Prometheus 6

"Now, if Bush owes his victory to Black folks, are we going to start getting pork?"

Yes, but don't be surprised when it's clumsily offered as barbecued ribs.

"But significantly, the fact that George Bush's black votes in Ohio doubled since 2000 (8% to 16%), and given the margin of victory at a little over 100,000 votes, these voters probably delivered victory for the president. If Republicans could similarly double their percentage of black votes in any of the other swing states, Democrat national hopes would be deader than doornails."

This is a curious piece of propaganda disguised as a news story or analysis. The black votes that George Bush garnered in Ohio can only be counted as a factor in giving him the margin of victory if, in fact, the number of ballots cast by white voters were split fairly evenly between Bush and Kerry. Did the percentage change among blacks voting for George Bush actually represent a 50,000 vote increase among black voters for Bush? We don't know and no one spinning this yarn ever provides any more information beyond declaring that Bush's percentage of the black vote increased from 8 percent to 16 percent.

In the race between Bush and Al Gore in 2000 Bush captured Ohio with 176,426 more votes than Gore out of a total of the 4,411,908 cast between these two candidates. Were the alleged 50,000 black votes that Bush received in 2000 a factor in his success. If so, why wasn't it mentioned at that time. Four years later Bush beat Kerry by only 118,599 votes in Ohio but in this race Bush's percentage of the black allegedly increased from 8 percent to 16 percent and is now declared to be a decisive factor in his victory despite the fact that the total votes between the two leading candidates jumped to 5,600,929 or an increase of slightly more than 22 percent over the total for 2000.

In addition, does anyone know how many blacks in Ohio voted in the 2004 presidential election? Were the claims made about black voters in Ohio based on exit polls done in predominantly or majority black precincts? or were black voters randomly sampled as they left polling places all over the state? This entire story sounds to me like an effort to rattle the Democrats cages (not difficult at all) and a move by some smart and sophisticated Ohio homeboys to make sure that they get a seat at the table when the goodies are being given out. The black vote in Ohio was no less and no more of a factor than it had been in Bush's victory four years earlier. There is always a limit to the amount of smoke that can be blown up somebody's behind before he or she realizes that the world is really not on fire.

I agree, PT.  The 2004 election was close.  In any close election, one can find a hundred things to claim as decisive.

The positive news from my perspective: blacks are more likely to see themselves as independents. 

DW - Blacks have always seen themselves acting as independents with regard to their choices in the voting booth. The only people who feel otherwise are those candidates and their supporters who blacks freely choose not to support. In other words, this complaint about black voting behavior is pushed by political partisans and an abysmally ignorant press that simply refuses to see that black voters are capable of making the same choices as white voters. There is no line of political correctness that black voters are expected to follow. In the main, they don't vote for Republicans, black, brown, yellow or white, because they don't feel these candidates address their issues. Black voters in Maryland, for example, probably appreciate having Michael Steele, a black Republican, as Lt. Governor, but they didn't vote for him or the Republican Governor. There have always been black Republicans in the black community. What caused a decline in their numbers was the ongoing adoption of a strategy by the GOP, beginning in 1964, to embrace white southern disaffected Democratic voters. Black voters are keenly aware of their interests when they make a decision about who to vote for in an election. Who we need to be concerned with in this country are white voters who seem to be supremely unaware of their class interests, not black voters.

What caused a decline in their numbers was the ongoing adoption of a strategy by the GOP, beginning in 1964, to embrace white southern disaffected Democratic voters.

I'm old enough PT to have observed this process myself, so I don't at all dispute that it occurred.

But I don't anything of the sort going on today. 

What we see is a difference in messages.  P6 articulates a common black message very well.  It's a message which has far more acceptance in the Democratic party than the Republican one.

The Republican party has a different message.

And libertarians have yet a third, although it overlaps better with the Republicans than with the Democrats here in 2005.

We're going to agree that majority black opinion is with P6 (although in person, it's a lot smoother). 

However, all of Democrats, Republicans, and libertarians feel they offer a path to success for black Americans.  Now I'm sure you can find among people who call themselves Republicans, Democrats, or libertarians, people who feel hostile to blacks.  Plenty of them.  But mainstream thought of all of these seeks success, and advancement of black people.

So when it comes to "acting against the interests of black people", I suggest that this needs a deeper definition than "disagrees with majority black opinion on the best tactics for success".   You are free of course to reject someone's opinion that he knows better than you, but in and of itself that doesn't make the guy the enemy.

What we see is a difference in messages.

People of the Word. tsk, tsk.

What we see is an objective difference in the way people are treated and the seriousness with which our concerns are addressed.

All this sending of messages is a major reason we, nationally, are in the current mess.

I think PT’s analysis of the GOP’s claims about the growth of black support is correct. However, I believe the GOP’s long-term strategy of converting black voters (instead of just suppressing black votes) is showing some signs of success. Several factors are in play in the hoodwinking of the black electorate: the Bush junta’s so-called faith-based initiatives, the scapegoating of homosexuals as the “new niggers,” and all this evangelical frothing at the mouth about America being a “Christian” nation. Most black Christian folks have conveniently ignored or forgot the role of “Christians” in the slave trade (some of our ancestors arrived here on slave ships named “Jesus”), or the fact that slavery has always played an integral role in Christian polity and belief (the same also can be said for Islam). In their blind and unreasoning acceptance of everything “biblical,” some black Chrisitan folks have become pawns in the war against gays, while failing to recognize the forces they are allied with in this orgy of bigotry and hatred are the architects, heirs, and pillars of the white supremacist culture upon which this country was founded and grounded. The almost messianic anti-intellectualism that permeates American culture and infects the black community has fostered conditions of ignorance and illiteracy that make the black masses (and others) ripe for indoctrination, conversion, and subversion. Couple this with the predatory and soulless pimps who call themselves “pastors,” and who are lining up to lead their flocks cakewalking backwards into the future behind the Republican agenda, and you have the perfect recipe for disaster. These so-called black ministers (minstrels) will oppose and obstruct any efforts to organize and mobilize the black masses around progressive and liberationist issues and causes. Many of these bishop-reverend-doctors of the faith have broken ranks with common sense and common cause solely to collect their share of “faith-based” bribes. They have delivered black voters to the polls to vote against their own interests. And they will continue to support the status quo of white supremacy in the name of Jesus and the god they trust—money. Tragically, black folks are so bereft of political leadership they rely on the Reverend Mackdaddys of their communities for guidance. This brand of "moral" leadership could make Bush’s “ownership society” a reality, with black folks once again the ones being “owned.”

DW - What precisely, in your opinion, do you believe is going on today with regard to black voters.

DW - this is what you wrote: "So when it comes to "acting against the interests of black people", I suggest that this needs a deeper definition than "disagrees with majority black opinion on the best tactics for success".

You are free of course to reject someone's opinion that he knows better than you, but in and of itself that doesn't make the guy the enemy." I don't know how old you are but in 1964 a majority of black people in this country lived in conditions closer to South Africa's system of apartheid. The 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Bills were sincere, though incomplete, efforts to address these circumstances. In my opinion, if you opposed these bills on the grounds that, say, were publicly offered by Barry Goldwater, William Rehnquist and Robert Bork then you were an enemy of black people. Despite the passage of 40 years I haven't changed my mind about them and those who agreed with them.

DW - What precisely, in your opinion, do you believe is going on today with regard to black voters.

I think there are several margins, where black voters are in flux.  I don't think it's a coincidence that the best libertarian minds in the nation are black, although I don't have a good explanation for that beyond "tried by fire".

At one time blacks were Republicans.  The party which freed the slaves.

At another time blacks were Democrats. The party which was more aggressive about dumping Jim Crow.

Both of those times are in the past. 

The 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Bills were sincere, though incomplete, efforts to address these circumstances.

We'll give them credit for ending Jim Crow, which had to be done. Maybe we should call that a primary success.

We'll also give them credit for the real estate redlining which destroyed good neighborhoods, both black and white, in nearly every large city in America.  We'll give them credit for the educational atrocity called "bussing" which destroyed schools in nearly every large city in America.

I don't recall Goldwater defending Jim Crow, nor do I recall his objections.  In later years, I came to respect Goldwater.  What was it which he said which you disagree with, PT?

