General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLBJ: "If you can convince the lowest white man that he’s better than the best colored man, he ..."
http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/1987_winter/second.html
...the more things change...
via:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/02/a-zombie-faith-by-bloggersrus.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Racism, obviously, remains most firmly entrenched among the "lowest white men" as LBJ put it. People who really have nothing to recommend them- they aren't smart, they aren't educated, they don't have a good job, they aren't well liked, they don't have money, etc. All they have to cling to is "well, at least I'm white." So, their whole self esteem becomes tied to how much value they perceive whiteness as giving them. That gives them an overpowering incentive to disparage minorities and even to try to keep minorities from achieving success. Somebody who is clinging to the prestige of whiteness for their whole self image is going to tend to favor policies that exacerbate racial inequality. If they're desperate enough to widen that gap, they'll even support policies that hurt them as long as they hurt minorities more.
brer cat
(25,876 posts)I live in a solid republican area, and I see this around me. They are also frequently among the "they will pry my gun from my cold, dead hands" group. Their entire self-image is based on tearing someone else down. I would feel sorry for them, except they vote.
appalachiablue
(42,563 posts)means a challenge to the status quo. And unfortunately there's still animosity throughout the world, between people who are different in terms of class, race, income, education and social status. In the 1600s colonial legislators and governors soon realized how African slaves and white indentured servants could and would unite in rebellion against authorities as happened in Va. Laws were quickly enacted to break up this scenario by granting whites small plots of land, less desirable but enough to separate them from blacks and to ally them with land owners.
Poor white Americans today are easy pawns of hate media and anti govt. spin, are beat down by decades of job loss in decayed communities, are held together by bigotry and hate derived from US institutional slavery and racism. Some cling to vestiges of earlier cultural strength. In speeches and his book "Days of Revolt" Chris Hedges lays out the dismal situation of Americans in three impoverished communities; Native American reservation life in Pine Ridge, South Dakota, unemployed inner city blacks in Camden, NJ and rural white residents of southern West Virginia. Deteriorating for generations, like many cities in the Rust belt these places have received little to no help from govt. or business.
If politicians would listen or take action and if American people became educated and organized it would be a powerful force for creating change long overdue. It would also help us prepare for the new Automation Economy that will reduce jobs in the US by 50% during the next 20 years according to Oxford Martin and other reports.
Response to tuhaybey (Reply #1)
Name removed Message auto-removed
appalachiablue
(42,563 posts)they have little status, are poor and disliked. They are used by the RW for votes, 'useful racists' and inflammatory media coverage, about the only importance they have. Their hatred of minorities and government attracts more attention and following obviously. Rightfully despised by the left and know it.
In the last 20 years this group has grown more violent than I've ever seen in my lifetime.
Less active and visible whites are largely forgotten, like others including minorities in desperate communities where drug use, disease, displacement, and incarceration from violence and crime are rampant with no signs of relief. Last resort hopelessness and self destruction are pervasive unfortunately.
TexasProgresive
(12,245 posts)but he also did some great things. I hate the escalation of the war in Vietnam, but I love that he got the civil rights act into law. True it lost the south to the pukes and turned the republican party racist but that is a price well paid.
Bugenhagen
(151 posts)LBJ is a president I really, really want to like. I wish he'd had the courage to end the war so that I could.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Subsequent releases of LBJ's phone conversations with Senator Dirksen when he called what Nixon was doing treason, and Dirksen didn't reject that notion, and that LBJ was more of a statesman not to bring this out in to the open where it could rip the country apart.
appalachiablue
(42,563 posts)with domestic policy like the Civil Rights Act and the Great Society. Today I'd welcome his powerful political skills in Congress, or anything close to it from the Dem. Party. Mother took our brother to see LBJ in '60 or '64, we were too little. Once in NoVa we saw Linda Byrd Johnson Robb and I let my niece know that she was the President's daughter and wife of US Senator Chuck Robb of Va. I took her to meet Hillary Clinton when she was old enough. Like other younger ones in the family she's a Democrat, 4 gen.
alarimer
(16,454 posts)In many ways he was horrible. He treated his wife like dirt, for one thing. He also turned against his mentor when it suited him politically.
But he was a political master. He's like Frank Underwood, without all the murder. And with more ballot-box stuffing.
His work as a teacher in rural, deep south Texas really informed him about racism and poverty. Those kids he taught were mostly Mexican-American and deeply poor. And I think that informed his views on race later on.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Unusual for the time and place where LBJ grew up. That probably had an effect as well.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I'm pretty impressed LBJ was as liberal as he was for a southern Democrat.
LiberalArkie
(16,136 posts)around him that had invested money in the stocks of the MIC. Who can a honest person turn to when everyone around him is giving corrupt advice. When LBJ decided not to run for a second term it told me that he did not like the position he was in and I had to rethink my opinion of him.
