I don’t agree with every little tidbit of his speech, but I do think he’s right. The deny, avoid, ignore pattern is so prevalent when it comes to race, and it doesn’t serve the interest of racial justice at all.
Here’s a quote about Holder’s speech, and a link to the entire article:
In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.
In the speech, Holder urged people of all races to use Black History Month as a chance for honest discussion of racial matters, including issues of health care, education and economic disparities.
“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards,” Holder said.
Race issues continue to be a topic of political discussion, but “we, as average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”
Holder’s speech echoed President Barack Obama’s landmark address last year on race relations during the hotly contested Democratic primaries, when the then-candidate urged the nation to break “a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years” and bemoaned the “chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.” Obama delivered the speech to try to distance himself from the angry rhetoric of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Holder cited that speech by Obama as part of the motivation for his words Wednesday, saying Americans need to overcome an ingrained inhibition against talking about race.
“If we’re going to ever make progress, we’re going to have to have the guts, we have to have the determination, to be honest with each other. It also means we have to be able to accept criticism where that is justified,” Holder told reporters after the speech.
Fine. Talk about it then.
I think very good points were made in the speech. Of course, as with all things every ounce of the speech can’t be applied to every person in America. With that said, there’s a large number of individuals who can relate. It they want to. As the speech said, someone needs to take the step and be the bold one.
Now I don’t know if criticism should be apart of the stepping stone. We have enough of that going around all ready. But people can definitely attempt to make greater strides towards understanding differences without the “I tolerate you because I have to” attitude. But who will be the genius to make the first step???
As Attorney General, Eric Holder is not only a government official, but he represents the current administration. What he says publicly then can be taken as reflective of the administration’s views.
The white majority and the black minority have a long, awkward history in the US, and each person tries to get by and get along in their lives as best they can. There are historical and cultural reasons why blacks and whites don’t socialize more than they do off the job, and why whites prefer to live in all-white neighborhoods. Most people are getting along just fine in their private lives or are at least trying to carve out their own brand of personal happiness there. It’s none of Holder’s or the administration’s business what private citizens do in their private lives.
With all the real problems facing America and the world — tangible, identifiable, immediate problems — Why do we have the US Attorney General grabbing headlines for himself by using inflammatory words like “cowards” to discuss sensitive, personal issues such as how people spend their free time and where they choose to live? Does the Attorney General have so little to say of relevance to his own office? Is this sort of irrelevant nonsense what we can expect from the current administration?
I don’t agree with this part, “Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives.”
I don’t know that I would call many workplaces integrated, especially when so many of them have overwhelmingly white staffers at the top of the pay/power hierarchy and disproportionately people of color at the bottom.
I also hate the term “self segregate.” I think that may be true for a large percentage of whites, but I don’t think that is as true for people of color. For example, the housing data shows that a large majority of African Americans want to live in racially mixed neighborhoods, and a large majority of whites want to live in white neighborhoods. I don’t like any phrasing that acts as if the problem of racism is a problem created equally by the dominant group and the marginalized groups.
Holder may be speaking to some extent from his own current position as a fairly socioeconomically privileged person, who presumably knows a lot of the black elite of Washington, D.C. An upper-middle-class black person working in DC but living in the suburbs kind of does have the choice between whether to go into the majority white suburbs of Virginia, or go to PG County, or neighborhoods like Homeland in Baltimore. There’s enough of a black upper-middle and even upper class now, that black parents who want their kids to be around other kids who are all going to college and becoming professionals, no longer have to deal with the traumas of sending their kids to be one of two black kids at a private school, upscale summer camp, etc.
Holder is probably well aware of these facts, as he belongs to Alpha Phi Alpha (an elite black frat) and otherwise fits well into the black upper/upper-middle-class: Ivy League professional, married to a professional, well-connected in DC. I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s gone through the same dilemma of whether to make more effort to integrate socially among white people, or make his social life less tense by spending most of his non-work time among other black elites.
And this is why discussing race is such a problem. The left immediately goes into “blame whitey” mode. Housing data is being mentioned as “proof” of white racism; but I don’t see any actual data, just a claim by someone who says that is what the data says.
But I thought liberals believed in all things being equal. Basically what I’m seeing is that only whites can be racists. Because they are white.
I’m still waiting for the honest conversation on race to begin. This isn’t it.
SteveIL,
You’ll have to forgive Rachel for thinking that if you have a sincere interest in this issue, you might look up the data yourself. To get you started:
Whites’ unwillingness to live in neighborhoods with more than a token presence of blacks: http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/D/20024725.html
Regional differences in white flight (indicating that neighborhoods are more likely to stay integrated in the West and in small cities in the South): http://paa2004.princeton.edu/download.asp?submissionId=41288
A caution against measuring integration only at a single point in time, as neighborhoods often are transitioning from being majority white, to being “integrated,” to being majority POC: http://www.irpumn.org/website/conference/materials/sessionII_morfield.ppt
Also, the research indicates that “steering” and “redlining” actually go both ways: if a white person seeking to buy a home does not specify that she wants to live in a racially integrated neighborhood, realtors generally will steer her away from such neighborhoods on the assumption that white people will want to live with other white people.
Roger, please read a Supreme Court decision that has been described as “rolling back Brown v. Board.” The Supreme Court decision is called Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1. The entire issue of the case is whether the city school administrators can assign students to schools outside their neighborhoods, in order to ensure integrated schools. A 5-4 Supreme Court said they couldn’t. In case you didn’t know, the Department of Justice, of which Attorney General Eric Holder is the head, has just a little bit to do with tracking things like Supreme Court decisions, local compliance therewith, etc.
First off, she mentioned studies, not me. Maybe it would have been more helpful to have provided the information.
Second, you’re right; I’m not interested in the studies and would reject them. After taking a look at the ones you provided (not in great detail, but enough), I would say they were based on proving a false premise, that whites are inherently racist, and making sure they have the data in place to back it up.
We’ve heard this all before from the left; it isn’t anything new. It’s all meant to continue an attempt to instill liberal “white guilt” amongst all white Americans. Yet, none of that data can explain how African-Americans are elected to office all across the land, and not simply in areas containing a majority of African-Americans. It doesn’t explain how many African-Americans are self-made multi-millionaires selling their goods and services to all people in this country. And the data doesn’t explain how Barack Obama got elected if there is a predisposition to believe that all whites are racists.
Now that that is out of the way, I’m still waiting for the honest conversation on race to begin.
After taking a look at the ones you provided (not in great detail, but enough), I would say they were based on proving a false premise, that whites are inherently racist, and making sure they have the data in place to back it up. … Now that that is out of the way, I’m still waiting for the honest conversation on race to begin.
Bwahahahaha. I’ll start that honest conversation as soon as you provide your proof that these studies “were based on proving a false premise, that whites are inherently racist, and making sure they have the data in place to back it up.” It’s hard to believe someone really wants honesty when he presumes that others are dishonest because they provide conclusions with which he disagrees.