The 1964 and 1965 Civil Rights Bills were sincere, though incomplete, efforts to address these circumstances.

We'll also give them credit for the real estate redlining which destroyed good neighborhoods, both black and white, in nearly every large city in America.  We'll give them credit for the educational atrocity called "bussing" which destroyed schools in nearly every large city in America.

 Jesus God, how many time do I have to link this thing?

But it was another racialized New Deal program, the Federal Housing Administration, that helped generate much of the wealth that so many white families enjoy today. These revolutionary programs made it possible for millions of average white Americans - but not others - to own a home for the first time. The government set up a national neighborhood appraisal system, explicitly tying mortgage eligibility to race. Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.

These government programs made possible the new segregated white suburbs that sprang up around the country after World War II. Government subsidies for municipal services helped develop and enhance these suburbs further, in turn fueling commercial investments. Freeways tied the new suburbs to central business districts, but they often cut through and destroyed the vitality of non-white neighborhoods in the central city.

DW, let's not kid ourselves here.  If black folks were living in a state of American-style apartheid and if legislation is proposed that will begin to undermine that system, then if you are opposed to that legislation, as Goldwater was, and you offer absolutely no alternative program as a way to end apartheid, then it would be entirely reasonable to conclude, especially on the part of those who stand to benefit the most from that legislation, that you are in favor of the status quo whether you publicly declare to be so or not. Goldwater's presidential candidacy was seen by whites in the Deep South as an effort to stave off and knock down the legal, social and political changes that the Civil Rights Movement and its allies were working to establish.

"Both of those times are in the past."

It is a peculiar American trait and one that is most exemplified by white Americans, to declare the past as something that no longer carries any meaning or significance. William Faulkner, a true son of the Old South and its ways, declared in his acceptance speech upon receiving the Nobel Prize for literature that the "past isn't dead, it isn't even past".  Black Americans, by and large, tend to agree with Faulkner's assessment about the past - it is never dead and it always holds significance for the present and the future. 

It is far too early given the changes and undercurrents churning below the surface of American society for you or anyone else to declare that the support that black voters have shown toward the Democratic Party is in the past. There is simply no reasonable objective basis for you to make such a claim unless you can provide some data.  George Bush garnering eleven percent of the black vote and the heightened celebrity accorded black libertarians is not proof of this development.

I was and am opposed to school busing but you are propogating another right-wing myth when you write that  busing destroyed urban school districts. The seeds of the cancer that began undermining our urban schools was set in place generations before busing was implemented as a form of educational policy. Chicago, for example, beginning in the 1940s simply refused to build new schools to accommodate the city's burgeoning black population.

Black children, by the thousands, were simply placed in bungalows that had once served as temporary housing for enlisted men during the war. The use of these wholly inadequate, dilapidated structures was so prevalent in black neighborhoods that blacks began calling them "Ward's Wagons"  after Superintendent Benjamin Ward. In the meantime Ward and the mayoral administration of Richard Daley continued diverting the overwhelming portion of the schoold district's resources to white neighborhoods and white public schools.

This pattern was repeated all over the country in every urban school district except, perhaps, San Francisco where new schools were actually built in majority black neighborhoods. The adoption of busing as an instrument of educational policy was an effort to ensure that black children had an opportunity to receive the same educational resources that white children received everyday as a matter of course. What proponents of busing, unfortunately, did not anticipate was the degree to which whites would flee these school districts thus reducing the tax base and the political support these districts needed at a crucial time.

I would have preferred that the NAACP and others had focused on organizing black parents to demand that their children's schools were provided with the same resources that had been given to schools in white neighborhoods. The NAACP, unfortunately, was so obsessed with integration as a social policy that it lost sight of the forest for the trees. (This is one of the reasons that folks in my generation began referring to it as the National Association for the Advancement of Certain People.) The result was a social and political disaster of major proportions that will take many years to ameliorate.  

It is far too early given the changes and undercurrents churning below the surface of American society for you or anyone else to declare that the support that black voters have shown toward the Democratic Party is in the past.

Agreed.

But let's put this case back together.

The Democratic Party was overtly hostile to blacks for nearly 100 years.  We know the story of Birth of a Nation. It was anti-Republican propoganda produced by the Democrats, ridiculing the Republican release of the slaves.

The Republican Party made an ill considered attempt to attract white racists for about five years. 

What proponents of busing, unfortunately, did not anticipate was the degree to which whites would flee these school districts thus reducing the tax base and the political support these districts needed at a crucial time.

Sounds like "destruction" doesn't overstate the case too much.

Over all PT, I find mostly agreement with your statements.  One thing to consider.  Imagine a politician had proposed a civil rights act in 1964 which guaranteed equal funding for schools, which guaranteed complete equality under the laws of all government entities.  Let's say that politician had voted "no" on what did pass, hoping for what he thought was better. What would you say?

I'm not saying this was Goldwater in 1964.  Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he viewed its expansion of federal power as unconstitutional.  I find nothing unconsititutional about forcing equality, but I don't understand (yet) how broad Goldwater's objection was. Nonetheless, Goldwater came to agree that the end of Jim Crow was worth the cost, and he expressed regrets about his 1964 vote.  The man aged well; my respect comes from the 1980-1995 era, by then he had become an ideal conservative.

Integrated communities were ipso facto deemed a financial risk and made ineligible for home loans, a policy known today as "redlining." Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.

There are more than one phenomenom under the title "redlining".

The destruction of neighborhoods which was accelerated by racially selective lending didn't start until the mid '60s. This story involves areas where blacks find loans easy to come by, but whites are barred.  The Civil Rights Acts had the effect of ordering banks to loan money so that blacks could buy houses.  This was perverted, by liberal politicians but with the support of racists, into a desire to convert inner city neighborhoods which were Italian or Jewish or Irish, into black neighborhoods.  Blocking white loans in these areas kept prices low, reducing the risk to banks.

It didn't take long for the first black homeowners to follow the whites to the suburbs, and the only significant market left for those homes was to landlords. 

This story involves areas where blacks find loans easy to come by, but whites are barred.  The Civil Rights Acts had the effect of ordering banks to loan money so that blacks could buy houses.  This was perverted, by liberal politicians but with the support of racists, into a desire to convert inner city neighborhoods which were Italian or Jewish or Irish, into black neighborhoods.  Blocking white loans in these areas kept prices low, reducing the risk to banks.

That's not a story. That's a delusion.

Since DW has repeated this same tale at least three times despite being factually refuted I don't think it is a delusion on his part. He really believes this bullshit.

"I'm not saying this was Goldwater in 1964. Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act because he viewed its expansion of federal power as unconstitutional."

But using black people's local, state and federal tax dollars to create separate, but unequal, facilities; building a federal highway system, for example, in which blacks were barred from eating in restaurants and other businesses that depended on the traffic carried by the highway system to survive; and, denying black people the right to vote wasn't unconstitutional?

"I find nothing unconsititutional about forcing equality, but I don't understand (yet) how broad Goldwater's objection was."

Black folks weren't trying to enforce equality. Black people did not regard themselves as unequal to white people. They simply wanted the same rights as white folks.

"Nonetheless, Goldwater came to agree that the end of Jim Crow was worth the cost, and he expressed regrets about his 1964 vote."

It was too late. The time to have taken a principled stand was when people were struggling against the tide.

"The man aged well; my respect comes from the 1980-1995 era, by then he had become an ideal conservative."

I have no idea what you are referring to here. I'm aware of the personal kindnesses that Goldwater extended to black people in his home state but, Sweet Jesus, DW, so what?"

Since DW has repeated this same tale at least three times despite being factually refuted I don't think it is a delusion on his part. He really believes this bullshit.

...doing the same thing and expecting different results. 

"Over all PT, I find mostly agreement with your statements. One thing to consider. Imagine a politician had proposed a civil rights act in 1964 which guaranteed equal funding for schools, which guaranteed complete equality under the laws of all government entities. Let's say that politician had voted "no" on what did pass, hoping for what he thought was better. What would you say?"

I would say that practical politics is a process of straining for symmetry and that the 1964 Civil Rights Bill was as good as we were going to get given this country's three centuries of hostility toward people of African descent. If an elected official told me that he or she would vote against this legislation because something better was in offing I would tell that person to vote for this bill and work to improve it.