There is something about white culture that we have to be superior to somebody, excluding somebody and pretending to be on top of the heap. It must arise out of all that class structure that existed in earlier European civilization.
msongs
(69,667 posts)appalachiablue
(42,563 posts)& social status. Maybe the increase in relationships among different groups now & future will help dissolve barriers, foremost race. But income, wealth & class are still strong dividers as we see globally.
MoonRiver
(36,928 posts)Also disgusting and frustrating. 
SunSeeker
(53,316 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)The rube who isn't much of a racist can be controlled through sexism, Christian supremacy, anti-communism, homophobia, and other made-up shit. Today's Right is just a machine built to keep just enough rubes voting without realizing their pockets are being picked hardest of all.
Auggie
(31,701 posts)Subsitute "colored" for immigrant, socialist, gay, or atheist -- still works for them.
George II
(67,782 posts)....is irresponsible.
It gives the impression that that was LBJ's idea, which it wasn't. It was an observation by him of what OTHER people do.
Here is the ENTIRE paragraph and context:
During a motorcade, the President spotted some ugly racial epithets scrawled on signs by a few plain, he called them homely, white women on the edge of the crowd. Late that night in the hotel, long past midnight, he was still going on about how poor whites and poor blacks had been kept apart so that they could separately be fleeced-. ''I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you."
Whiskeytide
(4,493 posts)... meaning of the quote standing alone? I'm not being snarky - but the context you provided seems to simply confirm what I assumed from the quote itself. That LBJ was noting that poor whites often let their racial prejudice blind them to the fact that they are being fleeced by the system. Am I missing something (always possible)?
Thanks.
George II
(67,782 posts)....poor people, both black and white. Look at the two excerpts:
The one presented above:
"If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket."
The entire paragraph:
During a motorcade, the President spotted some ugly racial epithets scrawled on signs by a few plain, he called them homely, white women on the edge of the crowd. Late that night in the hotel, long past midnight, he was still going on about how poor whites and poor blacks had been kept apart so that they could separately be fleeced-. ''I'll tell you what's at the bottom of it," he said. "If you can convince the lowest white man that he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll even empty his pockets for you."
As posted, it gives the impression that LBJ was saying something like "if you want to take advantage of poor people, do this", when in fact he was making an observation of how OTHER people take advantage of the poor. At least that's how I read it, and feel the entire paragraph would have been more appropriate than pulling out a single sentence.
Whiskeytide
(4,493 posts)... and it's a good observation. I suppose I defaulted to the assumption that he was commenting on the conduct of others - and not his own ideology - simply because I had heard the quote often and generally understood the context already. I think here, on a progressive board, my assumption would be the norm - but certainly not everywhere.
Thanks for the reply!
sendero
(28,552 posts)... with even a passing familiarity of LBJ understood. He's done more to end racial discrimination than any other president by a country mile.
whopis01
(3,683 posts)I guess if you didn't know who we was and thought he was a republican (taking into account the image below in the post) you would likely think that was the case.
I am certain the the OP was not trying to make it seem that LBJ used that tactic.
brush
(56,726 posts)at all thought that was LBJ's thinking.
We know he was the best president since FDR as far as social programs go, and the best as far as civil rights achievements go besides Lincoln.
His failing, unfortunately, was believing Westmoreland and the rest of those generals on Vietnam.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He understood the whole "put down" concepts, and he knew all about deep, abiding poverty.
No one understood prejudice and discrimination, and the whole "poor white" meme, too, better than he did.
He was certainly a product of his time, but the arc of his personal history bent towards justice.
He didn't want to be the first President to ever lose a war (in his view). Bad blind spot--his direct nature didn't allow him to understand how to declare victory and split, no matter what the outcome.
brush
(56,726 posts)And you're right about his early career. He was an old-fashioned populist, which I think came from starting out poor himself and then teaching Mexican-American kids in the poor Hill country of Texas.
When he got to Congress he fought to get electricity and running water to the area.
He was an extremely effective — an ruthless politician — but a good man underneath. He overcame the racism in his upbringing and partnered with Dr. King and the other civil rights leaders of the '60s to get the historic civil rights bills passed.
Robert Caro wrote his 3 volume biography that's well worth reading.
MADem
(135,425 posts)If ya wanna know Lyndon, ya gotta read Caro!
brush
(56,726 posts)I worked at Newsday in New York when Caro was writing them — I believe he took a leave from there. He is a helluva writer. Those volumes, thick as they are, are page-turners.
One of the most telling things about Johnson's character, IMO, is how he stepped down from the presidency.
There was no holding on for dear life, no ego about it. He understood that because of the war another dem might be the best for the party.
He even grew his hair long in later years like 'those hippies'.