Remember, this is what Rachel got out of those studies:
To put it more simply, African-American people are good, white people (who are also Americans) are bad. Except, this data doesn’t explain what I had mentioned before:
There. I’ve just proven those studies false. The only conclusion that I can draw is that those studies were based on trying to prove a false premise to begin with.
So is it that you believe whites are inherently racist, despite the evidence to the contrary? And if that is the case, how can anyone discuss race in this country with those who believe this is so?
No one can have an honest discussion with someone who, instead of addressing her actual words, makes up for himself what she has said in order to have a strawman to battle. Rachel did not say, “African-American people are good, white people are bad.” This is what you want her to say, so that you can dismiss her argument easily. This is intellectual dishonesty.
SteveIL:
PG and SteveIL, I’ll speak to some of my own experiences of race. In my lifetime I moved around quite a bit, as a result of my parents jobs. No matter where we went part of me always felt like an outsider because of my race. I’d go to a school with predominately white people, one place in particular stuck with me because I was the only black guy in my grade. In that particular place I made an effort to fit in, but it was stranger than other periods. In all of the predominately white areas I went I could never escape the feeling that I was a representative of my race.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, when I went to a predominately black school (I’ve really been to only one) I felt like something of an outcast also. I guess I’d missed out on some of the culture.
I’ve been to places where racial diversity was much more the norm, particularly at DOD installations overseas, and a few places in the U.S. I’ve felt the most comfortable with my race there.
SteveIL, the sneering tone of contempt in your posts — as well as your willingness to use faux-paraprhasing to lie about what other posters have said, as PG correctly pointed out in comment #12 — suggests to me that you’re not willing to have a mutually respectful, intelligent conversation.
If you can’t moderate your belligerent tone, and start responding more honestly to what others say (which doesn’t require you to agree with others, just to not make up blatant lies about what they’ve said), you’ll be asked to stop posting comments on “Alas.”
thebigmanfred, what do you do now, and how did you get past your feelings of being a representative of your race (I’m assuming you did)?
Second, you’re right; I’m not interested in the studies and would reject them.
There really is nowhere to go from here, is there? I mean, suspecting that studies are likely to be biased and critiquing their methodology and application is fair game and absolutely appropriate in a back-and-forth debate. Stating flatly that you are not interested and would reject studies contradicting your beliefs – well, there is just no point in continuing. Reject the entire concept of empirical evidence, and debate is nothing more than just throwing meaningless words back and forth. We might find the right combination of words to convince you, but no advancement in human knowledge will have been achieved.
SteveIL
I don’t know that the feeling ever left me. I think it depends on how knowledgeable others of a different race are about race. When I was in predominately white schools, I couldn’t help but feel that way because I seemed to have to field questions. Like “what do black people think about this or that issue?” To the extent that I have to answer questions like that I feel like I’m a representative then. And, because there were so few black people around, I often felt obligated to do so (although I didn’t have to answer those questions).
In places with more racial diversity I didn’t feel that way because, there just seemed to be more racial understanding, probably because it was more difficult to avoid people of other races. That kind of melting pot creates more racial understanding I think.
What I try to do know is to make people feel comfortable about talking about race, even if I may find what people say about it offensive.* The one thing I’ve learned, this seemed to be true in almost every majority white school I went to, was that they were frequently scared to talk about race. It was the uncomfortable subject. At the same time, they felt there were unresolved things, that there were things they wanted to talk about but felt they never could and still be taken seriously or would be called racist. I now try to make them fell comfortable that they can do this with me, that I’ll take what they have to say seriously and that we can really have a dialogue if they want to talk about it.
*I have experienced conversations that most would find offensive. Like a conversation in my HS econ class about whether white people can say the N word. These conversations are important to me even though they can be offensive.
Amen, to that.
Bravo to Attorney General Holder. I’m interested in how his words will translate to action in the DOJ considering how it’s been run in the past eight years.
I could see where that would make you uncomfortable, especially if it happened quite a bit. I wouldn’t say that I understand how it feels since I wasn’t in the position you were in. And I think that may be the crux of it; there is really no way for anybody who wasn’t put in that same position as you were to understand how you felt.
I think what you do is all anyone would ask for in order to discuss race.
Let me ask you this; did these kids in the white schools talk to you as if they were trying to use what you told them to put you down?
What kind of conversation does Atty. Gen. Holder think people need to have about race? What outcome does he want to see?
What kind of conversation do you think people need to hold about race? What outcome do you want to see?
Do you think that describing people as “cowards” will facilitate these discussions or cause people to reject Holder’s leadership and remarks on this?
SteveIL
Thanks. When they were approaching from ignorance and wanted to learn, I had no problem with explaining if I had the time. What I tried to keep in mind was that many of them had little experience with other races, so I’d attempt to educate them if they wanted to know and I had the knowledge.
Exactly. I take the same line in a conversation with them also. I’m not white, so I don’t know what it feels like to be white. I can however try to understand. All I can ask for is that they reciprocate, that they try to understand also.
What I got from them was a sense that curiosity. I don’t think they had any desire to put me down. Of course, I can’t say for sure, but my impression was that they didn’t want to put me down.
What kind of conversation does Atty. Gen. Holder think people need to have about race?
I think he wants people to speak honestly across racial lines about how they think race operates in America, rather than circumscribing those conversations to their own racial group or not having them at all.
What outcome does he want to see?
I think the outcome for which he hopes is that people learn from each other and understand much more than before about others’ perspectives, and ultimately feel more comfortable with each other such that people don’t self-segregate in their social lives but instead have racially integrated social lives because they no longer feel self-conscious, guarded, Othered or foreign when around people of other races.
What kind of conversation do you think people need to hold about race?
I’m not sure.
What outcome do you want to see?
The erasure of race by mass miscegenation. I think that requires something more like what once was called “criminal conversation,” though.
Do you think that describing people as “cowards” will facilitate these discussions or cause people to reject Holder’s leadership and remarks on this?
I think Shelton is correct that it will, if not facilitate, catalyze or precipitate these discussion: “Nobody wants to be considered a coward. We’ve learned to get along by exclusion and silence. We need to talk about it. People need to feel comfortable saying the wrong things.”
What outcome do you want to see?
The erasure of race by mass miscegenation.
I am doing my part.
PG’s snide reply to my thoughts (“In case you didn’t know . . .”) do not seem in keeping with the moderator’s guidelines on mutual respect. Further, the reply doesn’t address what I was talking about in the first place, that it’s not a proper function of government to interfere in the private lives of citizens, and that the Attorney General should have more pertinent things to address, issues that are in keeping with function of his office. This has nothing to do with school busing or any other Supreme Court cases.
Just race? Any of the other distinctions which form a basis for separation, hostility and power relations? Religion? Language? Gender?