Since DW has repeated this same tale at least three times despite being factually refuted I don't think it is a delusion on his part.

I've not been factually refuted, either this or any other time.

Anyone is free to reject the explanation, but a refutation does not arise from simple rejection. 

using black people's local, state and federal tax dollars to create separate, but unequal, facilities; building a federal highway system, for example, in which blacks were barred from eating in restaurants and other businesses that depended on the traffic carried by the highway system to survive; and, denying black people the right to vote wasn't unconstitutional?

You're asking me?  Of course it was unconstitutional. Since there was doubt, that should have been resolved by a constitutional amendment.  Itstill needs to be resolved by a constitutional amendment.

Black folks weren't trying to enforce equality. Black people did not regard themselves as unequal to white people. They simply wanted the same rights as white folks.

Fair enough, PT.   We're not going to find a shred of disagreement here.

I'm aware of the personal kindnesses that Goldwater extended to black people in his home state but, Sweet Jesus, DW, so what?"

I suggest you judge him too harshly, which isn't to suggest that your objections are incorrect.  In his later years, Goldwater extended personal kindess far more broadly (and in his earlier years, he desegregatd the Arizona National Guard even before the US military did so).  I'm not suggesting that blacks made a mistake by not voting for him in 1964, but describing his legacy as being hostile to blacks is simply wrong.

I was never, ever a fan of Ronald Reagan. I felt he lacked principle. I vastly preferred the analysis of Barry Goldwater during the Reagan era.  I liked how he said what he thought.  I liked how he found no objection to gays.  I liked how he told the religous right to keep their hands off of women seeking abortions.  That's my kind of principled conservative.  Goldwater was no fair-weather conservative, looking to cut government involvement when he agreed, but to increase government when he "thought we needed it".

I've not been factually refuted, either this or any other time.

You're the one that has to make things up to explain our views. We only have to have them.

And there's no need to "factually refute" what hasn't been factually established. Since you are trying to explain us to us, the full burden of proof is on YOU.

Are you seriously proposing that there should be additional constitutional amendments added to the 13th and 14th Admendments, which were passed after the Civil War, that would make it plain that people of African descent cannot be treated like second class citizens? Is this what you meant to write? Or did you intend to mean something else?

By the way, why do you believe that those who have "doubts" about the legal rights of African Americans have sufficient standing to challenge black people's rights as citizens of the United States? I am not aware of any constitutional amendments that were ever passed granting the white majority in this country the authority to enslave and legally oppress black people after their period of enslavement was outlawed by constitutional amendment.

Barry Goldwater's political legacy includes not voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and running a political campaign for the presidency in 1964 in which his opposition to this bill was a major part of his platform and appeal to voters. The slogan that his campaign adopted and used to attract voters and supporters like Ronald Reagan and Charleston Heston was, "In Your Heart, You Know He Is Right." There was not one bit of doubt among black voters as to the meaning of this slogan because ending legally sanctioned racial segregation in the United States was at the top of the country's political agenda.

Are you seriously proposing that there should be additional constitutional amendments added to the 13th and 14th Admendments, which were passed after the Civil War, that would make it plain that people of African descent cannot be treated like second class citizens? Is this what you meant to write?

Yes.  Exactly.

These amendments leave the opportunity for misinterpretation, as shown by tons of historical precedent.

"In Your Heart, You Know He Is Right." There was not one bit of doubt among black voters as to the meaning of this slogan because ending legally sanctioned racial segregation in the United States was at the top of the country's political agenda.

As with the neighborhood destruction thing, we apparently view history and derive different conclusions.

I was too young to vote, but I recall being impressed by "In your heart, you know he's right".  Yours is the first suggestion I've ever heard that this had anything to do with racial politics. The big issue at the time for most people I knew was how best to confront the Soviet Union, and the slogan provided the rhetorical answer.

Documentation of areas where only blacks could obtain federally guanteed loans is concisely provided in the book "Death of an American Jewish Community", by Levine and Harmon.  They analyzed the near 100% conversion of a Boston neighborhood from Jewish to black in just three years, 1968, 1969, and 1970.

Here's a quote:

"Under the guise of expanding home ownership opportunities for the city's black community, the heads of 22 Boston savings banks were complicit in establishing a limited and carefully well-defined inner-city district within which blacks could obtain the attractive, federally insured housing loans. Falling exclusively within the defined district was almost the entire of Boston's Jewish community, an unproductive neighborhood for the city's bankers because so many of the residents had paid off their mortgages. By forcing blacks with home ownership aspirations to compete in a limited geographic area, the banks created an eruption of panic selling, blockbusting, street violence and rage."

Now, do Msrs Levine and Harmon have their own view on the question?  They apparently have personal roots in the destroyed neighborhood, and clearly resent what occurred.  However, their analysis is widely accepted as being mostly correct, if a bit shrill.  I'm not sure, for example, that the word "guise" is required in the above quote.  I suspect that the civic leaders were sincerely motivated to provide black home ownership, not part of some "guise".

So now we come to the question: if there exists one highly documented such situation, how likely was it the only one? 

"By forcing blacks with home ownership aspirations to compete in a limited geographic area, the banks created an eruption of panic selling, blockbusting, street violence and rage."

Given the appreciation of the property values and what it would have cost blacks to buy homes in this neighborhood why would these Jewish homeowners have been so upset at the arrival of these new homeowners who also happened to be black? These blacks would not have been able to acquire mortgage loans etc. if they were not gainfully employed, thrifty and stable. What I believe was at play is that the value of the property owned by these Jewish residents was devalued as a result of the influx of blacks into the neighborhood because integrated neighborhoods by practice and belief were worth less than white or non-black neighborhoods.

The neighborhood I grew up in was once overwhelmingly white. In the early 1950s, the local real estate agents began quietly selling homes to blacks in anticipation of reaping a financial windfall when whites fled and blacks purchased their vacated homes at inflated values. A study that was done by two graduate students at the local university in the early 1970s showed, however, that the expected white flight did not occur to the degree that was expected and, more importantly, the value of the homes in those sections of the neighborhood where blacks now lived did not fall either. This trend has remained steady to this day, although the neighborhood's newest home owners are young Asian, white and Hispanic families who are buying their homes from elderly blacks who are moving back to the south or the East Bay suburbs.

"I was too young to vote, but I recall being impressed by "In your heart, you know he's right". Yours is the first suggestion I've ever heard that this had anything to do with racial politics. The big issue at the time for most people I knew was how best to confront the Soviet Union, and the slogan provided the rhetorical answer."

The reason that you have not been aware of this viewpoint is because you are not black, DW. The biggest issue for black people and their allies was not the Soviet Union. If I correctly remember my high school history teacher's remarks he said that we had enough atomic bombs to kill everyone in the world eleven times over. His point was that the Soviet Union was not a credible military threat to the U.S. In any case, black folks weren't buying that nonsense about the enemy across the water; we were well aware of the enemy at home.

DW, you need to understand, although you never will, that the first week I was in high school the bomb in the 16th Street Church was denotated killing four black girls. The next week a few hundred black students, including myself, left the school against the orders of our principal and we walked to the nearest bus stop and went downtown where we marched eight blocks or so to City Hall. Nikita Kruschev and Andrei Gromyko had not killed any black person in the United States as far as we knew.

So now we come to the question: if there exists one highly documented such situation, how likely was it the only one?

Here's the story: Jewish racists panicked at the very thought of Black people living in their midst.

By forcing blacks with home ownership aspirations to compete in a limited geographic area, the banks created an eruption of panic selling, blockbusting, street violence and rage."

Who felt the rage? Who purpetrated the street violence? Who did the blockbusting and who did the panic selling?

More proof this is all white people flexing on white people. Problems for white folks to solve.

Thanks, P6, for reminding me that this entire affair was generated by racist antipathy toward black folks. The real estate agents would not have targeted that particular neighborhood if they had not had a reasonable belief or expectation that many of the residents of that neighborhood did not want blacks as their neighbors. (When I lived in Boston twelve years ago I was warned by a colleague at work, who was a Red Sox season ticket holder, never to sit in the bleachers at Fenway Park.)

"By forcing blacks with home ownership aspirations to compete in a limited geographic area, the banks created an eruption of panic selling, blockbusting, street violence and rage."

