Senate "Race" Relations (was "U.S. Society and Black Men")

In the same way we needed to build awareness about how wicked Joseph Kony was?

KW, talk is very cheap and that's why people love it. You can buy it in bulk, get a discount, and use it all up with minimal effort.

You've been talking for decades, and even after a black man gets elected president you're still faced with huge systemic bias. At what point do you admit your approach is failing?

 

They'll get pipelines built through their land and they'll damn well like it!

 

We haven't talked about it-- not seriously, and definitely not led by people in both parties. Instead, we have high level officials of a major party either acquiescing to racism or actively leading it. The southern strategy worked, and it's still working in a limited way. When elected officials say it's okay, people take their cues from there.

 

I haven't followed this thread closely nor do I want to get all philosophical but I'd be interested in hearing about the impact of the whole gangsta rap hip/hop movement and particularly the gang culture and how that has impacted on the attitude of cops to African Americans. When I was a long haired, nose pierced young lad I had a Body Couint T-Shirt with "Cop Killer" all over the front and let me tell you that went down a treat with the cops that I came into contact with.

 

This is where I disagree, Ender. The first step in addressing any problem is admitting that you have one. More precisely, admitting precisely what the problem is. Our racial discussions in this country have mostly boiled down to two camps.

Camp 1 (liberals and most minorities, generally) say that racial disparities exist because minorities suffer under the yoke of historical, systemic, and institutionalized racism which is exacerbated by a opportunistic media landscape that inculcates America with a slanted view of black Americans (men, in particular). The result of this environment is generational poverty, poor education, and drug and gang-infested neighborhoods. The solutions that they present largely involve providing direct financial support to those people to ensure that they have the basic necessities of life because they're in their situation due to no fault of their own as well as advocating increased public funding for education.

Camp 2 (white conservatives, generally) say that racial disparities exist because minorities have a victim-hood mentality and refuse to take advantage of all the opportunities this country has to offer; that rampant single-parent households, enabled by policies which incentivize seeking government assistance over working, have created an opening for drugs and gangs to establish a foothold in poor neighborhoods, which drives out private sector investment, driving down property values and consequently limiting economic opportunity for the people living their. The solutions they present involve increased police presence to drive out the gangs, business-friendly economic policies to encourage entrepreneurship in poor neighborhoods, restrictions on direct assistance to prevent dependency, increased choice for education, etc.

With neither camp really agreeing on the root of the problem and both solutions being diametrically opposed to one another, every 4 yrs or so, the political parties shift around and a new set of old solutions crop up. What's more, because its such an emotional issue, we're afraid to talk through it and realize that the causes are complex, as are the solutions. So yes, when we talk about race, people retreat to their respective camps and accuse the other of not having any solutions (or even being intentionally responsible for the problem in the first place).

But here we are talking about it. Me, the black lolbertarian (or whatever caricature we're using these days) in agreement with the white liberals about this particular issue. We're agreeing on a particular problem. We've got KK (last I checked, a pretty conservative dude) agreeing that there is something ****ed up with the police force. To me, that's progress. Because if we agree on what this problem is, only then can we start having a rational discussion about how to fix it.

Do I agree that economic opportunity is the* answer? Yes. But I allow for the possibility that there is more to it than that. For us to find the answer(s), we have to actually have a reasonable dialog. And that begins with admitting that we have problem.


*I certainly don't think it's the only answer.

Edit: And yes, I agree that talk is cheap. If there is one thing I'm extremely disappointed in President Obama about it is this subject. He's made like three speeches on race (he's good at speeches) in his tenure but actually done nothing to address the problems.

 

Noundy, I think you're a black Colbertarian. <3

 

I think the President has chosen not to do much about race to avoid accusations of bias and to avoid further inflaming racial tensions. I'm not sure what he could have done. The most effective leadership can happen at the congressional level, where elected officials can and should confront racism, and most certainly should not be using it in their favor.

 

KW - I suppose it could be argued that there's a discussion to be had on how the first African-American president in US history possibly did more to advance the equality of GLBT-based items, potentially at the expense of any race-based items he could have focused on, when the African-American community at-large may be one of the worst homophobic demographics around if I'm remembering my statistics correctly?

 

Noundy, who said it's not a problem? Question is if talk will achieve anything, which we seem to agree it probably won't?

Bull. You're making excuses for him. He lacked the courage to lead on this one.

 

Okay. What should he have done?

 

The facetious but obvious answer is something.