Roger, I have no idea whether you’re aware of the AG or DOJ functions. Your belief that “why whites prefer to live in all-white neighborhoods … [is not] of relevance to his own office” indicated that either you weren’t aware of the DOJ’s part in enforcing Supreme Court decisions or briefing the cases, or you weren’t aware that residential integration would eliminate the need for busing, which the Seattle Schools opinion effectively rendered unconstitutional.
You believe that all-white neighborhoods are a wholly private matter, but in fact they intersect with public schools, which are run by the government and which have to comply with the law, which at a federal level the DOJ is charged with enforcing. This is why it is very much relevant to AG Holder whether we have segregated or integrated neighborhoods.
thebigmanfred, thanks for your insight.
Just so you know, I grew up in the Chicago suburbs, and there were almost no African-Americans going to my high school when I went in the late 1970s. I didn’t talk to them much since they hung out with a different crowd (the sports) than I did (the heavy metal stoners; I gave up the drugs 30 years ago, but not the metal). It was what it was.
Anyway, thanks again.
Living and working abroad for so many years, visiting America only briefly every few years, I tend to forget how contentious and nit-picking Americans can be. And being new to this blog thing (I didn’t grow up with it), I thought it was about the free exchange of ideas and opinions for mutual consideration — something I’d like; not primarliy for debate among strangers — something in which I’m not interested.
This fellow PG seems to like to debate, even with himself. On the one hand he says that Holder’s comments about how people spend their free time and where they choose to live is a relevant matter of government concern because how much neighborhoods are integrated bears on how much busing will be implemented to acheive a racial balance, but he says the Supreme Court ruled the case unconstitutional, ergo, no busing. Well then, if the Supreme Court case he refers to has rendered forced busing to acheive a racial balance in public schools unconstitutional, then that question is settled and is no longer a matter for the Dept. of Justice and the Atty. Gen. to be concerned with. That neighborhoods are more or less racially integrated then has no bearing on any legal or logistical matter for the DOJ or the AG.
That’s good news to me, since I believe in neighborhood schools, low taxes, limited government, and am against such government abuses as forced busing and the suggestion that the government should meddle in our private lives — like where we choose to live.
We’ve come full-circle, haven’t we? So, again, why is Holder talking about our private choices in our private lives? There’s no government prerogative involved. PG has outlined that for us already.
And that’s the end of the debate as far as I’m concerned. Carry on if you want to; I don’t find it useful. I’m going to tune-in elsewhere for information and opinion.
Pingback: AG Holder and the Race Speech « Fineness & Accuracy
SteveIL
Thanks for the info. It helps to understand where people are coming from. My own experience in HS was that there was some self segregation. I’m 22 now, so this wasn’t that long ago. Since we do have an age difference, I’m curious, do you think it’s gotten easier to talk about race? In some ways I think it’s gotten easier (it’s much easier, I think to talk about when there’s anonymity).
Your welcome.
It looks like Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio is the focus of a civil rights violations probe.
PG, you’re a he again, as per Roger.
Don’t those gender flips get confusing?
Sailorman,
I was more amused by the implicit attribution of my argumentiveness to my being American.
thebigmanfred:
I think there are more people who, like you and I, are willing to discuss race as it relates to our respective backgrounds. But in my experience, it really doesn’t come up all that often in regular conversation. As I’ve settled into my career and family life (currently married to my second wife, no kids with either her or the wife I am divorced from; my current wife has 3 grown-up sons from her previous marriage), I’ve found that most of the time spent talking are limited to home, work, or similar interests. Even in my family, neither politics or race come up all that often since we are split fairly evenly between conservatives (I’m in this group) and liberals (although we all agree that our last two governors were corrupt slimeballs). If there is political discussion, it’s usually only between those of similar political persuasions, if it comes up at all; political talk amongst the whole family with our political differences is done only in small amounts since we all love each other too much to let politics wreck the family. It’s the same with the friends that I have.
I’ll tell you one thing I’ve learned. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve figured out who to stay away from. I know racism isn’t dead in this country, and I’ve met enough people who have racist views in varying degrees, and to avoid them like the plague. I’ve found that their racism usually masks other problems they may have that they haven’t sorted out yet, and may never do so. Usually, these kinds of people don’t realize their problems (including their racism), and aren’t looking for help; I don’t force myself on them and won’t enable them (done that too many times).
I agree, provided it’s done in the manner you and I have been doing it, just by talking. How many can actually do that? To quote a line from The Maltese Falcon, “Talking is something you can’t do judiciously, unless you keep in practice.” Most of the people I know, including myself, don’t do it often enough. As I see it, the problem with discussing race is it usually starts with a lecture. That isn’t what you and I did, but to me, that is what Holder did, and that is what many others on this thread did. These lectures aren’t limited to just those on the left; conservatives, especially elected Republicans (trying to convince African-Americans to vote for Republicans by lecturing instead of talking), do it as well. Lectures aren’t talking. And when the lecture begins with a subtle and implicit form of racism, which is how I saw Holder’s comments, the “studies” cited above, and the comments of others on this thread, then the basis for meaningful dialogue is already gone.
I’ll say this, speaking of anonymity. If I was with one of the liberal members of my family and they brought up the above-mentioned studies in the way it was done on the thread, I would have probably tried to change or drop the subject. It isn’t worth it to me to wreck my relationship with my family members, something I don’t have to worry about here.
Thanks for the talk.
SteveIL,
Do you generally say stuff to your liberal family members like, “And this is why discussing race is such a problem. The left immediately goes into ‘blame whitey’ mode” ? Or respond to their saying, “We should talk about X” with “Fine. Talk about it then”?
I’m a liberal woman of color married to a white male Republican, and we discuss politics a lot (we actually first knew each other from law student blogging). We generally disagree, of course (he has what I consider a positively perverse fondness for Harriet Miers and Sarah Palin), but we also find areas of agreement. For example, my husband and I recently came to a consensus that the stimulus bill should have consisted mainly of an immediate suspension of the payroll tax, which would put more money into every working family’s pocket on a weekly basis, lightened the cost of maintaining employment for employers, and been what conservatives can consider a “real” tax cut (as opposed to something like the EITC). We both think Bobby Jindal can pose a serious threat to Obama in 2012.
Race occasionally comes up in these discussions. I don’t say categorical things like “The right can’t face up to structural racism” and he doesn’t say categorical things like “The left immediately goes into ‘blame whitey’ mode.” If I said, “We should talk about X” and he said, “Fine. Talk about it then,” I’d interpret that as his not really wanting to talk about it at all. I recommend that you try avoiding such hostile statements, and you might find that you can have a worthwhile discussion about such matters with family members of a different political persuasion after all.
This was my favorite part. Yes, let us mutually consider our ideas in a free exchange, but under no circumstances should we debate those ideas.
PG:
I answered:
Let me add that if the subject was broached at a time when my ire was up, as it was here, I’d say something and it wouldn’t be flattering (it’s happened before; members of my family, including yours truly, has a penchant for getting a little hot-headed).