The current movie "Selma" unfortunately does a disservice to history in the way he is portrayed.
appalachiablue
(42,563 posts)The part about oking wire tapping through Hoover was incorrect I know. Before seeing the film I read Califano's piece, Andrew Young's comments and saw Ava DuVernay, the director discuss the subject in an interview about the film. Maybe I missed issues. Great film.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)6 part documentary can be found on YouTube. Breathtaking and infuriating.
appalachiablue
(42,563 posts)some Dems. like LBJ, esp. his political skills in the Congress and for domestic policy.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)you and others are sharing these anecdotes. Hope to read the Caro books some time. His other books are so well-written. I've seen him on book notes on c-span, enjoy hearing him speak. Newsday was a great newspaper. I loved the tabloid style, always read it on train or subway.
A question to you or anyone else. Do you think Bobby Kennedy would have gotten the nomination after winning the California primary? From what I've read, there were pretty strong forces in place for Humphrey. Also, if Bobby had gotten the nomination, who might he have chosen as his running mate? And do you think he would have beat Nixon? I've always been fascinated with this time period. My uncle in NYC was pretty involved with Eugene McCarthy. I love learning anything I can about those tumultuous times.
brush
(56,726 posts)He was building momentum and there was such an aura around the "Kennedy" name and so much residual good will from JKF and "Camelot", he was going to win going away.
And Nixon would have had no chance in the general, one reason being that most people felt that the nation had been short changed by the assassination and Bobby was the right person to finish the job for his brother. Another was that Martin Luther King had been assassinated also and Bobby Kennedy, having been Attorney General, had the trust of a large part of the Democratic Party's constituency.
Bobby's running mate choice? I don't know.
Maybe some others will chip in on that.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)brush
(56,726 posts)The anti-war movement was getting stronger and McCarthy was anti-war.
Kennedy and McCarthy would have been a very strong ticket, what with residual good will from the JFK/Camelot years and McCarthy's anti-war bona fides, the not universally liked Nixon would have had little chance.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)instead of Nixon/Agnew :sigh:
MADem
(135,425 posts)
brush
(56,726 posts)Where did you get that?
MADem
(135,425 posts)
mountain grammy
(27,091 posts)obxhead
(8,434 posts)There are lurkers, there are trolls. Beyond that members here may use the quote elsewhere giving a bad impression.
I didn't know the quote at all, let alone the full body of it.
I feel there is a significant difference between the single sentence and the totality of the thought behind it.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)And the NSA making it easy to see how Gulf of Tonkin was exactly as good as Curveball.
NSA bosses feared releasing Gulf of Tonkin intel would draw ''uncomfortable comparisons'' with Iraq
brush
(56,726 posts)was definitely set up.
Seems to be a technique used quite a few times in our history to justify getting us into wars — Iraq, Vietnam, Spanish-American war, the Mexican War — there are others that I'm sure I missed.
elleng
(135,139 posts)and they've specialized in this for AGES!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)To help spread light from the late Alex Carey, Maria Galardin's TUC (Time of Useful Consciousness) Radio:
Alex Carey: Corporations and Propaganda
The Attack on Democracy
The 20th century, said Carey, is marked by three historic developments: the growth of democracy via the expansion of the franchise, the growth of corporations, and the growth of propaganda to protect corporations from democracy. Carey wrote that the people of the US have been subjected to an unparalleled, expensive, 3/4 century long propaganda effort designed to expand corporate rights by undermining democracy and destroying the unions. And, in his manuscript, unpublished during his life time, he described that history, going back to World War I and ending with the Reagan era. Carey covers the little known role of the US Chamber of Commerce in the McCarthy witch hunts of post WWII and shows how the continued campaign against "Big Government" plays an important role in bringing Reagan to power.
John Pilger called Carey "a second Orwell", Noam Chomsky dedicated his book, Manufacturing Consent, to him. And even though TUC Radio runs our documentary based on Carey's manuscript at least every two years and draws a huge response each time, Alex Carey is still unknown.
Given today's spotlight on corporations that may change. It is not only the Occupy movement that inspired me to present this program again at this time. By an amazing historic coincidence Bill Moyers and Charlie Cray of Greenpeace have just added the missing chapter to Carey's analysis. Carey's manuscript ends in 1988 when he committed suicide. Moyers and Cray begin with 1971 and bring the corporate propaganda project up to date.
This is a fairly complex production with many voices, historic sound clips, and source material. The program has been used by writers and students of history and propaganda. Alex Carey: Taking the Risk out of Democracy, Corporate Propaganda VS Freedom and Liberty with a foreword by Noam Chomsky was published by the University of Illinois Press in 1995.
SOURCE: http://tucradio.org/new.html
If DUers find a moment, here's the first part (scroll down at the link for the second part) on Carey.
http://tucradio.org/AlexCarey_ONE.mp3
Helps explain how we got here and what we need to do to move forward, starting with putting the "Public" as in anything other than Racist Rightwing Dixie NAZI Mafia BFEE Eugenicizing Warmonger Gangster Dogma into the Airwaves again.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Once race enters the equation, we lose a significant number of poor white voters.
