances carry with it such a stigma.
‘If people don’t have a problem then its not a problem.’
So, discrimination is in the eye (or the mind) of the beholder?
It’s comforting to know that I’m not a racist, unless of course someone ‘feels’ I’m a racist.
‘ De facto segregation does not, in most instances carry with it such a stigma.’
I think we should further distinguish from consented to unconsented segregation, whether de facto or not.
notherbob2, you mean “person Fridays” don’t you?
Actus, thank you for your rational response. I would qualify it by saying that if none of the people who are affected by the segregation have a problem, it’s not a problem. I can see group A saying “we don’t have a problem so there isn’t one” while group B says “yes there is”. But I don’t think people who are not directly affected should have a say in whether segregation is a problem or not, which is why I reject Cobra’s argument that racism can be proved by statistics alone.
You’re right, too, in saying that voluntary segregation is still segregation. If I recall correctly, it was Brown v. Topeka that said that “separate but equal” is inherently unequal. It probably was at the time, but I don’t think it always has to be. Particularly now, when black people are not being kept off of school boards and such. My humble opinion is that if no individual is kept out of the program he or she wants to get into because of race, then whatever segregation happens is not a problem. One could argue that if the critical mass of that person’s group isn’t present, then that person is kept out because he wouldn’t feel comfortable, and I would argue back that although I understand and sympathize, people need to not be such shrinking violets. Step up to the plate and do your thing. All the artificial integration in the world can’t solve every problem.
It’s understandable that people want to live around, and in particular raise children around, those who share their values, but it’s immoral to use race as a shortcut for those values.
I would like Cobra, if he’s got a minute or two, to clarify what he means by “segregation.” If he means the mere fact of different ethnic communities living disproportionally in different places, without any legal compulsion or anything like the systematic and deliberately demeaning separate public facilities, &c., of Jim Crow, then, yes, I have no problem with “segregation.”
I don’t think Cobra (or actus) quite recognizes what’s involved in voting the other way. Aleuts are absurdly concentrated in Alaska. Latinos are absurdly concentrated in Texas and the Southwest. Cubans are absurdly concentrated in Miami. Hmong are absurdly concentrated, IIRC, in Minnesota. And Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Arab, Iranian, Pakistani, [insert country of origin here] immigrants are absurdly concentrated in little neighborhoods in large cities. Whereas they ought, obviously, to be dispersed throughout the country. Every small town ought to have a resident Aleut and a resident Cuban. Every school in the country deserves to have its resident UN representative, as it were, of the countries and races of the world, so far as the size of the school permits it.
Well, that’s poor satire; but I would like Cobra to explain whether he really means that there is something wrong about there being large communities of a particular race or religion or ancestral country in one place. Is it wrong for there to be small Indian/Pakistani communities, large enough to support Indian/Pakistani grocers and clothes shops? If you were a Jew who keeps kosher, or an observant Muslim, would you like to live in a fairly concentrated community where there would be halal butchers and kosher foods, or so far away from large numbers of others of your creed that the nearest place large enough to support a grocer providing food you can eat is fifty miles from you? If your first language were not English, wouldn’t you want to live someplace where the density of people whose first speech is yours is large enough to support a store carrying books and magazines and newspapers in your own tongue?
I would rather see ethnic neighborhoods flourishing than see the American populace distributed with mathematical exactitude over the whole of the country, just so many of each group in each state, so as to make the proportions right.
‘So, discrimination is in the eye (or the mind) of the beholder?’
Its still discrimination, but you’d be hard pressed to call it a problem if no-one thought it was problematic.
Great summary, Michelle. I think you’ve pointed out the fallacy of arguments from those like Cobra.
By the way, Cobra, since you don’t agree with having schools that are all-black or largely black, because they are ‘segregated’, I suppose you are in favor of forcing a bunch of black people to move out of Detroit? After all, Detroit is about 85% black these days, and we can’t have that, now can we? So, do we require the blacks to move to Topeka, or do we move in a bunch of white people from Poughkeepsie? After all, gotta keep those schools integrated, or the kids can’t learn.
Have they isolated these magical ‘vibes’ for learning that only occur when kids of different races are in school together yet?
/sarcasm off
Michelle, it seems to me that you’re describing people segregating themselves based on common culture, religion, and language, which is not the same as racial segregation. The result of the segregation is unimportant; it’s on what grounds people are segregating themselves that is.
actus, put me down as considering it a problem. Only in a hypothetical world would the racism that led to self-segregation not infect the rest of people’s lives.
I don’t think we should conflate segregation with discrimination. Discrimination implies purpose, which segregation doesn’t necessarily.
Nels, why is segregating by culture so fundamentally different from segregating by race?
Because both are segregating by culture – I could be wrong but I don’t think anyone actually cares about skin color – but in the first case it’s necessary to determine the culture of individuals, while in the second case the culture is assumed based on their race.
I will answer Cobra’s question about why racial (and nationalist) segregation developed. The answer is so stunningly simply that he will never get it:
People prefer to live among their own kind. The efforts of government to overturn this preference are doomed to failure.
Racial and national segregation didn’t really occur out of prejudice and discrimination. These things happened because people felt more comfortable living among their own race and nationality.
Cobra, you are very busy trying to find evil in what is simply the natural behavior of human, cows and chimpanzees. Given their druthers, each of these groups prefers the company of its own kind. I bet you do, too. The simplicity of this is beyond you, Cobra. I expect the usual delusional, excessively complicated reply. By the way, I usually skip everything in your posts except the opening sentences and the summation at the end. The rest is just trash talk of the “You’re momma wears dirty underpants” variety.