The range of available neighborhoods in Boston where blacks could purchase homes without white folks losing their minds was quite limited at the time this incident occurred. It's much greater now but it was a long time coming. By the way, several mobility studies, which measure how far perspective homeowners would be willing to travel to find a home, have shown that blacks are willing to travel further than, for example, Hispanics or Asians. This also indicates that blacks are much more willing to move into neighborhoods or communities where few, if any other, blacks are living at the time.

You've also got to follow the money. Those two poor boys that grew up to self publish a book about their lost home were members of a family that got paid for those houses.

PTCruiser wrote: "Are you seriously proposing that there should be additional constitutional amendments added to the 13th and 14th Admendments, which were passed after the Civil War, that would make it plain that people of African descent cannot be treated like second class citizens? Is this what you meant to write?"

DWShelf responded: "Yes. Exactly."

PTCruiser wrote:

I think you need to recheck your libertarian navigation system because you are beginning to founder, as many libertarians do, on the rocks of American racism. If you believe, as a libertarian, that all Americans are entitled to certain rights as citizens then the objections of others to black Americans holding those same rights would not be granted any serious consideration by any libertarian who truly believes in and adheres to libertarian principles.

I understand that you don't want to take any responsibility for America's treatment of black people, which is why you and others who share your views would like to invest the problem in a flawed Constitution that, in turn, has produced confused and contradictory legal opinions. I assume that you are referring to such matters as the Dred Scott decision, Plessy v. Ferguson and, most famously, Brown v. Board of Education.

DWShelf wrote: "These amendments leave the opportunity for misinterpretation, as shown by tons of historical precedent."

PTCruiser wrote:

These admendments granted freed slaves and their descendants the same rights as all other Americans. The only people who are claiming that there is some confusion over the question are those who object to black Americans having the same rights as all other Americans.

PTCruiser wrote:

"In Your Heart, You Know He's Right." There was not one bit of doubt among black voters as to the meaning of this slogan because ending legally sanctioned racial segregation in the United States was at the top of the country's political agenda.

DWShelf wrote in response: "As with the neighborhood destruction thing, we apparently view history and derive different conclusions."

PTCruiser wrote:

What precisely is the conclusion you are inclined to draw from a candidate who votes against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and makes that vote a principle tenet of his campaign and then runs for office on the slogan, "In your heart, you know he's right."

Do you think, for example, that the men who planted the bomb at the 16th Street Church thought that Goldwater was referring to the Soviet Union? What about the men who killed James Chaney, Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman? What about Byron De La Beckwith who shot Medgar Evers to death in front of his home where his wife and children were in the front room?

DWShelf wrote: "I was too young to vote, but I recall being impressed by "In your heart, you know he's right". Yours is the first suggestion I've ever heard that this had anything to do with racial politics. The big issue at the time for most people I knew was how best to confront the Soviet Union, and the slogan provided the rhetorical answer."

PTCruiser wrote:

We were already confronting the Soviet Union. At the time of the Cuban missle crisis the United States had a ring of nuclear armed Jupiter long range missles encircling the Soviet Union. In fact, part of the deal that President Kennedy struck with Khruschev and the Kremlin was that if the Russians would remove their missles from Cuba we would, in turn, remove our missles from Turkey and several other countries.

You are engaging in historical revisionism and in the best Stalinist style, too, I might add. The central thrust of Goldwater's campaign was against what he and his supporters viewed as an intrusive and meddlesome federal government whose policies were being enforced by an activist federal judiciary led by the Warren Supreme Court.

The central thrust of Goldwater's campaign was against what he and his supporters viewed as an intrusive and meddlesome federal government whose policies were being enforced by an activist federal judiciary led by the Warren Supreme Court.

Might as well start at the bottom and work back.  On this we agree, PT. Goldwater consistently opposed transfer of power from the states to the feds.

We were already confronting the Soviet Union.

Correct. But it was a highly political process, as exemplified by the "daisy ad", which implied Goldwater was going to get us all killed in a nuclear war.

Do you think, for example, that the men who planted the bomb at the 16th Street Church thought that Goldwater was referring to the Soviet Union?

Do you think they thought of Goldwater in the slightest?  You might have a beef with Goldwater's timing, but Goldwater was never some anti-black leader, and surely never counciled violence. 

I think you need to recheck your libertarian navigation system because you are beginning to founder, as many libertarians do, on the rocks of American racism. If you believe, as a libertarian, that all Americans are entitled to certain rights as citizens then the objections of others to black Americans holding those same rights would not be granted any serious consideration by any libertarian who truly believes in and adheres to libertarian principles.

Eh? Let's go though this slowly.

If you believe, as a libertarian, that all Americans are entitled to certain rights as citizens 

Yes. I believe that, and as a libertarian. 

then the objections of others to black Americans holding those same rights would not be granted any serious consideration by any libertarian who truly believes in and adheres to libertarian principles.

You know PT, I know you well enough to understand that you're trying to tell me something here,but I'm just not getting it.  "Libertarian principles", in all seriousness, do not address individual behavior; but they sure do address government racism, and with direct opposition to any notion that blacks would have a different relationship with their government as compared to whites, that is, different rights.

I think the best example of misinterpreting the 14th amendment was court support for Jim Crow. 

DW, you need to understand, although you never will, that the first week I was in high school the bomb in the 16th Street Church was denotated killing four black girls.

Ok. I understand it as explained, but as you suggest, I'll never quite understand the pain and anger.  I can't think of anything remotely close in my own experience.

The real estate agents would not have targeted that particular neighborhood if they had not had a reasonable belief or expectation that many of the residents of that neighborhood did not want blacks as their neighbors.

The story is well documented, and even these guys' detractors don't challenge their basic thesis, namely that a coaltion of civic leaders and bankers was behind this, not real estate agents. 

Real estate agents don't have any important power over who can buy where.  Bankers, now there's  power, and when the government, both local and federal gets involved, there's some more power.

The real estate agents would not have targeted that particular neighborhood if they had not had a reasonable belief or expectation that many of the residents of that neighborhood did not want blacks as their neighbors.

The story is well documented, and even these guys' detractors don't challenge their basic thesis, namely that a coaltion of civic leaders and bankers was behind this, not real estate agents.

Exchange every instance of "real estate agents" for "civic leaders and bankers."  

Exchange every instance of "real estate agents" for "civic leaders and bankers." 

Normally, I'd just let your comment stand, P6.  Implying that the audience should decide on what they have seen so far.

But in this case, I'll go a bit further.  I think you (and, in essence, PT) could well be right in your analysis of this aspect of the question.  For one thing, it meshes with Levine/Harmon's detractor's view that Dorchester's Jewish community was exceptionally vulnerable to the attack, for a variety of reasons which included the apparently trivial notion that Jews are not geographically attached to a particular synagogue.  Various synagogues and rabbis compete for observers, and moving to the suburbs for Jews was apparently relatively pain free as compared to Catholics.

"Correct. But it was a highly political process, as exemplified by the "daisy ad", which implied Goldwater was going to get us all killed in a nuclear war."

The "Daisy Ad" was only shown once on national television; it was an enormously effective piece of campaign propaganda. It lives on as part of the conservative mythology. It was an ad that was created and paid for by President Johnson's campaign. It had nothing to do with the U.S.'s ceaseless effort to contain the expansion of Soviet communism as laid out 16 years earlier by George Kennan, who died several weeks ago. The purpose of the ad was to portray Goldwater as a man who would initiate a nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

The U.S. policy, which was embraced by Republicans and Democrats alike, was to contain and prevent the Soviet Union from expanding its sphere of influence. Goldwater and his supporters seemed to find this policy wanting and wanted the U.S. to do more than rattle its sabres.

By the time this ad was televised, the U.S. had already threatened to go to war over the presence of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba; our government had engineered the overthrow of more than a dozen foreign political leaders and governmemts deemed unfriendly to U.S. interests, including the assassination of Patrice Lummuba; we had established more than 200 military bases in foreign countries; we supported dictatorships in South and Central America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa that were considered hostile to communist influence and friendly to the U.S.; and, we had played a major behind-the-scenes role in preventing democratically elected communists from acquiring a major role in the Greek and Italian governments.