People fail to understand there is a class warfare going on and they are divided by race from fighting back.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)You know, for the 99-percent.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)&t=0
Neil Barofsky: 'Geithner Admitted To Us Privately That Obama's Housing Policy Was DESIGNED To Sacrifice Homeowners In Order To "FOAM THE RUNWAY" For The Banks'
SOURCE: http://dailybail.com/home/barofsky-geithner-admitted-to-us-privately-that-obamas-housi.html
10 Million Americans lost their homes.
http://www.alternet.org/investigations/10-million-americans-foreclosed-neighborhoods-devastated
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and I think we, both, know better than accepting 45 second clips, of what someone said, someone else said, as proof of anything. I don't doubt that "admission" was said, or rather those words were used; but, I have absolutely no context for the statement.
I can think of any number of scenarios where "foaming the runway" would be preferable (for the consumer AND larger economy) to a "runway" ... and so could you.
appalachiablue
(42,563 posts)share. I actually look at his actions and that of the administration and Congress; it's clear who was preferred.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)That divide is calculated.
Any group can be manipulated to be rivals against another group. This isn't because poor white people are hateful. They are being used.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)else is just making excuses for them.
Then again, it's always easier to make excuses than stand up.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)You aren't worth taking seriously in a debate anymore.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)accomplishing anything. Pretty common.
The Teapubs are only taking advantage of the Existing Hate!!
Johnson recognized that his civil rights laws lost the South for Democrats. It was all about racism.
- a southerner who knows
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)for too many (white) "Liberals" ... the solution for dealing with the tea-party/"Oligarchs"/TPTB's use of the existing hate is to 1) attempt to convince everyone to accept that hate ... for the "higher purpose; and 2) jettison the objects of the hate because (and I really read this in one of the Webb threads) ... it will be a net gain, as poor white, otherwise Democratic, voters will come back home.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)more, if only they knew they were slaves".
She didn't say "If only their owner's weren't so mean and conniving". She knew where the real chains are.
One other person that knew...
"The most potent weapon in the hands of the oppressor is the mind of the oppressed."
Stephen (Steve) Bantu Biko, Speech in Cape Town, 1971, before he was murdered by the police.
Think of MLK Jr in that jail cell, getting letters encouraging him to suicide by the FBI, letters from other black pastors suggesting he was hurting the cause...
You are the only one who has the key to your mind.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)to heal the divide?
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)The rich are just sub-dividing the poor to fight themselves.
FoxNews and the republicans are great at it. The Democrats fall into the trap too.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)the discrimination that PoC experience, at every intra-class level, feels "real" to me.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)...because only white people can define what is "real" and what is not.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)privilege, i.e. non racism against them, to get it.
Some, not all.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Not getting it validates their world view that they are under attack by forces outside of themselves (i.e., the 1%), just like they KNOW PoC are ... and that explains their lack of a 7 figure income.
brush
(56,726 posts)If you're bought up on the subtle and sometimes not so subtle "white-is-better" conditioning of our society and don't get the education/critical thinking skills to fight through the brainwashing, you might easily become one of the low-info/racist types.
IMO it's definitely the propaganda we all are constantly bombarded with daily through our media. Most of it isn't in-you-face racism (some is — see the Teaparty and their misspelled signs) but it's always there. Hell, we even have a major political party that practices it.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)doesn't that ignore that "the lowest white man" will continue being convinced "that he’s better than the best colored man"?
Racist attitudes will not go away by Democrats focusing on filling the pockets of poor whites.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Not black or white.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but after there are no more poor people (read: poor white people), there will still be intra-class racial disparity, that currently exists.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)It's about helping all poor people. Not just white, not just black.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)your prescription ignores the very real, and current, intra-class disparity between PoC and whites, at every level of the class structure.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Great way to keep the republicans in power.
Nice.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Actually, YOUR approach plays right into Nixon & Reagan's strategy to divide the poor by race by maintaining the racial status quo.
Only those benefitting from/unaffected by a divide would think ignoring the divide will make things better.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)You don't even see you are the one focused on race vs. class. Just what the republicans want.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I completely see that I am more focused on race than class ... that's probably THAT'S BECAUSE I'M BLACK!
Fast forward to the end of this glorious classism battle ... you will be no longer poor, relative to the 1%; neither will I, but I will still be less well off than you!
Do republicans want me to continue fighting for my interests? Or, do they want you to continue fighting against my interests? My pointing out the racial status quo is NOT me creating or perpetuating the racial divide.
Can you, really, say the same for your willingness to ignore the racial status quo?
Rilgin
(787 posts)So lets take your example and say the class battle is won and there is economic justice in the world. For me that means, that resources are fairly distributed over all of society and people universally are not oppressed by economic coercion. I would further say, that all public discrimination and system enforced discrimination in peoples daily life would be illegal. You would be treated, rewarded, or punished by society equal to any one of any race with that need or problem.
We know from all your posts that the end point set out above would not be enough and would leave your issues unsolved. You post this over and over. In this post you assert that at that point you will be "less well off than you". I would ask what do you exactly mean by that?