Stephen’s blog: http://www.shoutingthomas.typepad.com/
That droopy, hangdog picture and this brief statement on Stephen’s blog have answered a lot of my questions:
“Life is now a full time search for answers. Why was I not allowed to have Myrna for another 20 to 30 years? Where has she gone? How do I find her again?”
Stephen –
Hate is a terible thing. Get help- deal with your pain. Stop projecting your difficulties onto other people. Blacks, liberal, affirmative action, Jesse Jackson, etc. are not the cause of your angst, you are.
Cobra, as sheltered and parochial as he is, is at least reaching out in this blog and trying to gain some understanding. I think that is admirable. And Stephen, I believe that the phrase is “combat boots”, unless you are introducing a thread that probably doesn’t belong on this blog.
Nels, I think that people frequently do what they do for a mixture of motives, especially for decisions like which school to put their kids in. Suppose a parent picked a school for her kid based on these criteria:
It’s close to my house.
It’s a newer school than the others, hence nicer and probably safer.
There’s a music program she’ll like.
The school is majority white, like us.
I know parents of three kids at that school and they all say it’s great.
Now, is the decision to send the kid there an immoral decision? Partially immoral? Nobody else’s dadgum business?
I was stuck in the Boston area this weekend for a trade show, and my laptop started acting up last night, so I didn’t get a chance to dig in to some of these comments.
I’m home now.
Notherbob2 writes:
>>>Cobra, as sheltered and parochial as he is, is at least reaching out in this blog and trying to gain some understanding. I think that is admirable.”
I’m not going to be a petty, vindicative person and look this gift horse in the mouth. Thank you, Notherbob2.
Michelle writes:
>>>Is it wrong for there to be small Indian/Pakistani communities, large enough to support Indian/Pakistani grocers and clothes shops? If you were a Jew who keeps kosher, or an observant Muslim, would you like to live in a fairly concentrated community where there would be halal butchers and kosher foods, or so far away from large numbers of others of your creed that the nearest place large enough to support a grocer providing food you can eat is fifty miles from you? If your first language were not English, wouldn’t you want to live someplace where the density of people whose first speech is yours is large enough to support a store carrying books and magazines and newspapers in your own tongue?
I would rather see ethnic neighborhoods flourishing than see the American populace distributed with mathematical exactitude over the whole of the country, just so many of each group in each state, so as to make the proportions right.”
Oh really, Michelle? That’s not the kind of attitude I heard from you during the “African Town” discussion back in September. Remember this question and answer session?
>>>
Michelle,
I understand your points, but you didn’t answer my question.
If African Town was 100% prviately funded, would you have a problem with it?
–Cobra
>>> Cobra, I would think it a very silly idea, but as long as there was no hiring discrimination by the “Black-owned” businesses in question, it wouldn’t be illegal. Would I have a “problem with it”? Yes, I would.”
“A very silly idea?” You would have a “problem” with it? What is your idea of an ethnically segregated population “flourishing” if economic development and wealth acquisition is not part of the equation?
Nels writes:
>>> I could be wrong but I don’t think anyone actually cares about skin color -”
Oh, my friend…that’s the heart of the matter. The difference in skin color, hair type, facial features. If I looked like Conan O’Brien, I could call myself “African American” till the cows come home, but I won’t face the same situations that I do now in a myriad of American Societal aspects.
Laura writes:
>>>It’s close to my house.
It’s a newer school than the others, hence nicer and probably safer.
There’s a music program she’ll like.
The school is majority white, like us.
I know parents of three kids at that school and they all say it’s great.
Now, is the decision to send the kid there an immoral decision? Partially immoral? Nobody else’s dadgum business?”
Well, that’s a tough question, and I think most people, if honest, can probably point to many decisions they’ve made over the course of their lives that may have involved a level of ethnic/racial/gender/religious bias of some form or another. Does that make them “immoral?” Depends on who the judge is. However, there are some truly despicable figures in American history and current society that have used the “segregation is God’s will” line from the pulpit to the town square lynching. There is a definitely a fine line.
–Cobra
Cobra says,
” Now, is the decision to send the kid there an immoral decision? Partially immoral? Nobody else’s dadgum business?”
Well, that’s a tough question, and I think most people, if honest, can probably point to many decisions they’ve made over the course of their lives that may have involved a level of ethnic/racial/gender/religious bias of some form or another. Does that make them “immoral?” Depends on who the judge is. However, there are some truly despicable figures in American history and current society that have used the “segregation is God’s will” line from the pulpit to the town square lynching. There is a definitely a fine line. ”
–Cobra
With Laura opting for her kids to go to her little white little red school rather than the inner city, How will that affect the learning ability of your kids? do they really need her kids in order to learn? Opting for a suburban school does not guarantee success for a student. Same thing happens in college. Opting for a suburban school might be a ” moral decision ” , but there is no guarantee that Laura will get her desired outcome.
Cobra, “African Town” wasn’t an “ethnic neighborhood,” it was an ethnic theme park in a city overwhelmingly Black. That I want to see flourishing ethnic communities should not imply that I want to see people selling their ethnicity as a tourist attraction.
(Or as a flashy way to lose money. Cobra, how do you feel about Native American “gaming” operations? Cool? Exploitative? Both cool and exploitative? How would you feel about an “Indian Town” incorporating, oh, say, a few hundred slot machines?)
Michelle writes:
>>>Cobra, “African Town” wasn’t an “ethnic neighborhood,” it was an ethnic theme park in a city overwhelmingly Black. That I want to see flourishing ethnic communities should not imply that I want to see people selling their ethnicity as a tourist attraction.”
Tourist attraction? Barber shops, eating establishments, cultural centers and black themed retail stores are tantamount to a “tourist attraction?”