But the thing is, that is how this thread started, hostile and divisive. I could have ignored it, but chose to challenge the assertion in the spirit as I saw it. Then thebigmanfred came in to talk about race, not lecture. There is a difference.
Yeah, well, I might suggest the same thing to you.
But the thing is, that is how this thread started, hostile and divisive.
Why do you say that? Neither Holder’s speech nor Rachel’s post blames one group (conservatives, liberals, blacks, whites) for the difficulties in talking about race. Holder said Americans are cowardly on race issues. I hope we all agree that liberals and people of color are included in the term “American” and thus also were being called cowards. What in either Holder’s speech or Rachel’s original post — to which you responded with the hostile “Fine. Talk about it then.” — was hostile or divisive? Who was being treated with hostility? What group was being divided from another?
Yeah, well, I might suggest the same thing to you.
I’m not the one who has said he only feels comfortable with political discussion between those of similar political persuasions, if it comes up at all, “since we all love each other too much to let politics wreck the family.” I talk politics with family (my father also is a Republican, as are all my in-laws) all the time and it doesn’t wreck anything because we can talk about the opposing political side as rational human beings deserving of respect, instead of caricatures and straw-men.
Politics won’t wreck your family if you discuss it respectfully, intelligently and without caricaturing arguments with which you disagree, and you may find areas of consensus, learn new information and gain genuine insight into what and how people with different politics think. I joined the Federalist Society instead of the American Constitution Society in law school because I had much more interest in what people who disagreed with me thought than in getting preached to in the choir, and it was a really valuable experience for me. I learned a lot about the importance of process to many conservatives and their concern about how judicial enforcement of claimed rights can wreck the structure of our democracy.
My discussions with my husband only threaten to become hostile when one begins to mis-characterize the other’s statements as you did by saying Rachel had said, “African-American people are good, white people are bad.” If you do that to your family, I can see why political discussion with those who disagree with you would be toxic to good relations.
Out here in the SW Chicago suburbs I’m comparatively neutral or liberal on the topic of race compared to most of the people I know. I don’t know anyone to the left of me on the topic, except maybe my priest, including the black woman who put a fold-out poster from the Chicago Sun-Times that showed Rev. King addressing the crowd during his “I have a dream” speech on the left side and now-Pres. Obama addressing a crowd on the right up in her cube.
I have had conversations on race. But it’s true that most of them were not all that substantive. I have to say, though, that I could say the same thing for religion or politics. Few people want to talk about anything controversial or keep themselves informed about any such topics. My observation is that the topic of race is not particularly unique in that respect. It’s more the fact that it’s controversial than the fact that it’s race. People would rather talk about whether the Red Sox’s pitching will hold up or who they like on American Idol (BTW: yes, and I don’t watch it). Try to talk about politics (outside the recent Illinois controversies about our Governor and Senator that have gotten national play) and people profess disinterest or ignorance. I’ve tried to engage Chicago residents on politics who turned out not to know how many Aldermen there are in the City Council. It’s like Jay Leno’s person in the street interviews out there.
The woman I work with is one of the very few black people I interact with on a regular basis. There are very few black families in my neighborhood. There’s none in my Scout Troop (we recruit from the local school). I chose this neighborhood on the basis of it’s affordability, it’s location near transportation (two interstates and two train stations within 12 minutes drive) and the fact that the house we bought was owned by one of my wife’s relatives who thought she owed us a favor and sold it to us as a favorable price. Everything else in my price range either had structural problems or got water in the basement when it rained.
There are a few integrated suburbs, but they are mostly closer to the city and thus more congested than I want to live in (e.g., Oak Park). I wanted some land to live on (we have 3/4 of an acre) and that’s not available closer in than I live. Chicago’s racial patterns of integration have been described as a bag of marbles. Overall the bag has all different colors, but each marble is 100% one color. It’s true that if you walk into a neighborhood, especially a suburban one, the skin color of 95% of the people in the neighborhood is likely to be the same as that of the first person you see.
The most substantive discussions I have had about race were with my late father-in-law. You shouldn’t speak ill of the dead, but he was as racist as the day is long. He came from Poles who had lived in Chicago and them moved out to the suburbs as blacks moved near them in Chicago. He and I played “Archie and Meathead” for a while when I was in High School (he wasn’t my father-in-law then, we married when I were in college) until I wised up that his attitudes weren’t about to change no matter how well I argued my position.
SteveIL
I wanted to address this point first (I also want to address your other points in that comment, just this one first). With the lecture thing, I think it’s a result of talking from a position of authority. It’s as if they already know the answers about race. They’ve already got a script and they know everyone’s roles. Clearly that’s a problem, because the dialogue is one sided.
I don’t think that should be the case, and I think that’s the reason that I’m finding this conversation with you good. Neither of us seems to be approaching the discussion from that point of view. Instead, we’re talking about our experiences, and laying a foundation for discussing any areas that need improvement.
Who are they to call people cowards on race issues? I don’t know anything about Rachel, so I’ll not comment any further on her. But who is Holder? Being a longtime Beltway insider and longtime government bureaucrat, how much does he really know of the people in this country, Americans, outside of D.C.? Is he somehow blessed to make that kind of judgment over the rest of us, you included? The last I checked, Holder was the same kind of person as every other American, flawed and imperfect. And based on his more recent record as an appointed bureaucrat, he’s in less of a position to make this kind of judgment.
How are we to talk about race? Are we first to be lectured on how we are all cowards, and then given parameters on how to proceed? Do we have to figuratively or literally flog ourselves for our cowardice, until someone like Holder determines that we can stop, and then go talk amongst ourselves?
Is thebigmanfred a coward? Because according to Holder, he is [emphasis mine]:
Now it seems to me that thebigmanfred is anything but a coward. He wanted to talk about race, not make a lecture. But there it is by our illustrious AG saying that we, meaning all Americans, and apparently that means you, me, and thebigmanfred, are cowards. And to bring back Rachel into the mix (which is why I commented in this thread in the first place), she agreed with Holder. Does that also include the thousands upon thousands of Union soldiers who were killed in the Civil War after Lincoln changed what that war was about following the Emancipation Proclamation?
As I mentioned above, those studies you cited are the straw-men as far as I’m concerned. You know why I think so? They are trying to define something that someone from the left would call a problem, neighborhood flight. I don’t see it as a problem. In fact, being on the move is something Americans have done for over 200 years. How is that a problem? Then, the reports couch this with all this racial data, as if it really matters. It’s divisive.
Just so you know, I mentioned how we do things in my family just to explain it. What works for your family works for your family; what works for my family works for my family. And that’s how I’ll leave it.
SteveIL,
Holder referred to “we.” He included himself among those “average Americans” whom he described as cowardly in discussing race issues. He is not holding himself out as better than the rest of us; he is being self-critical and encouraging the rest of us to be. I note that thebigmanfred had this dialogue with you in the comments section of a post about Holder’s comments. Look: by making a public statement in strong language, Holder got what he wanted, which was for people to talk about race.