"Do you think they thought of Goldwater in the slightest? You might have a beef with Goldwater's timing, but Goldwater was never some anti-black leader, and surely never counciled violence."

You are missing the point. The status of Black Americans was one of the three, if not the number one, issues on the nation's domestic policy agenda. The president, Lyndon Baines Johnson, had made it excruciatingly clear to the South and its leaders that a change was going to come and that he, a Texan and former U.S. Senator, intended to lead the effort.

In this context, Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Bill, his embrace of southern conservatives, the endorsements that he received and welcomed from southern politicians and leaders and his use of the slogan "In Your Heart, You know He's Right" could only be reasonably construed as an effort to play into and solicit the support of those who were opposed to the advancement of Black Americans.

"Libertarian principles", in all seriousness, do not address individual behavior; but they sure do address government racism, and with direct opposition to any notion that blacks would have a different relationship with their government as compared to whites, that is, different rights."

Poor Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and Russell Kirk must rolling over in their graves. Libertarian principles have everything in the world to do with individual behavior since the loci or foci of libertarian moral and ethical principles are rooted in a conception of the primacy of the individual as opposed to the state or even family.

"I think the best example of misinterpreting the 14th amendment was court support for Jim Crow."

Try racism and antipathy toward Black people, not confusion about the meaning of the 14th Amendment. There were never any "separate, but equal" facilities for Negroes in the United States and there was never any demonstrable and verifiable effort on the part of white Americans to provide Negroes with such facilities.

I can clearly recall as a child crossing the Mississippi River on a ferry boat and that my family and I had to stay below deck with cars while whites were permitted to go topside and stroll around in the sunshine and fresh air. Only a fool would think that we had "separate, but equal" facilities.

"Ok. I understand it as explained, but as you suggest, I'll never quite understand the pain and anger. I can't think of anything remotely close in my own experience."

My error. This was not a Bill Clinton pitch. I don't want you to feel my pain or anger. What I was trying to convey to you was that your sense of these events are derived from what you have read or have been told. My sense of them is derived from having been alive at the time they occurred.

My point was that you are seriously mistaken about the use of Goldwater's campaign slogan.

your sense of these events are derived from what you have read or have been told. My sense of them is derived from having been alive at the time they occurred.

Got it, PT. No argument here. 

My point was that you are seriously mistaken about the use of Goldwater's campaign slogan.

After all is said, the slogan, to the extent it was important, was a failure. 

Try racism and antipathy toward Black people, not confusion about the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The only portion of America which are (or should be) compelled by the constitution are the courts. 

Indeed, in a context where courts feel entitled to derive whatever meaning they choose from the words of the constitution, the constitution loses all value.  We're not there yet.  We're in an era where the words to the constitution are allowed to be twisted if they don't resist.

This era of creative reading included the Jim Crow era.  I agree completely, Jim Crow was initiated by people driven by racism and antipathy toward black people. However, it was a long time before any court stopped them based on a more sensible interpretation of the 14th.  I don't believe the courts of the time were dominated by racism and antipathy toward black people, I beleive they were confused as to the meaning of the 14th amendment. 

I'm suggesting some twist-resistant words regarding racial equality. 

In this context, Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Bill, his embrace of southern conservatives, the endorsements that he received and welcomed from southern politicians and leaders and his use of the slogan "In Your Heart, You know He's Right" could only be reasonably construed as an effort to play into and solicit the support of those who were opposed to the advancement of Black Americans.

In the same sense that I was not there to experience the civil rights era from a black perspective, it seems relevant to discuss the white perspective.

Now the white perspective was, as they say, far more diverse than the black perspective.  The white perspective included everyone from white racist murderers to white kids working in the south for civil rights. 

However, I believe that the white perspective I experienced was hugely common.  It was a perspective which sought equality for blacks, but, you know, that was something which was going to happen down south, not where we lived.  In short, it wasn't nearly as important as some other national issues. 

From this context, the fact that Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act wasn't a defining  action. 

DW - Goldwater and the Republican Party got whipped worse than a government mule. There had to have been a lot more than black folks who thought that his campaign slogan was a little odd. I don't think that white kids working in the south shared your perspective on where Goldwater was coming from as a candidate. Goldwater's vote against the Civil Rights Bill was a defining act for him as a candidate. Was it the solew defining act of his campaign? No, but it was hugely influential in how he was viewed by the electorate, the Republican establishment and the media. Was it the defining act of his life? No, but he regretted doing it. I haven't heard Rehnquist or Bork ever express any remorse for having recommended that course of action to him.

I'm done with this topic, DW, you're defending the indefensible and your argument is becoming sloppy. The black view of Goldwater on civil rights issues was the majority view.

"I don't believe the courts of the time were dominated by racism and antipathy toward black people, I beleive they were confused as to the meaning of the 14th amendment."

This is what Samuel Beckett called a "calmative." This is a story that you tell yourself so you can continue to deny the extent to which public policy and the law in the United States was guided by racial animus toward Black Americans.

I'm suggesting some twist-resistant words regarding racial equality.

To whom would you direct the words? And how important is historical accuracy?

However, I believe that the white perspective I experienced was hugely common.  It was a perspective which sought equality for blacks, but, you know, that was something which was going to happen down south, not where we lived.  

I think it was common too. But were Blacks equal where the white people with this perspective lived? 

Were Blacks equal where the white people with this perspective lived?

Legally, sure.  Jim Crow did not extend beyond the south (or it sure didn't extend to my experience).  No school in Oregon ever denied admittance to a black kid. The idea that one wouldn't share public space with blacks was alien to this culture.

This is the basis of the common white belief that they, or people like them, were never the problem. People who were disappointed with Janice Ian's song ending "I don't want to see you any more". 

Now, as cnulan would point out, there certainly existed widespread belief uncertain of the nature of the Negro race and personal equality, and that is a problem, but in this space, such racism never translated into antipathy. I understand that it didn't look that way from a black perspective, but every adult in my life in 1964 expressed the desire for racial equality.  Most of them voted for Goldwater.

This is what Samuel Beckett called a "calmative." This is a story that you tell yourself so you can continue to deny the extent to which public policy and the law in the United States was guided by racial animus toward Black Americans.

I'm tempted to ask "why do you believe such things about me, PT", but then I think about my thoughts about what you believe, and while I don't come to that particular assertion of delusion, I do conclude that some of your beliefs are not supportable by fact.  Once having traveled that path, it seems more human nature that we first disagree, we second conclude that our disagreement has to do with the other guy's lack of engaging the facts, and third, since those facts seem so obvious, the other guy must have invented a mechanism to avoid them. 

All is then well.

i was going to stay out of this one - PT is holding it down as usual - but this comment floored me.  If Jim Crow only existed in the South, then how do you account for Whites only clubs in Harlem up until the 50's?  The Cotton Club was only one of innumerable clubs notorious because Blacks could work there but couldn't pay to see the entertainment.  Not to mention as late as 2000, you could still see painted over signs at City College (City University of New York) at 137th and Convent stating "whites only" in the classrooms? 

First off, we need an agreed definition for "Jim Crow".  As I've used the term, it implies that segregation was the law, and thus enforced by the police, which is different than whites only clubs. But I'm not here to dispute definitions, if my usage was unconventional, I'll try to communicate better.

Then we come to CUNY, a public institution.  A quick google did not result in much history before the 1960s, beyond the fact that before that there were several colleges which were assembled into CUNY.  Is there a link which offers more details?

I wrote that I was done with this topic but obviously the topic is not done so I'll add some more of my two cents worth.

First, we don't need an agreed upon definition of "Jim Crow". DW and young whites like him need to accept the reality that black people describe who either experienced this phenomenon or were told about it by family members and others. This is, in my opinion, a matter of simple respect. If DW and others like him can't extend that courtesy to us then I, for one, will refrain from any further discussions with him and them.

First off, we need an agreed definition for "Jim Crow". 

Sure.

Right after the Supreme Court defines "pornography."

People of the Word continue to amaze me... 

Secondly, given the appallingly inhumane and viciously racist way in which black Americans had been treated for more than three centuries in this country, it would not have too much to expect that Goldwater and other alleged non-racist conservatives to have said something like the following with regard to the 1964 Civil Rights Bill:

"I am not entirely convinced that this bill is the best bill that we could have crafted in our deliberations, but in the interest of justice, which for far too long has been denied to our fellow citizens, the American Negro people, we should in the spirit of compassion, fair play and, because of our own love for freedom, put aside any objections we may have to this bill and pass it unanimously.