I suppose you’re also dead set against Pennsylvania Dutch Country and the Amish for selling handcrafted furniture
and Shoo-fly pies?
Leo writes:
>>>With Laura opting for her kids to go to her little white little red school rather than the inner city, How will that affect the learning ability of your kids? do they really need her kids in order to learn? Opting for a suburban school does not guarantee success for a student. Same thing happens in college. Opting for a suburban school might be a ” moral decision ” , but there is no guarantee that Laura will get her desired outcome.”
Except the criteria Laura mentioned never said “inner city” or “suburbs”.
The statement was:
“The school is majority white, like us.”
What differentiates this type of mindset from that of the white separatist, or segregationist?
–Cobra
Unlike some other posters, I’ve always found Cobra’s informative and interesting, but mostly wrong. How can we have a debate without opposing views. He’s never been abusive and doesn’t deserve some of the derision he has received. I particularly dislike formulations like “Cobra and his ilk”.
That said, I have a problem with his insistance that freedom of association for whites is qualitatively different from freedom of association for non-whites. He is saying that white behavior is inherently suspect and should be restrained by government, even if there is no racist intent. All other groups behavior is not.
By the way Cobra, hope you had a good stay in Boston. Isn’t the snow beautiful?
Except the criteria Laura mentioned never said “inner city” or “suburbs”.
Right. Funny, the assumptions we make.
I think white separatists or segregationists would put the race criterion at the top of their list, and maybe make it trump all other considerations, as opposed to making it one factor among others. (Where have I heard that before?) I also think people take a lot on themselves when they try to determine other people’s motives for what they do.
Here’s another thought-experiment:
(1) Given the choice between sending my white child to a school that’s 60% white and a school that’s 100% white, I’ll pick the 100% white one regardless of almost every other consideration.
(2) Given the choice between sending my white child to a school that’s 60% white and a school that’s 0.001% white, I’ll pick the 60% white one regardless of almost every other consideration.
Do we differentiate between those choices?
Full disclosure: my kid has always attended schools with close to a 50-50 ratio of black and white, and I’ve been happy for her to do so. The choices I’m putting up here are hypothetical.
Dislike whatevery you want, nobody. I’ll formulate my comments any way I please, subject to John’s limitations.
Cobra begins with the racist assumption that all whites are motivated by racism. As such, I consider him no better than Robert Byrd. Just as i would refer to Byrd and his Ilk, I will refer to Cobra an his ilk.
Actually, given their politics, I think Cobra and Byrd might share an ilk.
I respect your right to express yourself as you please and never implied that you do otherwise. To my mind, ‘ilk’ is a loaded term and conveys some nefarious or illicit meaning. Calling each other racist because we disagree will not further the discussion.
You’ll note that, like you, I also find it troubling that Cobra expects the worst from whites, but I don’t think that rises to level of calling him racist. There is much more going on in his head and the more we can discuss the more we’ll find out what makes him think the way he does.
Comparing Cobra to Byrd is disproportionate, Byrd was a Klan member (and leader), Cobra merely disagrees with you on an internet site.
Cobra,
Tourist attraction? Barber shops, eating establishments, cultural centers and black themed retail stores are tantamount to a “tourist attraction?”
Well, Cobra, if they were not, the whole project would be kind of pointless, wouldn’t it? I mean, we’re talking about a city in which the vast majority of the citizens are Black. I don’t see any point in “African Town” in an African-American town, unless it is tourism. If you’re Black, and all your neighbors are Black, I don’t think you’ll find it difficult to get your hair styled properly, or to obtain the food you like, or the clothes you think stylish.
I suppose you’re also dead set against Pennsylvania Dutch Country and the Amish for selling handcrafted furniture and Shoo-fly pies?
Why should I be? Anyone ought to be able to sell (nearly) anything. But the Amish don’t hawk themselves in this way. No one has established an official “Amish Town” with Amish clothing shops, Amish eateries, Amish furniture stores, Amish barbers. At least, I sure hope not.
Cobra,
Where are these white segregationists and separatists?
I don’t know any, and I travel pretty extensively around the country.
Who are they?
My earlier comment seemed to go unnoticed. Although the assumption seems to be that racial and national segregation arise from the wicked impulse to discriminate, I suggested that such segregation arises from the much more neutral desire of people to be among their own kind. Most people want this. They feel more comfortable and defended.
I’m different in this regard. I’m been married to a woman of a different race, and I’ve intentionally chosen to live in integrated communities. That I am different in this regard make me quite aware that most people do not share my enthusiasm for such integration.
I’ll repeat, Cobra, racial and national segregation grew out of the natural, and perfectly innocent, desire of people to be around their own kind. Governments cannot defeat this without causing even worse problems, as we have discovered in the past 50 years.
Stephen –
Your earlier comments did not go “unnoticed”. The silence that surrounded them was an appropriate reaction to the thinly disguised bigotry they expoused.
Your statement that “racial and national segregation arise from the …neutral desire of people to be among their own kind” is quite revealing when one considers the reality of 400 years of “forced” and not so “neutral” enforcement of laws that championed slavery and Jim Crow segregation, anti-miscegentation, and lynching.
I, as well as others on this site,can see right through you.
“Cobra expects the worst from whites, but I don’t think that rises to level of calling him racist.”
Hm. What does “racist” mean?
Well, James, I guess it’s just dandy that you can “see right through” me. What’s your problem? The Irish, from whom I am partially descended, fled Ireland to escape the potato famines, and when they landed in New York City, they immediately searched out the Irish neighborhood. Who said people should get perfect choices in this world?