As I mentioned above, those studies you cited are the straw-men as far as I’m concerned. You know why I think so? They are trying to define something that someone from the left would call a problem, neighborhood flight. I don’t see it as a problem. In fact, being on the move is something Americans have done for over 200 years. How is that a problem?
We may be using the term “straw man” in different ways. I am referring to the rhetorical strategy: ‘A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position. To “set up a straw man,” one describes a position that superficially resembles an opponent’s actual view, yet is easier to refute. Then, one attributes that position to the opponent.’ When you claimed that Rachel had said, “African-American people are good, white people are bad,” that was a straw man argument.
Defining something as a problem when there’s disagreement about whether it IS a problem isn’t a straw man argument. If you don’t think that racially segregated residential patterns are a problem, then someone can debate with you the effects of racially segregated neighborhoods and whether those effects are problems. However, if someone instead said, “Oh, SteveIL just wishes all the black people would disappear,” that would be a straw man argument.
People on the right often treat pre-marital sex as a problem. I might disagree with them, but I don’t think they’re setting up a straw man if they assert that it’s better for people to have sex only within legally-recognized heterosexual monogamy than to engage in sexual exploration before making such a commitment. Those are their values of what is good and what is bad. Similarly, people who think that it is better for Americans of different races to mingle together than it is for them to stay separate may have different values than you do, but it doesn’t mean they’re setting up a straw man.
Then, the reports couch this with all this racial data, as if it really matters. It’s divisive.
Interesting. If thebigmanfred had described his experience of being a racial minority as including instances where white kids weren’t just curious for education about his racial identity, but at times had been derogatory about it, would you have dismissed him also as “divisive” for telling you that part of his story? Was it “divisive” for my white friend Ben, when I asked him how he liked his new apartment in Harlem, to tell me that he liked it except for one black guy who hung out on the corner and would mutter “cracker” at Ben?
Just so you know, I mentioned how we do things in my family just to explain it. What works for your family works for your family; what works for my family works for my family. And that’s how I’ll leave it.
Of course. I just thought it might be helpful to hear that even though, as RonF noted above, politics, religion, race and similar matters generally are treated as inappropriate for conversation except among people who are the same (party, religion, race), it is possible to have good conversations among people who disagree about them. I was hoping that you might be able to have the kind of useful experiences I have had in discussing contentious matters, in a respectful way, with people whose beliefs I didn’t share at the outset, if I described how it was possible for me to do this. Sorry that it wasn’t helpful to you.
thebigmanfred
I wholeheartedly agree. Here’s how I see it; we’re both adults capable of carrying on a conversation. We don’t need disinterested third-parties, especially politicians, to act like they are “parents” and guiding us as if we are “children”. If I do something wrong, and I’m far from perfect, then fine, I deserve a lecture. But neither you or I, nor the vast majority of the American people, did anything to warrant the kind of language put out by Holder.
PG:
With what I’ve seen with our politicians, I very much doubt Holder was including himself in his criticism. If anything, it was more of a relative “we”, meaning “the rest of you”.
Did he? The first comment on this thread was mine, which said:
thebigmanfred was the first to take me up on it. All everyone else did, including myself in other comments before his, was talk about everything but race.
I would say that would be the case.
I do have to ask, what is the point of those studies? What is to be gained from them? And the answer can’t be something akin to “for the knowledge”, since that is a cop out answer. There must be a purpose.
thebigmanfred didn’t describe any derogatory behaviors by some of the white kids. Since what you describe didn’t happen, how can I possibly answer that?
Ronf:
My dad (whose 81st birthday is today) has an old buddy of his (they were raised on the West Side of Chicago) who was the same way. I think Pop stopped hanging around with the guy for awhile (maybe permanently) because the friend kept saying N-word this and N-word that, and couldn’t keep his mouth shut; Pop got tired of hearing it.
Basically, because everyone’s responding to your derail.
Amp’s already given you one warning; I’m seconding it — and I’m the one who let your first sarcastic comment through moderation, despite the fact that it was patently obvious you haven’t read other posts on this site about race or, heaven forbid, the enormous body of Rachel S’s work about race. Which, by the way, you should probably read some of before continuing to spout.
I usually try to follow up a slap on the wrist like this with some kind of post that can be used as discussion fodder, but there hasn’t been much on this thread that’s meaty enough to respond to. Instead, I’ll point out that this call for more honest discussion about race is something Pam Spaulding has repeatedly asked for on Pandagon.
She’s often pointed out that her more penetrating posts on race are met with silence by a large portion of the (mostly white?) audience at Pandagon, whcih she attributes to the discomfort that most Americans have discussing race. She’s opened up a few discussions specifically on this subject, which i’ve found interesting.
I can’t find the post of hers which was basically an open thread on this subject (it may have been lost in the archive swap when Pandagon switched hosts, or perhaps my google fu is weak). In lieu, I submit a few interesting posts by Pam that touch on the problems of marginalizing race within American discourse, while also moving past the meta-conversation and into the conversation itself:
Diversity in the Blogosphere 2.0
Skin and the color of money
Visibility Counts
White Louisiana Students Re-enact Jena Six Incident in Blackface
With what I’ve seen with our politicians, I very much doubt Holder was including himself in his criticism. If anything, it was more of a relative “we”, meaning “the rest of you”.
I’ve never heard of a black politician using “we” to mean “you white people,” or a Democrat using we to mean “you conservatives.” When I’ve heard Holder use “we” before, he certainly includes himself.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0109/Holder_We_dont_want_to_criminalize_policy_differences_with_Bush_administration.html
http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/bbdp/remarks-as-prepared-for-delivery-by/327548
Can you give an example of this use of “we” to mean “not me, but the rest of y’all”?
All everyone else did, including myself in other comments before his, was talk about everything but race.
Why don’t you think that Roger talked about race? He said, “The white majority and the black minority have a long, awkward history in the US, and each person tries to get by and get along in their lives as best they can. There are historical and cultural reasons why blacks and whites don’t socialize more than they do off the job, and why whites prefer to live in all-white neighborhoods.” How is that not talking about race?
I do have to ask, what is the point of those studies? What is to be gained from them? And the answer can’t be something akin to “for the knowledge”, since that is a cop out answer. There must be a purpose.
As I described in a previous comment, the people who do these studies, or at least whoever decides such studies should be done, almost certainly think that residential racial segregation is bad because it leads to racial segregation in people’s social lives, in children’s academic lives, etc. Racial segregation, even when not de jure, is considered a bad thing by many people, and therefore is kept track of and people try to understand why it’s happening and whether it can be changed. You might be aware that we also do surveys and such tracking premarital sex, and people get excited if the average age of becoming sexually active or average number of partners dips one year, because it’s also a matter of concern to some, even if others don’t think when or how people have sex is anyone’s business. To those for whom it’s a matter of concern, they want to try to replicate what is happening when the age of first sex or number of partners decreases so that effect can be continued.
thebigmanfred didn’t describe any derogatory behaviors by some of the white kids. Since what you describe didn’t happen, how can I possibly answer that?