"Surely, any tresspasses on individual liberty and rights that this bill may encourage must pale in comparison to what the American Negro people have had to endure in this land that I love with all of my heart and that I would die to defend. It is time for all of us to make a new start and today is the day that we should begin. Let freedom ring, ladies and gentlemen, let freedom ring!"

The silence of Goldwater and other conservatives, save for their lame mantra about not being racists, spoke volumes to black Americans about how the conservative movement really felt about them. The fact that there is a growing group of blacks who now align themselves with this movement doesn't change anything as far as I am concerened. They can revise history, distort the facts and even lie and cheat to make their case, but as long as breath is in my body I will actively oppose them until they begin to address black people's issues and concerns.

I wish you could have been there, PT, to write Goldwater's speech.

I wish history had recorded Goldwater delivering your words in his own dramatic style.

Life is a series of changes.  You don't always get it right at first, sometimes you have to learn better.  Goldwater's reflections strongly suggest that he would have been willing to rewrite history by making your speech in 1964.

Right after the Supreme Court defines "pornography."

So as you yourself use the term "Jim Crow", does it include whites-only nightclubs? 

William Rehnquist and Robert Bork were there. Why didn't he ask them to write it? In fact, they met him at the airport in Phoenix with the memorandum he did ask them to write which he used as the basis for his arguments against the Civil Rights Bill.

The regrets of old men only matter at a family or personal level. That is, one can make an apology or make amends to a family member, friend or acquaintance. In politics it doesn't count. When Goldwater was presented with an opportunity to help bind up the nation's wounds he took the easy way. His expressions of regret remind me of George Wallace's death-bed apologies. It is too little, too late. Stop trying to make a hero of Goldwater on this issue.

In his great essay "Politics and the English Language" George Orwell said something to the effect that if you cared more about policies and programs than you did about people then you would find it very easy to kill people. Goldwater cared more about principles than he cared about the lives of black people. Stop trying to make a hero out of him on this issue. He was wrong and so are you.

Jim Crow is an earlier name for "white supremacy."

They are synonyms. 

DW is a funny cat.  So you think that a "law" is the words on a page.  Laws are only the codified version of practices, beliefs, and ideology.  Jim Crow was a local (and sometimes statewide) application of the principle and practice of white supremacy.  PT - or any other cat that's relatively well versed in African American history - can tell you that the most violent race riots in the country happened in the North, not the South.  so for you to think that Jim Crow only happened in the South is a little naive...white supremacy was a national phenomenon.

Ok. I stand corrected in my usage.

So you think that a "law" is the words on a page.

I do think that there is a huge difference between government enforced superiority, and some collection of low-cultured people which doesn't want blacks around. Or whites, for that matter.

Further, I agree that even as I was using the term, Jim Crow was largely enforced by thuggery. However, the police would arrest blacks for defiant non-compliance. Rosa Parks risked both the thugs and he police to hold her seat. Long forgotten are the Rosa Parks' before their time.

white supremacy was a national phenomenon

Yes indeed, I understood that.  The heart and soul of the KKK in its heyday was in places like Indiana.

DW is a funny cat.

Made my day, ConPermiso. 

Ok. I stand corrected in my usage.

You want to clarify this now? 

I'm suggesting some twist-resistant words regarding racial equality.

To whom would you direct the words? And how important is historical accuracy?

You never answered. And the answer is critical to your quest.

Whose word-twisting are you trying to disable? Who is your target audience?

as the lexical divide between words and chemistry grows thin, it is imperative for the species that artifacts of supreezy not be projected into the future.

ignorance and inability to focus attention will be our downfall - even at the highest levels of performance, check that, especially at the highest levels of performance...,

I'm suggesting some twist-resistant words regarding racial equality.

To whom would you direct the words? And how important is historical accuracy?

Like any constitutional amendment, I'd direct the words to the federal court system. 

The words would require, in unambiguous terms, that all levels of goverment in the US treat citizens the same regardless of race.

Historical accuracy is important in some contexts but not others. In this case, the precedent is clear. The current constitution has been twisted before, by the federal court system, and will continue to be twisted until it is stiffened up.

The words would require, in unambiguous terms, that all levels of goverment in the US treat citizens the same regardless of race.

If it doesn't, in unambiguous terms, require the government to address unequal treatment (which will require the offender to be treated differently by the government than the offended) I'm not even interested in exploring the possibility.

"Enquirer editorial writer, Harold Jackson, states that, 'Republicans are now making measurable progress in weaning blacks from the Democratic Party.' Although the number of blacks who identify themselves as Republicans rose only six percentage points in the last four years, the number who admit to being Democrats dropped from 74% to 63%."

This is not a response to CNulan's post but in rereading the news article that kicked off this excursion I realized that I had overlooked another another assertion contained in this so-called news story. In the above quote Harold Jackson, who is identified as an Enquirer editorial writer states that "Republicans are now making measurable progress in weaning blacks from the Democratic Party."

There are several things that are noteworthy about Mr. Jackson's claims. The first is that despite the fact that he asserts that blacks are leaving the Democratic Party presumably to become members of the Repuiblican Party he offers no statistical data to support this assertion despite the fact that he claims that the Republicans are "making measurable progress."

If this is true then how is the success of this effort being determined? That is, are a statistically significant number of blacks changing their registration from Democratic to Republican and, if so, what data is being used to determine the strength of this movement? Is the alleged registration change among black voters higher than the expected frequency of change among voters in general regardless of race and income status? Or, is the change among black registrants confined to a specific or specific groups within the black polity? Is the move reflected in changes in voter registration numbers among voters who identify themselves as black? Are opinion polls among likely black voters being conducted? And, if so, are these polls being done by non-partisan or partisan pollsters?

My point is not that blacks are not joining the Republican Party but what is extent and actual influence of this alleged party switching. Absolutely no objective data is provided that would allow any reasonable person, i.e., a person who does not consider it his or her responsibility to save the Democrats or the Republicans to assess this so-called development.

What we have here, again, is simply political propaganda masquerading as a legitimate news story. The proof of this occurs in the very next sentence where it states that "Although the number of blacks who identify themselves as Republicans rose only six percentage points in the last four years, the number who admit to being Democrats dropped from 74% to 63%."

In other words, over a four year period the rate of blacks registering as Republicans rose at a rate of 1.5 percent per year, which is hardly significant, is magically conflated with the fact that the number of blacks identifying themselves as Democrats declined by 11 percent during presumably the same four year period. The people putting out this story would have you believe that the Republicans have picked up 6 percent of this 11 percent decline in blacks identifying themselves as Democrats.

This is a misuse of statistics. The Republicans have not picked up more than 50 percent of those blacks who no longer consider themselves Democrats as the writers of this story want readers to believe. In fact, it is impossible to state with any clarity exactly what has occurred because this is all blue smoke and mirrors at this point. We don't know how many of the 6 percent increase in black registrants that the Republicans are claiming are first time registrants or how many may have been registered as independents (decline to state) before identifying themselves as registered Republicans.

In addition, the 11 percent decline in blacks who identified themselves as Democrats does not mean that these voters can now be expected to cast their ballots for Republican candidates. We all know black people, including more than a few of us who visit this site , who do not identify themselves as Democrats but have very little, if any, intention of voting for a Republican.

I don't doubt for a moment that many blacks are disentangling themselves from the Democratic Party but their efforts should not be seen, from a statistical point of view, as a gain for Republicans. Many young first time voters do not want to affilate with any political parties. This is as true for young black first time voters as it is for young white first time voters.

The last point I want to cover is the language used by Mr. Jackson to describe black political behavior. He states, in what can only be construed as a partisan dig, that blacks are being "weaned" from the Democratic Party by the Republicans. In other words, Republicans are persuading black voters to grow up and stop suckling on the political tit of the Democratic Party. The image that Mr. Jackson conveys is of a people who are in an infantile, dependent stage of political development. Their presumed movement to the Republican side of the political spectrum implies that they are now ready for whole food even if a large number of them don't have enough money to buy much of it.