So, how do you explain the fact that in Chicago, where I grew up, the immigrants chose to live in their own neighborhoods? Until very recently, the South Side was a well defined mosaic of Polish, German, Jewish, black, etc. communities. They all came from somewhere else, and they all chose to live in communities of their own kind. They sought this.
You’re not seeing through things, James, you are fighting a battle that is over. I suggest that you take your moralizing elsewhere, and stop assuming that you speak for anybody but yourself.
So, since you feel it is your duty to police the world for deviation from whatever political truth you are certain of: What exactly is your great contribution to racial justice? I mean, besides these dark and knowing statements. Behave yourself, James, the world is going to be just fine without your scowling and moral policing. This scolding behavior of yours is quite obnoxious. I’d suggest you learn to stop it. It’s undoubtedly causing you untold harm in your personal and business life. Get a grip, man. You are just another guy BSing on a comments board.
Stephen
Are you aware of the terms de jure and de facto? There is a huge difference, as any number of blacks in Chicago, many of whom are Mississippi refugees, would be willing to explain to you.
You are the one with the “dark” mood. I’m just one of the few on this board who has the courage to call you out.
I’ve played at many an after hours party on the South and West sides of Chicago. I know the black community in Chicago very well. That community was formed by enterprising blacks from Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama who took the Illinois Central north to find a job. Most of them did.
Two of the great sons of that migration are big heroes in Chicago. One of them was a friend of mine, Muddy Waters. Another was Billy Williams, the Hall of Fame left fielder of the Chicago Cubs who was, I believe, from Alabama… Mobile if I remember correctly. Chicago venerated these men. White folks from Chicago formed the base of support that transformed Muddy Waters an international star. Louis Armstrong made his first important recordings in Chicago.
They weren’t exactly “refugees,” James. They were, for the most part, admirably successful people. It may surprise you to know that many black folks on the South Side consider the blues culture that developed there to be a great intellectual and artistic triumph. Many of these people would live nowhere else.
ilk1 (ĭlk)n.
Type or kind: can’t trust people of that ilk.
pron. Scots.
The same. Used following a name to indicate that the one named resides in an area bearing the same name: Duncan of that ilk.
[Middle English ilke, same, from Old English ilca.]
WORD HISTORY When one uses ilk, as in the phrase men of his ilk, one is using a word with an ancient pedigree even though the sense of ilk,
Michelle writes:
>>>But the Amish don’t hawk themselves in this way. No one has established an official “Amish Town” with Amish clothing shops, Amish eateries, Amish furniture stores, Amish barbers. At least, I sure hope not.”
I don’t want to turn this thread into a requiem on all-things Amish, but I think you might want to take a trip to Lancaster, PA one day Michelle, and see some of the enterprising operations some of the Amish have established. It’s not a greed based society, of course, but not all Amish folks are driving horses and buggies.
>>>The Amish (all groups), since arriving in Pennsylvania, have largely remained an agricultural society. In fact, their skills in farming are exemplary. It varies whether the Amish work in dairy, cash crops, or other agricultural fields. Amish farms tend to resemble most family farms. They are small and self-sufficient, made to meet the needs of the family. In fact, most Amish are banned from having large operations, thus keeping a balance of power in the Amish community and reducing individualism and pride.
Recently, however, economic necessities and land prices have forced a growing proportion of younger Amish off the farm and into other business ventures. The most common of these are carpentry, handicrafts, black smithing, dry goods, etc. In Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, loss of ariable land to development, as well as a large population increases of both Amish and outsiders, have crowded the remaining farms. There are of course, other economic reasons for changes in the Amish market such as price competition with the “English” and exterior market forces.”
http://www.windycreek.com/Brian/amish-cultural-dynamics.html
And here from the same study:
>>>There are other ways the Amish show cultural resistance to American society. By not bringing 110 volt electricity into the home, the Amish are able to resist the influence of television, radio, the Internet, and other mass media, thus partitioning themselves from outside contact. The growth of Amish shops, stores, and businesses provides jobs and shopping within Amish society. Buying and selling in the Amish market keeps money from flowing into the larger American economy (Kraybill 1990, p.10).”
Now, Michelle, during my several trips to Lancaster, PA, I never saw the official, Viacom-owned billboard stating, “You’re now in Amish Town”, but the bonnets, beards, buggies, farmer’s markets, resturants, gift shops and bazaars pretty much tipped me off. And since you “hoped” that the Amish didn’t create their own insular economic system to sustain them, (instead of oh, working at the local Walmart) would you say you’re STILL AGAINST this type of scenario?
Or are you just against SELECTIVE versions of this ideology?
POINT TWO:
Michelle writes:
>>>If you’re Black, and all your neighbors are Black, I don’t think you’ll find it difficult to get your hair styled properly, or to obtain the food you like, or the clothes you think stylish.”
Ah, but here’s my point. If you go to national chains like “Supercuts” for your hair, McDonalds or KFC for food, and buy Tommy Hilfiger from the Mall outlet instead of FUBU from around the block, you’ve effectively sent your money outside of the African American community and into the hands of uncaring corporate elite. The local black owned businesses that could provide the same services, as well as black owned clothing designers would keep the money circulating, and support neighborhood growth.
Stephen,
Congratulations on the blog! Now, one word of advice. When you posit questions to people, it would help if you don’t answer it for yourself in the next post…such as here:
>>>Where are these white SEGREGATIONISTS and separatists?
I don’t know any, and I travel pretty extensively around the country.
Who are they?”
Next post:
>>>Although the assumption seems to be that racial and national SEGREGATION arise from the wicked impulse to discriminate, I suggested that such SEGREGATION arises from the much more neutral desire of people to be among their own kind. Most people want this. They feel more comfortable and defended.”