You mentioned past grievances. Is this what you mean by still less well off? Do you mean that even though treated the same you till carry grievances. And what exactly would constitute "solving past grievances". Do you mean economic reparations? How exactly does that work in society not treating people fairly and universally? I would love to hear some specifics of what you think the end game (in your words) of social justice fights. Is it just a psychological feeling. It gets solved when black people do not feel oppressed and white people do not feel privileged. Honestly, I would like you to spell it out.
I can do it for myself and my views. I see the problem as mostly capitalism and the 1% and the solution to a good and just society is attacking this part of our system. I think this is what most people who argue that racial prejudice stems from economic unfairness believe. Our goal would be a color blind society including not just economic fairness but fairness in all society interactions. At that point, white people would not be privileged. White people who believed they were privileged would clearly be objectively wrong by definition. Black people who believed white people were privileged would be clearly objectively wrong by definition. The belief among people who put class first is that if people recognize they are similar to each other and society is fair, it will address racial prejudices as well as a byproduct. People who have common interests tend to do away with racial biases in their dealings. Its harder to be biased against a co-worker, team mate, or neighbor who you have to rely on. I think its similar to crime. The best way to fight crime is not by fighting crime, its by improving economic situations. The correlation between economic problems and rises in the crime rate are very clear. However, crime is clearly a problem. However solutions that try to seperate crime from economy are on the wrong track. I believe that racial problems work the same and I believe history bears that out. History is full of politicians using race or religion if people are not poor to get them roused.
Thus the OP addresses one thing that is interesting and seems at the heart of this issue. It was an assertion that race is used by politicians and the 1% to divide us by putting into poor white people an attitude that they are better than a black person facing the exact same problems. The claim behind this is not that racial prejudices do not exist but that society is oppressing everyone the same except for a select few and the oppressors are served by the oppressed either blaming the other race or feeling privileged over the other race. The worse the economic situation of the society or the person addressed, the easier it is to distract him from the real source of his problems.
Thus we would say to a poor white person who thinks they are better individually or better off than a minority, you are wrong and being manipulated. However, are you not saying the same thing? "Fast forward to the end of this glorious classicism battle .... I will still be less well off than you."
The OP says white people who think/feel they are better than other races by reason of being white are Wrong. I would hope you agree. However, Similarly, your posts (including past ones) seem to be based on two assertions that to me exhibit some of the same blindness. First, you want to assert that white people of equal situations are more privileged than black people facing the exact same dilemma and second that "white people" are inherently responsible for problems facing black people (even the privileged ones) either because they are racist or because they are privileged.
Some of us just think that universal solutions are the only ones that work because there really is no solution to race other than by building a universal and fair society that ignores an individuals race rather than divides us into races then somehow solves our grievances. You believe the other but in no post have you actually defined what that means. I have seen some posts about "recognizing privilege" but then is silent as to what is next or how that is supposed to work. Getting to a fairer economic society might involve some of the same elements since it is clearly not what we have now but I can put forward specific solutions directed at what I see is the problem. I would like a wealth tax, high inheritance tax, socialized basics, and a negative income tax. All economic solutions to economic problems.
In this thread you mentioned "past grievances." So what exactly makes up for past grievances in your book? Is it economic reparations meaning that if you are black of the same class as a white person you get the reparations (an economic solution)? Is it just that you want more black members of the 1% so that we are equally oppressed. Just what does it mean? With respect to privilege you and other posters seem to mostly tie it to acknowledgment when asked steps. Again, I would love specifics on how this all works.
What exactly is the process that you want that would solve the racial status quo. Is it just in white people or is it universal. At what point and with what objective characteristics of society could one say that the status quo is no longer racist and white people are no longer privileged or it always the case that you will always be less well off regardless of whether that is objectively true.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Last edited Thu Feb 5, 2015, 08:26 AM - Edit history (1)
because you talk about my referencing "past grievances", and therefore, do not know/are unwilling to acknowledge that the grievances are not "past."
Further, you reference having read post after post, yet ask the same questions, answered in my posts.
And this, statement:
Is so ... I don't know how to describe it. I want to say, ignorant; but that would not do it justice ... perhaps, stupid; but that would be dismissed as offensive ... so suffice it to say, so wrong, that I cannot respond. "
s)ociety is oppressing everyone the same" can only be argued if one ignores the clear and current racial disparities that exist {ETA: ... unless one starts from a place where those racial disparities are the proper and normal state.
So I will not be answering your queries ... but here is something that would be beneficial ... take each and every point you are asking me, research them and answer them for yourself. You will only accept that which comes from you.
Peace.
Rilgin
(787 posts)I do read your posts. What I have noticed is what I put in my post. If I read you right you would like society to address social disparities before class disparities. You seem to acknowledge that is what you want. You also seem to think that no matter what if race is not addressed you will be less off. That is your words. I would just like to hear one statement listing exactly the disparities and specific solutions you would propose to eliminate them that does not involve fixing our economic system. What system based racial disparities are left if you eliminate disparities in the class system. I would love to see just one example of what you would want that is more than people being treated fairly by society.