If it doesn't, in unambiguous terms, require the government to address unequal treatment

Unequal treatment should be seen as an abuse of government authority, and should be criminally prosecuted as corruption. 

(which will require the offender to be treated differently by the government than the offended)

Offenders should be put in jail. The offended, should they be able to show damage from the offense, say by being denied a job, a contract, or a service on racial grounds, should be compensated. 

The image that Mr. Jackson conveys is of a people who are in an infantile, dependent stage of political development.

I think it's a restatement of "if you're not a liberal at 16, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 60, you have no brain". 

And what about the enforcement procedures? Right now citizens can sue for age discrimination based on differential impact. Race discrimination determined by differential impact, however, must be challenged by the Feds. One is required to proove intent,which is near impossible.

What do you feel would be a reasonable standard by which to judge discrimination (and I have not limited it to racial discrimination) ?

If your statuitory law has no precedural underpinnings it's just a bag of empty statements.

I think it's a restatement of "if you're not a liberal at 16, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 60, you have no brain".

In any case, it's stupid, insulting and wrong. 

No, I don't agree. By the way, Winston Churchill, the person who is generally attributed to making this statement or a variation thereof, was never a liberal. He was always a Tory.

At least get that quote right, willya? It's not:

"if you're not a liberal at 16, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative at 60, you have no brain".

It's:

"Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.
-- Francois Guisot (1787-1874)"

"[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known."

--Alexis De Tocqueville, “Democracy in America�

See the following:

http://www.slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm

"ignorance and inability to focus attention will be our downfall - even at the highest levels of performance, check that, especially at the highest levels of performance...,"

In the immortal words of Richard Pryor, "How long, how long will this bullshit go on?"

Ok, ok.  I went off to work this morning thinking I'd been a bit flippant, I hoped y'all would have fun with it but I was a bit concerned.

"weaned" is indeed a word Republicans would use on Democrats in a partisan analysis.  In that sense PT was quite correct (as usual), and correct to reject my quip.  However, I don't think the analogy is to an infantile stage of political development; it's to an infantile stage of being able to provide for one's self.  Republicans see themselves as the party of winners, and see Democrats as the party of losers, the party of welfare dependence.  Republicans see themselves as attracting blacks away from welfare dependence and into the good life.

I don't offer that analysis as a partisan, and I certainly don't expect anyone around here to find it less than insulting.  I've been around plenty long enough to understand that the issues are more complex than slogans or finger wags, and to understand that both parties truly believe they have the best path to success.  Sometime it's useful to understand the other guy's perspective.

"Republicans see themselves as the party of winners, and see Democrats as the party of losers, the party of welfare dependence. Republicans see themselves as attracting blacks away from welfare dependence and into the good life."

One of the problems with the Republicans entire strategy here is that the overwhelming majority of blacks who are registered Democrats and who regularly vote are not welfare recipients. The Republican Party's strategists and policy makers and, in particular, the neo-black Republicans who confidently claim they are creating new facts on the ground are quite aware that the great majority of black Democrats are not on the public dole. Thery get up and go to work just like most other people in this country.

The continued perpetration of this outrageous slander against black people simply because many of them reject an affiliation with a political party that consciously and deliberately moved to align itself with their enemies during a period when black people and others were finally putting an end to most Jim Crow practices in this country speaks volumes about the Republican Party's real, as opposed to its declared, intentions toward African Americans. The participation in this slander by blacks who have aligned themselves with the Republicans is without precedent in the black community. The black Republicans that I knew in my youth were staunchly Republican but, more importantly, they were staunchly pro-black. They would not have participated in any disinformation campaign that slandered their own people. These new black Republicans will do or say anything to demonstrate that they are on board.

Pt, this sounds like a stupid question, but did you see a lot of anti black blacks back in the day? Disregard if question is just too stupid.

How far back in the day you want to go?

Selling out your neighbors has always been a career option for oppressed people.

"Pt, this sounds like a stupid question, but did you see a lot of anti black blacks back in the day? Disregard if question is just too stupid."

I don't think it is a stupid question. I don't recall that there were any significant groupings of black folks who could be characterized as anti-black. There were of course a lot of blacks who were "color-struck",i.e., they were light-skinned blacks who didn't particularly care for darker skinned blacks.

My paternal grandfather, for example, who was the youngest of nine children, all girls save for him, caused no end of woe for several of his sisters when he chose to marry a very darked skinned woman, my paternal grandmother, who was directly descended from slaves. (He often told me that her people looked as if they had come straight from Africa.)

During the 1960s many, many blacks were accused, unfairly and inappropriately in some cases in my opinion, of being anti-black or "Uncle Toms" and "Aunt Jemimas" because they disagreed with some of the tactics and strategies that were being adopted by younger blacks to address racial discrimination and exclusion. I think they were mistaken but I don't think they can be rightly considered anti-black.

Some of them made huge mistakes in judgment and went along with policies that they should have publicly rejected for the sake of their own credibility, if not for the benefit of the black community. Some of their errors were so grievous that it is hard not to suppose that they did not have the black community's interest at heart.

In my hometown, for example, a prominent and well respected black dentist who was the first black person ever appointed to the city's police commission went along with and supported an ill-conceived, racist and plainly unconstitutional plan by the mayor to impose a stop and interogate dragnet on all the city's black males in response to a series of random shootings of whites by a very small group of young black men who the media had dubbed as the "Zebra killers" (black on white). (I knew a black psychiatrist who was well over fifty at the time and was driving a Porsche when the cops pulled him over and questioned him about these killings.) This program was finally ended when large numbers of blacks took to the streets in protests and the local chapter of the NAACP filed suit against the city. The black police commissioner was vilified for years afterwards especially by younger blacks like myself.

I would say, however, that on the whole the degree of antipathy toward blacks as expressed or exhibited by other blacks was relatively infrequent and was generally confined to the social sphere. I'm not sure this is as true today as it was then. Something ugly has been set loose in our community and it cannot be penned up again. It is too early to tell if this is a good or bad thing thing but far too many black people seem too willing to sacrifice the community for their own personal benefit. This has always gone on to some extent but now one can appear on television regularly saying preposterous things about black people and get paid well for it.

Something ugly has been set loose in our community and it cannot be penned up again. It is too early to tell if this is a good or bad thing thing but far too many black people seem too willing to sacrifice the community for their own personal benefit. This has always gone on to some extent but now one can appear on television regularly and get paid well for it.

With few exceptions, at least so far as I know, black communities no longer exist. Where I grew up in Kansas, the so-called near northeast side of Wichita was home to black physicians, attorneys, businesspeople, tradesmen, artists, musicians, etc..., the black churches were spiritually and communally strong, people knew one another (I believe from church and school socialization) and there was a rich cultural melange.

This is no longer the case. Mostly abandoned by managerial and professional class blacks, the near northeast side has become a poor ghetto and the majority of its institutions reflect the socio-economic and cultural malaise of abandonment. Now professional and managerial class black folks long for their children to have some of the communal riches we all enjoyed as kids. You know, get home, do your homework, eat dinner, then go play out and around in the neighborhood until long after dark when you heard your mother call you home

Here in Kansas City, it's just downright pathetic. One's level of withdrawal (and associated symptoms) from black interpersonal communion is directly proportional to one's wealth. We've only been here 8 years, but we've been approached repeatedly without fail every year to try to help arrange dates and play dates for the teenage children of wealthy black folks who live in lonely McMansions out in the suburban sprawl. Frankly, I find it inexcusable that these parents have not placed a higher priority on the proper socialization of their children. wtf did you run way out to the boonies for in the first place? Now that you know beyond any doubt that having material abundance didn't make you any happier or any more viable, and it's hell on your children WAKE UP and move back into the city.

IMOHO, if you're not a part of the solution, then you're a part of the problem. Are these folks anti-black? Not by what they say. But in what they DO, I'm forced to wonder.

I want to add a note to my previous posting. I think the reasons the level of acrimony and disdain among certain elements within the black community has become so intense and noisy is because the stakes have become correspondingly smaller. Neither the traditional liberal black left, whose political home is in the Democratic Party or the new black right, whose very existence and prominence is owed to the Republican Party, are addressing, in a substantive and systematic way, the issues that most matter to the black polity. Neither group has any agenda, program or analyses that both addresses the real sense of nationalism that most black people in the country possess and their great desire to fully participate and benefit from being part of the mainstream of this country, too.