Nuff said, guy? Have fun with the blog. You NEVER know what kind of folks pop up on these things and make comments. ;)
Nobody Important:
I want to thank you for your honest writings. It IS possible to disagree and be civil. I learn valuable insight into the mindset of those who don’t share my point of view from this blog, and hope it continues in the future.
–Cobra
“Hm. What does “racist” mean?”
A racist is someone who believes in the superiority of one race (one’s own) over all other races. In the US it primarily refers to adherents of the belief that whites are superior to blacks. Some go farther and assert that there must be an inherent power imbalance that gives one race political power over another. Without that power to force their will, feelings of dislike, contempt, or outright hatred of another race is usually called bigotry.
I get no indication that Cobra hates whites or feels whites are inferior to blacks. I think he mistrusts whites based upon his view of the historical record. I think that view doesn’t encompass the whole, complex, donnybrook of history. I also think he cares deeply about black people and is concerned that their progress (which he admits has been made) can be in jeopardy if government doesn’t hold whites’ feet to the fire.
I’d like to convince him that that is not the case, that government isn’t needed to ensure black liberty, that there are far more whites against racism and bigotry than those who still cling to those ugly ideas. Some posters on this site make that argument less credible with defensive, emotion filled remarks.
I think John created this site as a place where these issues can be discussed civily and intelligently, which happens most of the time. That is not to say that they cannot be passionately argued, but very often passion leads to emotionalism which can give rise to intemperate comments.
That last comment was by nobody important, the mongrel bastard of the detritus of Europe washed upon these shores with the hopes of building a New World, free from the constraints of the ugly ideas that shackled humanity to oppression, bigotry, and persecution.
“A racist is someone who believes in the superiority of one race (one’s own) over all other races.”
Not sure that’s the best definition, but even so: if Cobra expects the worst from whites, then he sees the white race as morally flawed compared to other races. Right? How is that not racist?
Laura,
What I take from Cobra’s comments is that he bases his mistrust of whites not from any inherent moral flaw, but from the weight of evidence he finds in US history. I think he tends to downplay, or even outright dismisses, the recent evidence that things have changed permanently, for the better, in the US in regard to race. He’s still believes that the legacy of slavery, Jim Crow, the civil rights struggle, is still strong and that a significant portion of the white population still holds racist views. I think he’s wrong.
I think that the proportion of racist whites is small and diminishing and that the great progress made in civil rights is permanent.
I give him a lot of credit for forcefully arguing his positions here. I’ve never seen him resort to ad hominems. Sometimes he is very passionate and can get a rise out of folks, but again, I don’t think he hates whites nor does he posit that whites are inferior.
That’s just my opinion. But then again, what do I know, I’m nobody important.
Cobra,
I don’t see any problem with the Amish selling their wares. Nor do I have any problem with the Black population of Detroit selling its wares. It’s the theme-park-ness that’s unfortunate. In both cases, if your account of Lancaster is accurate (and I don’t doubt you).
But regarding your “POINT TWO”, look, you are talking about a nearly-entirely-Black city, and telling me that Black businesses can’t survive unless they are grouped into an “African Town”? And then act insulted when I suggest that it’s a tourist attraction? People live in Detroit. They eat out, they buy clothes, they get their hair cut. If putting all the Black-owned businesses in Detroit in one street is supposed to increase their traffic, it can only be because people will come there from outside the city. The actual residents would probably prefer to patronise businesses near where they live, which in a city that large will mean “a long ways from African Town” for a lot of people. Unless the idea is to draw in, shall we say, outside traffic, all this will do is make all the Black-owned businesses more inaccessible to most of the population.
Suppose that I said that based on what I see in the newspaper and on the news, about crime in my city and crime statistics in general, I view black people with suspicion. Would that be racist?
Laura, perhaps my definitions are too nuanced, or incorrect, but I would regard you (in your hypothetical example) as prejudiced toward black people, but not necessarily racist. If you then believed that those crime statistics were the result of some genetic, divinely predestined, or otherwise innate difference shared by, or more prevalent in, blacks, I would consider you a racist.
Laura –
If one strictly adhered to the principle of “color blindness” espoused on this site, then any decision made about an individual, without regards to specific information about that person’s intent or background, would be considered unconstitutional, and hence racism. Is that correct Laura?
I would say that “any decision made about an individual, without regards to specific information about that person’s intent or background, IF BASED ON THAT PERSON’S RACE” is racist, yes.
Nels, I think you’re a little too nuanced for me. I think that in my hypothetical comment there, to be suspicious of black people I don’t know because they’re a member of a group that statistically blah blah, would be racist. Of course I lock my doors and don’t go into certain areas of town by myself and so forth, but it’s because of criminals, not black people, most of whom are not criminals.
Laura writes:
>>>I think that in my hypothetical comment there, to be suspicious of black people I don’t know because they’re a member of a group that statistically blah blah, would be racist. Of course I lock my doors and don’t go into certain areas of town by myself and so forth, but it’s because of criminals, not black people, most of whom are not criminals.”
If I adhered to your definition of racism, my basic arguments would be far easier to defend. I wouldn’t have to cite articles and research. There is no shortage of people living in America who are “suspicious” of those not in the mainstream, or the majority.
Think about it…would you be “suspicious” of a group of men wearing Saudi Ghutra Ghutrahs (headdresses) as they boarded your flight? If you answered “yes”, you probably wouldn’t be alone, but does that make you a “racist?” By your definition, it does.