Has anyone ever described to you being treated differently in a bad way because of their race? If so, how did you react to that?
I feel really behind in responding to some of the comments here.
PG:
PG, you frequently manage to get my attention with your insights. This point you make here, makes me think about something my mom once told me about integration. To her the point of integration was to get equal access to resources, like a quality education and so forth. If the access would be gained by segregation fine, if through integration that was also fine. The important point was to get those same resources. That’s at least what I understood of her point. I don’t know where that puts her exactly on the racial segregation preference meter, but I think there are people who think like her.
Also, I think racial segregation and culture are somewhat intertwined. I know that in my case I’ve tried to find some safe spaces. For example, I lived at the “black house” at my college for a year. I’ve valued times when I could interact with other African-Americans for a variety of reasons, but in a large part because of cultural bonds (this isn’t to say I haven’t valued diversity, the DOD gives one of the strongest incentives to do so). I guess what I’m saying or asking is, do we lose out on our culture the more integrated we become and if so, is that a problem?
thebigmanfred,
Thanks, I appreciate your contributions here as well.
I tend to think of segregation/integration issues a lot through the frame of law (as I suspect AG Holder probably does too), and your mom’s view is one I associate with Derrick Bell, who wrote the one dissenting opinion in a book called “What Brown v. Board Should Have Said.” All the white law profs came up with rationales for why integration should be ordered, including conservative McConnell’s view that the 14th Amendment Congress really did intend to integrate schools. Bell, who I think was the only black person writing for the collection, said “Nope, the Court should just demand equal schools. Districts that want to segregate will have to build the black kids schools that are as good or better than the white kids’.”
Maybe this eventually would require some school districts to integrate because they couldn’t afford to maintain two equally good sets of schools. But Bell was asserting your mom’s view: integration is only good if it gets us equal resources; it’s not a good in itself.
However, I think the Supreme Court also had addressed what a narrow view of “resources” can do when we’re already in a racially unequal context. Before Brown v. Board, the Court ruled on a lot of cases dealing with segregation in higher education: colleges and grad schools. Two cases in 1950 address this issue of what are the resources of education. Sweatt v. Painter dealt with the UTexas law school, which created a separate law school for one black student who wanted to enroll. It was struck down as unequal because the facilities of a just-established law school couldn’t be equal to that of the flagship state law school, including in the question of prestige. There was an even closer question in McLaurin v. Oklahoma, where the graduate education student could use the same facilities but was not allowed to interact with other students: he had his own row in the classrooms, table in the library and cafeteria, etc. He too was seen as getting an unequal education: “appellant is handicapped in his pursuit of effective graduate instruction. Such restrictions impair and inhibit his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession.”
Eventually you end up with the idea that it’s just impossible to have two things be separate and equal, but I think this is only because we’ve always had inequality. If a black law school had been founded at the same time as white UT Law, it perhaps could have built up the alumni resources, prestige, etc. If a black people had been getting educated toward getting graduate degrees all along, perhaps there would have been enough black people for McLaurin to interact with that he could have had a full graduate educational experience without speaking to white students.
The same thing is true with segregated housing patterns, because of how we fund schools. If black people always had the same wealth, property value and ability to pay high property taxes as white people, then the majority-black schools could be just as well funded as the majority-white schools. However, because white people on average will have more wealth and thus more school funding, you can’t get equal resources in the majority-black school under current school funding formulas. Texas has had a lot of trouble and litigation over this, because you might think that the obvious solution is just to put all the money in one pot and disperse it equally on a (needs adjusted*) per-student basis to all school districts. But of course voter-parents don’t like this “Robin Hood” scheme, because they moved to an area with good schools and are paying high property taxes specifically to get their kids a better public school education than the kids are getting in, well, where I went to school :-P
* By “needs adjusted” I mean that you can’t expect to educate a special needs student for the same price as a non-disabled student, so if two districts had the same number of students but one had more special needs kids, that one would need to get more money to meet those needs.
And there are those other aspects of resources beyond just student-teacher ratios, number of books in library, number of AP classes offered. White people got that head start on accumulating intangible resources of alumni networks and other resources that rely on socializing and not just on dollars dispensed by the state. I don’t know how you can recreate that in racially segregated environments. And of course I’m focusing just on race here; when there’s economic segregation, the poor white kids also are missing out. (I’m just not as familiar with that because my school district definitely tended to segregate more along racial than economic lines, such that we were still under court ordered desegregation when I graduated. The unitary high school probably is bigger than it should be, but they’re worried that if there are two high schools, they’ll resort along racial lines. Also, then you divide the football talent between schools, and that’s no good.)
And now to try to respond to your actual question…
I guess what I’m saying or asking is, do we lose out on our culture the more integrated we become and if so, is that a problem?
I think there are only so many hours in a day, so many people you can spend time with and activities you can do, music you can listen to and movies you can watch. So to the extent that you spend more hours with people unlike you, in whatever are the “mainstream” activities into which one integrates, then that’s time you’re not spending with people who are part of your culture.
On the other hand, you can bring your culture with you and make it a shared interest. I know a lot of non-Indian people who are much more into Bollywood films and music and even a couple who know an Indian language better than I do (albeit not my family’s language; but one of my classmates startled the hell out of me when he started speaking Urdu and looking at me like I should know what he was saying).
I wrote an essay for a college publication once in which I explained that I personally don’t feel a strong need to go out of my way to associate with a lot of people who are from my culture, because frankly I already have a big family and a lot of friends who are in that culture already. I already know a lot of people who know how to pronounce my name correctly, who totally get me when I whine about being brainwashed toward going to med school.
I’d say the one element missing for me was having someone close enough that I felt comfortable talking about the difficulties in merging my family with that of someone who is white and not interested in learning about Indian culture and uncomfortable with some aspects of it. (“My Big Fat Greek Wedding” really whitewashes — pun unintended — how difficult this can be when the person from the majority culture isn’t willing to just go limp and be pulled into whatever happens.)
I didn’t have any family members or really close friends who had gone through that experience, so that kind of bridging-of-cultures part was difficult and isolating. It was most intense when we were planning and having the wedding, but I suspect it’s likely to pop up again when we start raising children. I suppose that says I’m pretty integrated already, though, if the only times I feel awkward are when I feel pulled between how my family and friends see things and how my husband does. My own view seems to move easily between the two.