The new black right, for example, is, in some crucial respects, an ultra-assimilationist movement that many, many blacks feel quite uncomfortable aligning themselves with. These blacks certainly are seeking to enjoy the benefits of our market economy but they have little or no intentions of surrendering their identity or autonomy as black or African Americans in order to acquire these goods and services.

The black right's failure, which has now been institutionlized as a result of their overly close alignment with the Republican Party, to develop an agenda and a program that meets the dual, but not contradictory, desires of the great majority of blacks in this country should not be minimized. Black people do need to be led out of their current alliance with the Democratic Party but not into an alliance with the Republican Party. In fact, it would be better for blacks to remain where they are are than to seek shelter under the Republican tent.

I need to haul up here. I will address the problems of the black (Democratic Party) left later.

"We've only been here 8 years, but we've been approached repeatedly without fail every year to try to help arrange dates and play dates for the teenage children of wealthy black folks who live in lonely McMansions out in the suburban sprawl. Frankly, I find it inexcusable that these parents have not placed a higher priority on the proper socialization of their children. wtf did you run way out to the boonies for in the first place? Now that you know beyond any doubt that having material abundance didn't make you any happier or any more viable, and it's hell on your children WAKE UP and move back into the city."

This is such a difficult issue because it reflects on the one hand black folks' genuine desire to be part of American society and on the other hand the limits to which they can comfortably expect to be part of that same society. It is in that gap between their journey into the good material life offered by American society and their arrival at a destination that invariably falls short of the dream they had envisioned that is so perplexing. I suspect that this is one of the contradictions that, although we may not have anticipated its occurrence, our experience in this country has equipped us to address and resolve in ways that will eventually redound to our benefit.

This development might, for example, lead black people to reexamine or refashion the basis upon which they establish and maintain social relationships with other blacks who are not kin or who may occupy a lower stratum on the socio-economic ladder. America is a strange and vast country and black people have never lacked for capacity to create a world for themselves that addresses their needs. In the past these efforts were made against great odds and much resistance. In the future, perhaps, given the majority's obsessive pre-occupation with military conquest and world domination, we might have a few more opportunities to sneak in under the radar.

This development might, for example, lead black people to reexamine or refashion the basis upon which they establish and maintain social relationships with other blacks who are not kin or who may occupy a lower stratum on the socio-economic ladder.

I'm not disagreeing PT, and I'm somewhat reluctant to respond to your insight with a bit of a drift.

But here's my observation: we'll know black people have made quantum  progress when black people can establish and maintain social relationships with whites who may occupy a lower stratum on the socio-economic  ladder.  Or more precisely, whites in the lower half of the working class. This is the no-man's land of racial relationships today.  You and I, and people like you and I can reliably get along fine. I'd be quite pleased if you were my neighbor. I, and most whites I know, could listen to your stories and analyses for a long time. The stress comes from lower class whites vs middle class blacks, and I think there's a lot in common in this stress and lower<->middle class black stress under discussion.

It's not hopeless.  The stress is based on analysis that middle class people got there by suppressing or otherwise dumping on lower class people.  I don't believe that in any general sense.  I believe most lower class people, white and black, are lower class because they lack informed confidence, or, if it's different, that they've chosen some personal demon above success.

And I basically agree with cnulan that the middle classes have a moral obligation to work with the lower classes to help them up.  Pick your own way, but do it to be effective.

"But here's my observation: we'll know black people have made quantum progress when black people can establish and maintain social relationships with whites who may occupy a lower stratum on the socio-economic ladder."

Why do you believe that blacks should pursue such relationships? And why do you believe that it will enhance the sort of cultural continuity that the affluent black parents CNulan describes are seeking for their children when they contact he and wife regarding the availability of their own children for playdates etc.

I'm puzzled by your post.

I'm puzzled by your post.

That's because you didn't take it for being off the track you were on.  The primary topic was different, although it seemed to have an interesting intersection with yours and cnulan's discusion.

Why do you believe that blacks should pursue such relationships?

I don't believe "should".  Maybe that time will come, but today it would take rare combinations to be effective. Generally, being effective implies avoiding wasting time on situations which are unikely to work out.  (That said, I'm sure that middle class blacks help low class whites up the ladder every day, but it's not a "pursuit", rather it's personal situations where it becomes clear that the usual barriers don't exist.)

The observation I could have probably made more concisely is that the stress between low and middle class blacks shares a whole lot with the stress between low class whites and middle class blacks. 

And why do you believe that it will enhance the sort of cultural continuity that the affluent black parents CNulan describes are seeking for their children when they contact he and wife regarding the availability of their own children for playdates etc.

cnulan feels stress with respect to people who live well.

Seeking community is, almost by definition, an attempt to lower such stress.

And we could notice that successful socialization is a two way street. 

The observation I could have probably made more concisely is that the stress between low and middle class blacks shares a whole lot with the stress between low class whites and middle class blacks.

What about the stress between lower class Black folks and middle class whites?

What has either got to do with anything? 

cnulan feels stress with respect to people who live well.

I simply have no respect or compassion for gluttons who gorge themselves on sausage but lack the conscience, courage, or integrity to slaughter, grind, mix and pack the intestines themselves, and instead manipulate ignorant or credulous others into doing their dirty packing work for them

gluttons lie too much...., to themselves and everyone else with whom they transact

To the extent that gluttony has become antithetical to the valuable and historically unique interpersonal communion of blackness, I find it immensely unwholesome, you might even say, unholy

What about the stress between lower class Black folks and middle class whites?

That's entirely different.  (you should give me a white guy identifying a joke gizmo, p6)

No, of course it's not entirely different, but (and recognizing the swamp here), but it is well charted territory, which reduces the stress.  Lower class working blacks are fully accustomed to having middle class whites around, as employers and customers.

That why people should take our word when we identify a problem. We got more experience.

I simply have no respect or compassion for gluttons who gorge themselves on sausage but lack the conscience, courage, or integrity to slaughter, grind, mix and pack the intestines themselves, and instead manipulate ignorant or credulous others into doing their dirty packing work for them

At least one of us in this discussion has been in a restaurant and ordered intestine whole, and many times.  Chinese, in reality, don't eat cat or dog, but they do eat intestine in about 1.5 in long tubes with a good sauce. You add them to this gooey rice with yams.

But my favorite is tripe.  And spicy sliced ear.

A colleague tells the story, from years ago. It was his first day on the job.  We went out to Chinese food.  I suggested the sliced ear.  He looked around to confirm that it was a joke, but saw people nodding affirmatively, saying "that's good". It was his introduction to eating lunch out in California; he eventually joined in.

I laugh at, but don't feel alienation from those who eat sausage while refusing to have anything to do with identifiable intestine.

I don't think you are eating Catonese, Mandarin or Schwezuan style here are you? Seems like there must have been large influx over the past 10 or 15 years of Chinese who are not from the southeast provinces. Gooey rice and yams is the giveaway.

We call the gooey rice with yams "Taiwanese porridge".  "Hong Kong porridge" is more watery, has a whole different set of stuff to add to it, and no yams.

You gotta come back to visit CA PT, just for the Asian food.  I'm not sure about the mix of recent immigrants, but there's surely a critical mass to sustain some wonderful, reasonably priced authentic Chinese restaurants.  I don't recall any until maybe ten years ago.

Mexican food has been rapidly improving as well.  It make you shake your head to see what Taco Bell can sell for $2 when compared to what you can find in dozens of neighborhood taquerias.  Carnitas.  Pastor.  And Negra Modelo, la cerveza mas fina del mundo.  Well, maybe except for Guinness.

There hasn't been any quantum leap in the quality of Chinese food at least as far as I can tell. There was a lot of good Chinese restaurants 10, 15. 20 even 35 years ago. What has changed is that there are now a lot more good neighborhood Chinese restaurants in Oakland and other parts of the East and South Bay. San Francisco, which is my hometown, never lacked for good Chinese places to scarf.

The same goes for Mexican and El Savadorian restaurants, although my beloved Roosevelt Tamale Parlor (on 24th near York) apparently closed down two years ago. It had been opened for business since 1937.

At least