This harkens back to James’ comment on the absurdity of the color-blindness promotion in this blog. I feel that it’s a SELECTIVE quality in their argument that makes this promotion lack honesty. They seem outraged about racial preferences when it comes to jobs and education, but calm and dismissive about the negative aspect of racial preferences through profiling, sentencing, and lending. Hypocrisy is the three-inch barbed thumb-tack sitting on the chair of the “color-blind America” ideology.
You also write that I “expect the worst” from whites. Well, one doesn’t have to WISH himself ill by buying health insurance coverage. It doesn’t mean that person EXPECTS the worse, but it is more of a preparation for the very real possibility that calamity can strike; given the prolific nature of disease, accidents and simple human frailty. We know that millions of people get sick, require medication or hospitalization.
Likewise, we know that millions of minorities in America have been and continue to suffer from the affects of racial discrimination.
Therefore, I look at Affirmative Action and other similiar programs as a kind of “racial health insurance” plan.
As the hook to a song I haven’t quite finished yet goes…
“It’s better to have and not need, than to need and not have.”
Michelle writes:
>>>But regarding your “POINT TWO”, look, you are talking about a nearly-entirely-Black city, and telling me that Black businesses can’t survive unless they are grouped into an “African Town”?”
Numbers alone are not neccessarily indicative of power, wealth or success. Western Europeans Colonists were often far outnumbered by the indigenous groups they conquered and oppressed. In fact, in American history, despite having MILLIONS of African Americans in population, there have only been FIVE US Senators, TWO USSC Justices, and ZERO “officially” black Presidents. (I say “officially” because there are folks at work right now checking out Ike’s curious ancestry.) I won’t get into the wealth gap, wage gap, employment gap again because I’ve posted it time and time again.
The concentration and circulation of wealth is the key to elevating the segregated cultural society. Why is this so hard for you grasp as far as African Americans are concerned, Michelle? In a perfect, “color-blind America”, there wouldn’t be such a thing as a “black neighborhood” or “white neighborhood” to begin with, but that’s not the “color-blindness” the AAA-types in here are talking about.
Why do you seem to take seriously the cultural “theme-park” qualities of other ethnic-neighborhoods in America, whether it be Little Italy, Chinatown, Korean-town, Little India, etc?
This breaks away from the thread only slightly, because the heart of the subject is the resegregation of America. John doesn’t believe that it will occur. I believe it’s already here.
You seem to believe that certain groups are “silly” for realizing the reality of the resegregation, and for taking measures to re-instill ethnic pride and self-sustaining asset accumulation.
Why is that?
–Cobra
Do men wearing Saudi Ghutra Ghutrahs constitute a race? I don’t think so.
Cobra, I’m not the one who said you expect the worst from whites. But if you do expect the worst from white people as a race, that makes you a racist in my book. I suspect that you and I differ in that I don’t think that having racist ideas and attitudes is so extremely wicked that as soon as a person finds he harbors them he should slit his throat. Having ideas like that is part of human nature, along with a lot of other undesirable stuff. I do think that all of us, black, white, and other, ought to try to squelch those ideas and attitudes when we find them in ourselves.
Your better to have and not need analogy could logically lead someone to be a cynical s.o.b. in dealing with everybody. What a way to live.
Cobra syas,
“Numbers alone are not neccessarily indicative of power, wealth or success. Western Europeans Colonists were often far outnumbered by the indigenous groups they conquered and oppressed. In fact, in American history, despite having MILLIONS of African Americans in population, there have only been FIVE US Senators, TWO USSC Justices, and ZERO “officially” black Presidents. (I say “officially” because there are folks at work right now checking out Ike’s curious ancestry.) I won’t get into the wealth gap, wage gap, employment gap again because I’ve posted it time and time again.
The concentration and circulation of wealth is the key to elevating the segregated cultural society. Why is this so hard for you grasp as far as African Americans are concerned, Michelle? In a perfect, “color-blind America”, there wouldn’t be such a thing as a “black neighborhood” or “white neighborhood” to begin with, but that’s not the “color-blindness” the AAA-types in here are talking about.
Why do you seem to take seriously the cultural “theme-park” qualities of other ethnic-neighborhoods in America, whether it be Little Italy, Chinatown, Korean-town, Lit tl “e India, etc? ”
Oh really Cobra /, whether you believe or not that there is only one current SC Justice WHO IS BLACK DOES NOT MEAN BLACKS HAVE NO POWER, ECONOMIC OR POLITICAL OR OTHERWISE IN THIS COUNTRY. The average black member of the NFL or NBA are wealthier than the average white senator, president or Supreme corut Justice. If you are a mayor of an all black town, you can appoint all your cronies into civil service positions, award conracts to fellow members of the black race just like a white mayor of an all white -town who will appoint members of your despised white race. i TOLD YOU ALREADY THAT 19 % OF BLACKS IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE COLLEGE DEGREES, COMPARED TO 27% OF WHITES. iN A DECADE OR SO THE PERCENTAGE WOULD PROBABLY BE EQUAL Not only that Cobra, the percetages would have been equal by now if rich black folks in the NBA or the entertainment industry would have contributed more money for scholarships, denounced race preferences,or encouraged black children to study harder. BTW Cobra, there plenty of blacks in AFrica who got college degrees without having whites for classmates. Are you telling me that blacks won’t learn unless they have whitey as their seatmate. Only in America I guess.
Laura writes:
>>>I suspect that you and I differ in that I don’t think that having racist ideas and attitudes is so extremely wicked that as soon as a person finds he harbors them he should slit his throat. Having ideas like that is part of human nature, along with a lot of other undesirable stuff. I do think that all of us, black, white, and other, ought to try to squelch those ideas and attitudes when we find them in ourselves.”
That’s not so different from what I believe, Laura. My big thing is honesty. I think people should be upfront about their beliefs. I don’t have any lofty goal of converting racists, nor do I wish any unnatural harm to befall them.