BTW, your post is somewhat slippery. I did not originate the term past grievances. You did. YOU (emphasis added) used the word "past grievances" in saying what was left if we fixed class problems. Not me. Again read that closely you, not me. Take responsibility for your own words when someone asks YOU what YOU mean when YOU say that.
Historically, black people (not you personally) faced slavery, jim crow, redlining and other problems. There were horrible and had system support. But lots of races have faced societal imposed or supported problems. My ancestors were imprisoned, made to work, starved and some were then killed in this century alone. Historically, my race has been outcast and mistreated for centuries and this continues today in many parts of the world. Meanwhile, my relatives had nothing to do with what was happening here to black people since they were not in the US. Do you think social and distributional priorities in the US where I am now a citizen should be based on what happened to our ancestors? How do you judge slavery and jim crow versus work camps and the gas chamber if whats important is past grievances against the world? Then there are all the sh** that has happened to ancestors of all races historically. Personally, I would rather address present problems that affect all living individuals. Otherwise you sound like my grandfather who thinks my race is the only race that has faced genocide and should be treated as special by society. He closes his ears when I point him to Cambodia and Algeria because he like you wants only to see his situation as unique and special.
Ultimately, I respect your dedication to your issue. However, I just find it limiting to see race problems as fundamental and unchanging. Generations change as do attitudes to others. The current generation is more racially mixed than the last one. Your problems are not the problems facing your ancestors.
Further, I think racial impacts are more capable of solution if treated as a symptom of a greater system problem to the fullest extent possible. Civil rights laws ban discrimination on race, not just one race. These are good laws. I think civil rights and economic justice for all people are better causes than single race causes.
To give you one pertinent example. Statistically, the criminal justice system imposed longer sentences for crack possession than cocaine for no reason. More black people are imprisoned and for longer sentences than white violators of drug laws. There are probably also racial targeting issues that also result in this disparity. I look at this and think the problem and solution is not in the racial disparity, the solution is the drug laws themselves. My answer is not to fix the relative sentences so white cocaine violators have longer sentences or crack users less or try to make sure police do not target black people for drug crimes in proportions greater than white people. I would make drugs not a criminal matter; not imprison anyone. If you did not imprison people for drugs, the race problem would be irrelevant in drug sentencing. Dealing with race would leave people still in jail although in equal proportions.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Would be an excellent point for you to begin your self-study ... I can think of several.
Rilgin
(787 posts)You are the expert and its your issue. Why dont you educate me. You dont even have to go that deep, just give me the name and your proposed solution.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)and from what I've read, a bad faith argument, at that! ... as evidence by your tepid acknowledgement of current racial disparities, while made less relevant because (I presume) your Jewish ancestors were work camped and gassed ... in Europe, and overcame/survived here in America.
Rilgin
(787 posts)I open DU and read a lot of posts daily and have for years. I respond to very few. Usually, because I am interested in an issue not to just argue. If I wanted to just argue I could find many places to argue and you would see hundreds of posts of mine. My guess is I also responded to you because I think I disagree with you and you both post a lot and have strong opinions and might be best able to define this point of view so I can evaluate it.
In this thread, I have asked a few times for you to explain what YOU mean if class problems were solved how you would be less well off than others. For your sake and to be clear, I did not say anything about current disparities. With respect to tepidness. Reversing your pointing finger, I see no acknowledgement by you of the struggles of every other race historically (not just mine). I brought in my ancestors only because as an objective measure being killed seems pretty bad if you want to go to past greivances if and when all current problems are fixed (a happy thought). Know that I also point out to my current relatives that genocide is not solely a jewish historical fact. As should be obvious from my views that class is the problem, I do not think we get very far comparing notes on how society oppressed our ancestors.
I was not asked to present my views on current disparities or acknowledge them. It was the other way around. I asked you what you see as the non-class based racial disparities (claims you made in your post) and asked what steps you think we would need to fix them independent of universal fixes to our economic system. That is the only point and only question of my post.
You can call it bad faith or whatever you want if it makes you feel good. You just have taken the path of anyone who does not want to explain their position. No examination of whether one can refine ones point so others can understand, its all the other persons fault.
Self education will never let me know what you mean by what you say. Only you can. I am not curious at this point about what racial disparities mean to others. I am curious what your point was in this thread here. It did trigger something that I was curious about as have some of your other posts.
I will ask you once more. I further promise that I will not respond in this thread and may never address one of your posts again. However, before I leave this I would ask you to please give me just one explanation of which racial disparities need to be fixed outside of the struggle for economic justice and some general idea of how you would see that accomplished (its complicated so I am not asking for full answers). Futher, I would love to hear the one point that triggered my initial response which was your claim that disparities would remain if a class struggle was victorious.. Again, returning to your words. How would you be less well off if there were a victory in the class war for all of us.