For example, at a party with a lot of my sister’s Indian friends, one of our friends was drunk and complaining about how hard a time she was having with guys, and said something like, “These Indian guys are so pathetic, I’m going to have to start dating white guys.” My husband found that really offensive. On the one hand, I could understand why he did: it sounded like my friend considered white guys inferior and a last resort. On the other hand, I also understood my friend’s context: she would prefer to marry a guy who is of the same culture in order to avoid an even more intense (because she is more into the culture than I am) “pulled-between” experience than I have had. She doesn’t see any group as inferior, but she does find guys from her own culture more compatible. (And that culture can really subdivide; ours is oriented toward professionalism and so people tend to marry later after finishing grad school, while others tend to measure success entrepreneurially and people marry earlier.)
I don’t think people from the majority culture deal with this “pulled-between” as much, even when they marry inter-racially, because they don’t ever live in the other culture. They never become more than tourists in it, for the length of a trip to visit the in-law’s family, or for a wedding or other big event.
It’s unfortunate if people have to take Holder’s speech and make it all about them and their comfort level. It just goes to proving his point.
I think it’s encouraging what he said but it will be better to see what action happens at the previously diluted version of the civil rights division under Bush, jr. for example. I think the investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff will be a step in the right direction. Holder’s speech is so much better than listening to attorney generals who defend torturing people and who try to bring back the “good old days” of the 1950s. Hopefully it will continue in that direction.
My husband and I are very good friends with a couple that is one part Apache and the other part generic Midwestern white (German and Polish ancestry but no strong ethnic identity). They lived on the reservation for a number of years and are off right now, pursuing PhD programs, but they expect to go back when they’re finished. I’m always struck by how sorry so many white people seemed to be for her when she lived on the reservation or when they hear about their plans to return, but it never occurs to these same people that living off the reservation puts him in the same position she’s in when they’re on the rez. (That, and living off the reservation is presumed to be an advancement or improvement for him.)
PG:
I’m not sure what you mean when you think I said something about Holder using “we” to mean “you white people,” or when Holder as a Democrat uses “we” to mean “you conservatives.”
When I said:
With what I’ve seen with our politicians, I very much doubt Holder was including himself in his criticism. If anything, it was more of a relative “we”, meaning “the rest of you”.
it had nothing to do with the fact that Holder is an African-American or that he is a Democrat. The phrase “the rest of you” means the rest of the people of America. A huge number of the politicians in this country seem to think they operate under a different standard than the rest of us, the “little people”. In many ways they do, and many times they lord it over the rest of the American people, or seem to anyway. This isn’t based the party affiliation or race of the politician; it’s all-inclusive.
My biggest problem with what Holder said was the way he tried to “scold” America into talking about race, as if he were trying to be America’s “parent”. As I had mentioned earlier, Holder is no position to call any American a coward on this, other than himself. Here’s a link to the whole speech. If Holder was including himself, show me the part where he is actually contrite about his own “cowardice”. I didn’t see it. That’s why I say he wasn’t including himself when he said “we”, and he meant everyone else.
Is that really talking? No offense to Roger, especially since he wondered (in comment 3) why Holder said what he said in the manner that he did, but is that what you mean by talking? I meant having a conversation, as thebigmanfred did.
When you mean change, do you mean by artificial means, via the law for example? This is where I have a real problem with this. I know a lot of these studies make references to “whites”. But as everybody should know, not even all whites of different ethnic origins have gotten along with each other, and in some cases still may not, even though they are lumped in the same racial classification (and I mean those of primarily European background). Slowly but surely, however, most of those differences have given way, and did so without any artificial intervention.
Yes. My longtime allergist is originally from Pakistan. We were talking not too long ago and she mentioned that she and her husband (he’s also from Pakistan) were driving somewhere in the South (I think Georgia) on vacation or to a medical conference (he’s a doctor as well) when their car was pulled over by a police officer. She told me the officer did hassle them a little bit, enough for her to notice it. I asked her if she or her husband did anything about it and she shrugged as if to say “what could we do?” She was busy and went back to her work and that was that.
SteveIL,
It sounds like you’re saying that unless Holder expressed contrition over his own cowardice, he couldn’t really mean to include himself in the “we” who are cowards in discussing race. Yet he clearly uses “we” and “our” in a sense that includes himself and refers to all Americans collectively in the first paragraph of the speech: “Even as we fight a war against terrorism… the need to confront our racial past, and our racial present…” The second paragraph, where he refers to being “in things racial” “essentially a nation of cowards,” is followed by a paragraph where he says “We commemorated five years ago, the 50th anniversary of the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision.”
You seem to be claiming that in a speech where he continuously uses “we” and “our” and “us” to include himself, the only time he couldn’t possibly be including himself is where he is saying something negative about “we,” because when people say something negative about themselves they must then express contrition about it.
This strikes me as implausible. I have said in references to Americans “We eat too much,” and I’ve very much included myself in that (I just put down a lunch of three peanut butter pancakes and a pan of eggs, rice, beans), but I didn’t apologize for my part in that or express contrition. I don’t think I owe you an apology for my eating habits, even though I wish my eating habits were better and frequently resolve to improve them. While I have a personal responsibility for my part in that, I also consider this a collective problem for our nation, which of course doesn’t include every single American (e.g. anorexics), but seems to me to be broadly true, and necessitating not so much a moral shaming as a need to galvanize action to do better (bring portion sizes in cookbooks and restaurants back to their 1950s sizes, for example).
I don’t believe that every single thing in me that needs improvement is something that I ought to be apologetic about, particularly if there aren’t specific, identifiable individuals who have been harmed by my failing. I suspect AG Holder thinks similarly about his own failures to have frank conversations about race.
This might just be a matter of how one regards the failing of “cowardice.” I am both cowardly about and have a physical problem with getting my blood drawn; I pass out really easily from blood loss. But even if I take all the precautions against passing out or hurting myself if I do pass out, I still hate getting my blood drawn. It’s not a severe generalized fear of needles, I just hate the particular thicker needle used for blood draws, the tying off of the rubbing to make the vein protrude, poking for my vein, seeing the blood go out, the feeling that all creates.
My cowardice causes a generalizable harm: I don’t donate blood (I am signed up as an organ donor, because then I’ll be dead and won’t have to see the sharp objects coming for me), which means that there’s a little less blood available for those who need it. I also don’t sign up for registries for bone marrow even though I belong to a minority group where it’s really difficult for others in the group to get compatible donations, because I know I couldn’t handle the donation process unless I absolutely had to do it for a friend or loved one.
Maybe you think that because I am a coward, I should express contrition for it anytime I mention my cowardice, but I don’t. I generally reserve contrition for where I have injured an identifiable person or at least know that the audience for my contrition includes people who probably were harmed (e.g. if I were talking about this at a conference of Indian leukemia patients). I acknowledge it’s a problem, I try to do better. If I’m sufficiently comfortable, I can get my blood drawn; if I’m already in an upset state of mind and in a strange, uncomfortable place, I’ve been known to run out with the plastic tubing hanging off my arm, and since this is disruptive in a blood drive I don’t participate in those. I am a coward and that’s not OK, but it’s also not something where I should be required to demonstrate contrition for people to believe that I am sincere in calling myself a coward.