I just think that they should stand up and be counted.
The thought process is another question, though. What does one truly know about what a stranger you meet is thinking? I’m far more concerned about the ACTION a stranger takes.
–Cobra
Cobra,
OK, I suggested that a city that is nearly 90% Black possibly doesn’t need an official African Town for Black-owned businesses to survive in it. You begin,
Numbers alone are not neccessarily indicative of power, wealth or success. Western Europeans Colonists were often far outnumbered by the indigenous groups they conquered and oppressed.
&c., &c. Yes, but we are talking about local services, Cobra. We are talking about residents of Detroit buying things like food, clothing, and haircuts. Do you seriously mean that citizens of an overwhelmingly Black city will not buy such things from a Black-owned business unless it is carefully packaged as part of an “African Town”? That a business catering to Black themes can’t survive in an overwhelmingly Black environment without Government subsidy and promotion?
The concentration and circulation of wealth is the key to elevating the segregated cultural society. Why is this so hard for you grasp as far as African Americans are concerned, Michelle? In a perfect, “color-blind America”, there wouldn’t be such a thing as a “black neighborhood” or “white neighborhood” to begin with, but that’s not the “color-blindness” the AAA-types in here are talking about.
Well, this is where our disagreement begins. I haven’t any problem with ethnic neighborhoods; I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t. You were the one saying that busing was necessary to “colorblindness,” as though the only way to have fairness would be to distribute Chinese and Hmong and Cubans and Aleuts and Mexicans and every other ethnicity with geometric regularity over the whole country.
Why do you seem to take seriously the cultural “theme-park” qualities of other ethnic-neighborhoods in America, whether it be Little Italy, Chinatown, Korean-town, Little India, etc?
I think there’s a negative missing in there somewhere. But can’t you see that there’s a difference between an ethnic neighborhood that grew by itself and an ethnic neighborhood designed from the start as a commercial venture?
And, again, “African Town” (assuming that by “African” is casually meant “African-American”) is a bizarre venture in a city like Detroit; it’s like setting up a “Chinese Town” in Hong Kong. Or “New York Native Town” in Manhattan.
Michelle writes:
>>>I think there’s a negative missing in there somewhere. But can’t you see that there’s a difference between an ethnic neighborhood that grew by itself and an ethnic neighborhood designed from the start as a commercial venture?”
No, I really don’t see a difference. You seem to endorse ethnic segregation when it comes to education, but throw up the red light when it comes to economics. Why is that? ALL NEIGHBORHOODS are creations, especially in this nation of immigrants. Why do you have this new age “grandfather clause” on neighborhoods created today?
>>>Do you seriously mean that citizens of an overwhelmingly Black city will not buy such things from a Black-owned business unless it is carefully packaged as part of an “African Town”? That a business catering to Black themes can’t survive in an overwhelmingly Black environment without Government subsidy and promotion?”
Why shouldn’t it be packaged and promoted? I have yet to buy an egg roll from an establishment with a sign outside saying, “American Resturant Featuring Far Eastern Cuisine in White Folding Cartons.” I HAVE bought egg rolls from CHINESE FOOD RESTURANTS, named Hunan Garden, Szechan Kitchen, and The Bamboo Wok. The ethnicity in these cases had been PACKAGED and PROMOTED. And of course, the service is not exclusive to Chinese Americans only. If you have good products, fair prices, and the proper location and promotion, it’s BUSINESS 101. But I don’t have to explain that to you. Your problem seems to be that you can’t FATHOM African Americans living in Detroit using the same formula. I still don’t understand why, besides your point that it’s “silly.”
And, again, “African Town” (assuming that by “African” is casually meant “African-American”) is a bizarre venture in a city like Detroit; it’s like setting up a “Chinese Town” in Hong Kong. Or “New York Native Town” in Manhattan.”
New York City Government spends a FORTUNE promoting the city and it’s cultural and historical sights. It spends TAX PAYER DOLLARS, mind you, to attract conventions, sporting events, and businesses to come to the city. It commissions songwriters to write odes to the Big Apple. From license plates, to t-shirt campaigns, to Broadway musicals, New York is probably the most shamelessly self-promoting city you’ll ever find.
As far as Detroit is concerned, your argument that ethnic neighborhoods should grow “naturally” is interesting when you look at the FACTS.
>>>Repeatedly, in The Detroit News and in other media, the term “white flight” was used to describe the exodus that led to the city’s white population decline from 1,545,847 in 1950 to 116,599 today, or 12.3 percent of Detroit’s current population.
A major part of the exodus came after the 1967 civil disturbance up through the 1980s. The city’s loss of residents slowed in the 1990s, though some white residents — and some African Americans as well — continued to move to the suburbs.
Is it fair to brand all of this population decline, and every white person who was part of it, as constituting “white flight.”
Patricia Case, a senior research analyst at Wayne State University’s Center for Urban Studies, doesn’t think so.
She noted that the phrase itself is historically grounded in racist connotations, rightfully so in her opinion, and therefore should be used very precisely by journalists.
“There is certainly an element of racism connected with the large number of whites who moved out of the city after 1967,” she said. “Some of them saw blacks as a threat and they had the resources to move out.”
http://www.detnews.com/2001/editorial/0104/13/a02-210355.htm
So you wouldn’t have had a problem with African Town in Detroit during the ’50’s, when whites were the vast majority of the population? Is that the conclusion you want me to believe?
Is this a case where you believe “too many” (“almost 90% black” are your words) of any one group eliminates the need for collective economic strategies?
The overwhelmingly white CEO’s who feed at the trough of corporate welfare sure don’t understand the term “too many”, or “too much” for that matter.