This promise should address your claim of argument. No matter what you post, I will not respond even if you just avoid it again. So take care. I really hope however, I hear one explanation (not mere assertion) of what you mean.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I will take you at your word and will provide you answers (starting with this thread ... or if you prefer, starting wherever you choose). However, it will have to wait until the weekend (probably, Sunday) when I have more time.
Rilgin
(787 posts)Will bend my promise a little and respond by thanking you. Away from a computer for a few days myself but will look for it when I get back. I believe I will find it useful and interesting.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)A complete inability (maybe subconscious and not malicious) to understand what you are saying because of the obvious lack of experience.
These conversations are typical of white people who do not wish to acknowledge the problem and that it is of their making.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)but rather, self-convinced superiority-based, i.e., they argument is more valid than a Black man's so I can just talk around his points until he gives up and I win ... proving my superiority.
Notice it's been more than a year ... with no further discussion.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)brush
(56,726 posts)With a helping of solidarity also.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)one ignores the grievance of those you seek solidarity with ... Me working to put money in your pocket (i.e., fight the "classism" fight), might put money in my pocket; but, I will still leave me with the intra-class racial disparity that exists at every class level.
brush
(56,726 posts)I was hoping that building solidarity among the poor of all races would maybe raise awareness that the poor, no matter what the race, have more in common with each other than they do the 1%.
Some might call that naivete, I call it optimism and something to work towards.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I think, too many, think that racism/discrimination is something foisted on PoC by the oligarchs for the purpose of dividing economic-likes; rather than, something PRACTICED by economic-likes, that has the effect of dividing economic likes.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)brush
(56,726 posts)so on point.
There are and have been some good people (in the minority unfortunately) that have helped in the struggle. It's always best to help yourself though.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 8, 2015, 11:05 AM - Edit history (1)
and denying the real purpose of the republican party and their machine. Make as many whites HATE POC as they possibly can, that's make poor whites and 'others' hate POC and then find some liberal who will buy into the class division BS as the MAIN problem, throw in some distraction about class separation in this culture, which is true but not the major problem and it=victory for the RW as evidenced on Nov.4, 2014. Race played a huge role in this last election, from the POTUS being a POC to the "takers" Faux news kept those points in front of the 'poor' whites. The pockets of the poor will never be filled as long as racism is the key tool used by the Reichwing to instigate the division. Money is key, race division because of inherent cultural racism is the easy primary tool used by RW. And an idiot like Ben Carson further clouds the racial problems of this culture and allows race to be diminished as THE primary tool of division in america used by the RW. Don't care if you believe it or not.
Response to FLPanhandle (Reply #15)
Name removed Message auto-removed
steve2470
(37,461 posts)Race + economic justice for all = winning strategy.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)How is "economic justice for all" regardless of race not a winning strategy?
Race just divides the poor into camps that will vote against each other thus helps republicans.
steve2470
(37,461 posts)We Democrats cannot avoid race in our platform and in our strategies. Race is the elephant in the room. So, we disagree. Have a lovely day, sir.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Black folks vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Black Democrats vote for Democrats, whether Black or white.
So do I have to ask the who is "helping the republicans" question?
JI7
(90,196 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)3rd-way has simultaneously been described as too focused on (the lesser) social issues (and distracting from the "real" issue) AND in opposition to social issues.
3rd-Way Defined, per DU postings: Anything group or political/social philosophy or strategy, not focused on putting more money in poor(er, than "the Oligarchs"
, straight, white (male's) pocket. {ETA:} Any benefits accruing to other groups is merely an talking point plus.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)It cannot and should not abandon the race issues. Those issues have been a part of this country since its inception and will continue long past when you and I aren't living.
In many ways I feel people who actually live in the south are most responsible for improving things there. What works in local elections and at state levels in one area may not work in other areas with different histories and demographics.
I see your point about the value of economic populism. One that essentially breaks the so-called 'southern strategy' so effectively used by republicans since the time of LBJ and Nixon. As a democratic socialist, I believe class issues are very important.
But we must do it in a human and sensitive way that takes into account the terrible history of race, both past and present. Acknowledge and appreciate the significant strength that people of color have given and continue to give to the democratic party. We must listen to them with all ears in our heart and minds on policy and strategy issues. We must include and expand their involvement in our party. Just as I believe we must expand and involve women's and involvement from people from every race, color, creed, sexual orientation, etc. Have more running for office and involved in our party on all levels: state, local, federal, micro local, top to bottom, inside out, outside in (I've run out of emphasis, lol).
How can that be done? Winning elections, appealing on class issues, while maintaining the party's commitment to civil rights? Starting with the present and moving forward?
This question is to you and anyone else reading!