 

Name some particular things, Ender. It's easy to stand in the peanut gallery, but I'm asking for specific things he could have said or actions he could have taken.

 

I decided to call it a night after my last post but made a mental note to come back to this when I got up.

First off, I agree with you about his motivations--he has gone to great lengths to avoid accusations of bias. But that's because he's a political coward (at least on race issues). dp4m is spot on. His boldest political move was to come out in support of GLBT rights which only happened when he was dragged into it by Joe Biden's "gaffe" in an election year. Prior to that, the GLBT community was furious with him about how little he had done for them since going into office. Less than a month later, he made some big announcements regarding executive action on illegal immigration (sound familiar?) to shore up his support in the Hispanic community. Then he did something for the unions. By the time the November 12 elections rolled around, he had checked off pretty much all his base constituents. You know who he didn't address? Black Americans. And, as I said, I suspect you're (mostly) right. But I also think it was because he didn't have to. He knew black Americans would vote for him in overwhelming numbers no matter what, so why spend political capital on them? And, of course, he was right.

What could/should he have done? Across the country, every yera there are all kinds of groups and conferences that meet to address black American problems. Some are fairly political organizations (NAACP), but most are non-partisan that include a wide variety of people from community activists to business leaders. They represent all kinds of perspectives from the Al Sharptons of the world to the Bill Cosbys and Herman Cains. He could go and participate in them. Heck, he could sponsor one. Why not have one of his beer summits to address the issues in the black community? How about visiting poor black communities and recognizing leaders who are doing something to address the problems there? Why not commend Magic Johnson, for example, who has invested millions in poor black communities?

All of the above can be done with little overhead (on his part, anyway), reap potentially enormous benefits, and cost very little politically (really. Who, other than the usual suspects, is going to criticize a president for highlighting problems in poor neighborhoods?)

But all of that requires him to actually make an effort--do the real work of working with people and talking and engaging. And if there's one thing President Obama seems to abhor, it is doing that kind of work. I honestly don't know how he functioned as a community activist.

 

Another one.

http://newsone.com/3043951/ezell-ford-unarmed-black-man-shot-and-killed-by-lapd/

 

Mmmmmm... I'm not so sure. I mean, there's a rational case to be made that if a religious figure is making hate speech a normal part of his or her rhetoric and a major candidate for political office is continuously attending those services... there's sort of a valid case there.

In Obama's case, it seemed clear that it evolved to a certain thing and he left, at least as far as I can remember. But I think it's dangerous to just blanket statement that "we're not responsible for continuously subjecting ourselves to something bad"...

 

Interestingly, his reaction in 2008 really made me rethink him. Until that point, I had assessed him to be a very eloquent speaker who never really addressed anything "real". Then he gave his speech and I was impressed. Then he did nothing. At all. Until the Harvard Professor, which I thought was handled fairly poorly. Then Trayvon Martin, which was...ok. But that just goes to illustrate my point. He's been in office for 6 yrs and has talked about race relations maybe 3 times--one of which was during his campaign. So like less once every two years on average. And in each case, nothing more than a speech about understanding and empathy.

That's real political courage right there.

 

This is just a question floating in my head - at this point, he's got carte blanche, no fear of losing the next election, so why wouldn't he just go and get things done with regards to persistent racism? How deep in the political apparatus does racism and prejudice run - not against Obama, but amongst elected officials who think (however erroneously) to address these issues is political suicide? Or am I just asking the wrong questions?

 

Dude, you're asking the same damned question I've been asking since he got re-elected. I never voted for the man because I disagree with him on just about every policy issue out there. But I rooted for him. I especially rooted for him to take a more active role in improving the plight of the black American community. I figured he was waiting until after re-election. But what have we gotten? White House statements in response to race-related events, at best.

But he has no agenda on race; no stated vision or policy goals; nothing. I'm sure if I go digging around on the white house website, I might find a throw-away line or two about improving minority opportunities or what-have-you, but it's clearly not something he spends energy on. Why? I have no idea. He's been hammering away at the GOP on illegal immigration, trying to widen the gap between the Hispanic community and the GOP but somehow he's afraid of being divisive if he aggressively addresses racism? It makes no damned sense.

 

But I mean, could that be because of this assumption it'll never get proper support?

 

Definitely, I don't dispute that he's got no reason to not take a stand on it now - he literally can't get re-elected, he's got two years left, just go nuts with progressive ideas and legislation. But I mean, I'm genuinely curious as to how ingrained racism is, even in the political apparatus. Are folks afraid of angry racists not voting for them?