>>>Most of this $65 billion in aid benefits businesses in four industries: agriculture, exports, high technology, and energy. These subsidies tend to have a Robin-Hood-in-reverse impact: redistributing income from generally middle-income taxpayers to the relatively higher-income owners and shareholders in the companies–including multi-million-dollar recipients such as Rockwell International Corporation, Westinghouse, B.F. Goodrich, McDonnell Douglas, and AT&T–that receive the government checks.
Corporate welfare should be defined as any government spending program that provides unique benefits or advantages to specific companies or industries. It includes subsidies, grants, cut-rate insurance, low-interest loans and loan guarantees, trade restrictions, and other special privileges that confer benefits on targeted firms or industries….”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-028.html
>>>Federal subsidies to private businesses cost taxpayers $87 billion per year. That is over 30 percent more than the Cato Institute’s 1997 corporate welfare estimate of $65 billion. If corporate welfare were eliminated tomorrow, the federal government could provide taxpayers with an annual tax cut more than twice as large as the tax rebate checks mailed out in 2001.”
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-415es.html
I will give you the benefit of the doubt, Michelle. You haven’t expressed your opinion on the government subsidizing of multinational conglomerates and corporations. You have however, expressed your displeasure with the PROPOSAL that government (and even PRIVATE DONORS) subsidize African American entreprenuers in African Town. I would love to know your opinion the REALITY of corporate welfare, with OUR tax dollars subsidizing overwhelmingly white controlled companies.
–Cobra
Cobra,
I had been saying all along in my various reincarnations in various blogsites that government subsidies to private institutions, be it to Citicorp or Ford MOtors or GM or farmers in Nebraska as being wrong. These extends to private institutions like Harvard , Stanford or Bryn Mawr . I had said many times that I DON”T WANT TAX MONEY TO be used to fund MEDICAL RESEARCH or student financial aid at Harvard oor Stanford for the simple reason that school practices , alumni legacy preferences are practiced in theseinstituions. I have the same view about MOrehouse or spelman. PUBLIC TAX MONey should only be used to finance public institutions and not private ones. Am I obligated to have my tax money used to build a concert hall at Lincoln Center if I don’t like the music of white people like Mozart or Beethoven? Am I obliged to have my tax money used to fund vouchers for schoolchildren to that they can go to yeshivas, CAtholic parocial schools, Protestant day schools etc? Certainly I oppose that abhorent notion. I cannot prevent people from displayinng pornography inside a museum, but they certainly have no right to use my tax money to build that museum. If people want public schools to improve, then let the public schools compete with each other, let the teachers compete with each other for tax money and to hell with the teachers union. Competetion is still the key to progress. I had read about this ” African Town” episode. Just because many white corporations receive tax breaks, incentives that are larger than the minority businesses does not entitle the black supporters of ” African Town ” from a financial largesse from the goverment. What is the difference in that from white alumni legacy preferences and black racial preferences ? Absolutely nothing, zilch, zip, zero, nada. It has become common in the East Coast and other parts of the country to hold African ” market days ” in such places as Harlem , ATlanta etc. In this “market days ” you can buy stuff like kente cloth, AFrican food from Africa, African – American handicracts of all sorts, books on black life, etc. ( you name it Cobra, they’ve got it ).Thru ads in the papers, word of mouth, radio ads , the existence of these markets are announced to the world. You think life would be running smooth Cobra just because it was geared to fulfill the psychological, material needs of blacks? Among the many vendors in the markets are blacks from NIgeria, SEnegal, Ghana and I suspect every African country that you can name. The wares or goods sold by these black Africans are stuff like clothing , handicrafts, incense etc.probably all of them came from the African continent itself. That is unless of course you are willing to believe that they were manufactured in China, not unlike what Wal – Mart does passing off textiles as being made in Central America, when they were actually made in China to evade the textile import qoutas. The American- born blacks on the other hand sell probably a similar range of things, clothing, books about black life, handicraft etc. that were probably mostly made in this country.
EAch of these 2 group of vendors claim that their wares and goods portray “authentic black life ” You’ld think that life would be peaceful in this veritable Garden of Eden. Predictably, however the serpent of jealousy and spite made its hiss in the paradise of Harlem and Atlanta. The Native – born black African – American vendors soon accused their fellow black Africans from Nigeria, Senegal, Ghana, Burkana FAso, Tanzania etc. of only trying to make money. These blacks from the African continent were accused by their fellow American -born black vendors as interested in only making money giving nothing in return to the black community in America. They were told by these Native American blacks that the wares and goods that they sold did not represent authentic black life in America. These vendors from AFrica were then told by fellow Native American born blacks to get lost and disapperar from these African – American “market days ” One Native born AFrican – American personally said that he’ll drive them away physically they tried to sell their stuff in Harlem and demanded that they be denied admittance to these African – American ” market days ” This sounds something very familiar to us Americans right Cobra ? These Native American born black vendors regarded these black vendors from the African continent as nothing but COMPETITION. They wanted a preference in other words. And since they were having a hard time competeing with these black vendors from Africa, they were crying uncle to the authorities demanding that this competition be curbed. What is the difference between them and to those who are demanding a government largesse or tax money from the DEtroit authortities for “African Town” ? Even better yet Cobra, what is the difference between these Native American born blacks and the big corporations who demand subsidies, preferences, tax break, easements and all kinds of other preferential treatment? NOthing at all, sounds like all of them are demanding preferences to have a leg up over the competition ,just like the old alumni white legacy preferences and black racial preferences. Cobra my friend, be careful lest the Serpent at the Garden of Eden hisses another false and senseless thought in your ear.