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)However, class can be the major message of the party. That helps everyone and shouldn't even be a debate here (yet it is).
calimary
(83,685 posts)I find it laughably ironic that the GOP have embraced what a Democrat said and have made it the subtitle on the cover of their "bible". Or in their case it would be "buy-bull."
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
malthaussen
(17,562 posts)Seems like most people want someone they can look down on. They'll make up whatever rationale they find satisfactory to do so. Which, now that I think of it, is true when people look up as well.
-- Mal
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)"Reagan Democrat". It's all about race!
LBJ knew this, and that's why he lamented the fact that the Democratic Party would "lose the South" as he signed Civil Rights legislation into law.
LBJ was a racist, and yet ever since Barack Obama stepped foot into office, DUers complained that he (Obama) isn't tough like LBJ, isn't ruthless like LBJ, doesn't threatened or tower over senators like LBJ did; doesn't back his enemies into a corner just as LBJ did.
What they forget is that LBJ served only one term. His actions in the Gulf of Tonkin (illegal as they were) jumpstarted the Vietnam War, which is one reason why he decided not to run again for office. And most of all, LBJ enjoyed support from the leftist of left in the Democratic Party, liberal and moderate Republicans from the coasts who didn't mind civil rights and other progressive issues and joined those liberal Democrats--and worked with LBJ to get things passed.
THIS *BLACK* president does not and NEVER HAD such a majority, regardless of what any DUer says or anyone on the wingnut right says. No matter how much and how often they perpetuate this lie that Obama enjoyed a majority Democratic House and Senate, it's simply not 100% true--to the extent that there were enough Democrats there to create winning coalitions (LIEberman and Baucus threatening to bolt the party!!???)
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)"LBJ was a racist" deniers.
Research LBJ's discussions weighing the appointment of Thurgood Marshall versus A. Leon Higginbotham, Jr., to the SCOTUS ... the N-word was not spared. But for once, in America, being viewed by a white person as a "real" N-word was a benefit, rather than a burden.
I'll try and find a link to the taped telephone call.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)
pansypoo53219
(21,567 posts)and the gnewz media still wants to believe in that crap.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)child will not grow up to be one who judges his own worth by how he compares to others.
highmindedhavi
(355 posts)this will be a minor issue when us Latinos and Asians become the majority of the population.
valerief
(53,235 posts)Thespian2
(2,741 posts)but not for the stereotype on the left.
Hassin Bin Sober
(26,635 posts)(Warning he uses the N word)
https://m.
Duppers
(28,213 posts)Those are the spot-on differences between Democratic and Teapublicans.
Thanks for reporting these!
bayareaboy
(793 posts)LBJ was asked once which was better the Senate or the House. He was a member of both bodies and his answer was the Senate was Chicken Salad and the House was Chicken Shit!
That man knew it and said it well.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)grew up in a sharecropper family in Texas. She understood this as well as anyone. She drummed this into our heads.
Unfortunately it didn't register with some family members.
I come from a very large family, and I can count on one hand those I allow contact with.
hibbing
(10,380 posts)A South politician preaches to the poor white man
“You got more than the blacks, don’t complain.
You’re better than them, you been born with white skin,” they explain.
And the Negro’s name
Is used it is plain
For the politician’s gain
As he rises to fame
And the poor white remains
On the caboose of the train
But it ain’t him to blame
He’s only a pawn in their game
Peace
JAbuchan08
(3,046 posts)Rich whites vote Republican more consistently than poor whites. There are other factors absolutely. Poor southern whites are more likely to vote Republican than poor northern whites, and perhaps even rich northern whites in some cases, but rich southern whites are more likely than poor southern whites to vote GOP and the same is true in the north. Wealth is a great predictor of peoples political loyalties, but the reality of what it predicts might not *quite* fit the common stereotype.
lovemydog
(11,833 posts)Plus, the times change and things move in ways we don't immediately see.
We as democrats have an opportunity to help break the 'southern strategy' used by republicans who race as a wedge issue. The language may be subtle or even not mentioned by some, but to my ears & mind it's race-bailting. Why else would so many southern whites vote against their economic interests.
A question for democrats going forward, in my view, is how do we appeal to white voters in the south while maintaining total commitment to both civil rights and economic opportunity for everyone?
JI7
(90,196 posts)programs as giveaways to minorities .
this is why there was support for govt assistance before civil rights. but went down after civil rights when it was viewed as minorities benefiting.
JustAnotherGen
(33,170 posts)When minorities were included in the assistance that as tax payers - they had paid into. IE When we started getting our piece of the pie - to include access to public schools not heated with wood burning stoves.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)that gave us Reagan and started to wreck even the suburbs--used to be you could afford a house with a job, but in CA they gave us Prop 13
of course ultimately it's not what party everyone's voting for, but what kind of pol's produced
pampango
(24,692 posts)liberals from ruining my life."
IOW, "I blame all the OTHERS out there, not the rich white guy who lives on the other side of town in a walled community."
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)and one great point.
LBJ was sooooooo right.