I meant having a conversation, as thebigmanfred did.
A single person can’t have a conversation. A conversation requires two parties.
When you mean change, do you mean by artificial means, via the law for example? … Slowly but surely, however, most of those differences have given way, and did so without any artificial intervention.
The law is one method, but certainly not the only one. For example, some areas have tried to encourage residential racial integration by putting a magnet school in a minority neighborhood. Or a charitable foundation that is trying to encourage integrated neighborhoods could offer low-interest loans specifically to families with young children in a mix that will have a lot of kids of different races growing up next door to one another. Like all incentives, I suppose this could be seen as “artificial intervention,” just as the $10 at Victoria’s Secret is an “artificial intervention” to get me to buy otherwise overpriced underpants.
I asked her if she or her husband did anything about it and she shrugged as if to say “what could we do?” She was busy and went back to her work and that was that.
Did you believe her experience occurred as she described it — that is, that she had been singled out for her race? Did you express sympathy for this occurrence? These are all parts of a reaction. People often don’t have conversations on certain subjects with people whom they believe will react negatively: will be disbelieving, unsympathetic, etc. I don’t like to discuss sexual assault with people whom I have reason to believe are not sympathetic to women who have sex while intoxicated.
PG:
Yes it is. I take it very, very seriously.
I get the analogy, but you are confusing an action (cowardice) with a feeling (fear). Besides, you get past your fear and get your blood drawn despite the fact that you hate doing so. Ask anyone who is cited for confronting something that is life threatening and everyone of them will say they were very afraid, scared to death. Even those who run away from impending danger wouldn’t necessarily be accused of cowardice. Cowardice is much more serious than that.
Here’s an example. I mentioned earlier that I was divorced. The reasons are the usual ones: lack of communication, growing apart. But the fact is, neither me or my ex-wife were willing to do everything we needed to do to keep the marriage working. Now there are too many years between our initial separation and today to will either of us to get back together (plus, I’ve since remarried). As far as I’m concerned, it is an act of cowardice on my part; and since I won’t do anything about it, I hold myself guilty of it. But it’s a personal judgment upon myself, and not one I would pass on to anyone else, not even to my ex-wife.
I would judge an actual act of public cowardice much more narrowly: suicide terrorists, who kill themselves and others without following the traditions of warfare, are cowards; Marc Rich, the fugitive tax evader Holder helped get pardoned, is a coward for not facing the punishment for the crime he was convicted of; Pvt. Eddie Slovik, an American soldier in WWII, was rightfully executed for desertion (the only American during the war) because he refused to fight.
Salvatore “Sammy the Bull” Gravano is another who one could judge either a coward or just plain stupid (Mafioso aren’t considered very bright except in their one area of expertise, criminal activity). As everyone knows, Gravano flipped on his boss John Gotti and helped get the “Teflon Don” convicted on various charges and sentenced to life in prison (I believe this was a very brave act by Gravano since he put his life in danger by doing so). But a number of years after that, Gravano decided to get himself back into the criminal world by helping to start an ecstasy ring. A case could be made that Gravano was a coward for not doing his utmost to live within the law. But I think a more correct judgment can be made that Gravano was just too stupid to continue making a living as anything but a criminal (he’s currently serving a 19-year sentence in Arizona).
It’s up to you if want to consider yourself a coward for not wanting to donate blood. Like I said, I define public cowardice much more narrowly, and so do tens of millions of others. It’s an extremely harsh charge to make on a whole nation that a politician like Holder, who has lived in a tight and tiny bubble of power as compared with the vast majority of the American people, has any business making. The most relevant example would be the people of Germany between 1933 and 1945 who did next to nothing to stop the Nazis (there were some brave individuals who did try to stop Hitler, even going back to 1938, and just about all paid with their lives). Their punishment was extremely harsh, and as a people have already been contrite for their actions.
In the case of the United States, Holder has no business making that charge. He mentions a list of prominent African-Americans that have made a difference in this country, and rightly so. But to me, and this is a big problem of discussing race in the United States, there is little or no mention of any of the others who helped those African-Americans in the struggle. And I don’t mean that the black man couldn’t have gotten as far without the white man, but that there were Americans working with other Americans as a team that were just as instrumental. Holder says:
What about those other Americans who also died for the cause of freedom and equality? Along with 40,000 Union soldiers who were black that died during the Civil War, there were 320,000 Union soldiers who were white who died as well (that averages out to nearly 6700 killed per month, 1.5 times the total number of Americans killed in Iraq since 2003). Were they not also “denied the fruit of our great American culture” since they were killed to set everyone free? Included were Abraham Lincoln himself, Maj. Gen. John Reynolds (killed at Gettysburg), and 66 other Union generals who died as a result of their wounds during that war. How about all those Americans of all races killed and wounded in World War II to fight against truly evil and racist regimes? Wasn’t that fought in defense of the freedom of all Americans (regardless of race) as it was to defeat those who would make war upon this country?
How about the members of the Warren court who decided Brown unanimously? They were all Americans who were white, weren’t they? And who got Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas installed as Supreme Court Justices? American Presidents who were white and a U.S. Senate made up of Americans who were mostly (or wholly) white. It was a team of Americans working with other Americans. Then there is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In many of those instances people of different political affiliations worked together to get these things done.
And where do Eric Holder’s actions fit into all this? Let’s review his more recent actions; he manages to help get 16 terrorists pardoned, he helps get a tax evading fugitive coward pardoned, and he tried to help keep the people of Washington, D.C. in danger of criminals by writing an anti-2nd Amendment amicus brief in Heller. Compared to many of the others he mentions, along with those he doesn’t mention, what Holder has done isn’t even a blip on a radar screen.
So, go back and re-read that speech and you tell me where Eric Holder has any business calling the rest of America cowards on race relations, or pretty much anything else. And if he wants to include himself in that cowardice, then he better be contrite in his own actions on race relations, which have been squat.
For the record, I don’t consider Eric Holder a coward (nor you, or anyone else here, for that matter). I don’t think much of him as a politician, but that’s something else entirely. Holder is the first African-American Attorney General, but the U.S. has had quite a few of them, so he isn’t that unique. And most of them over the last 40 years have generally sucked. Believe it or not, I don’t think of him as a failure at this time because he has stood by most (if not all) of the anti-terrorist actions of the Bush administration up to this point. But it seems to me he has the public skills of Alberto Gonzales (one AG that sucked), and that is what he has to improve upon.
I missed something. I think I did have a conversation with thebigmanfred, and it wasn’t one-sided.
But what can be done through the law is the one that is most worrisome. To me as a conservative, the law can’t be any more coercive than it needs to be if it is supposed to maintain our freedoms.
I’m going to act as a litigator on this one and say, “I object. Badgering the witness.”
SteveIL,
It seems clear that you simply don’t see cowardice as a common failing but instead reserve it for fairly extreme circumstances, particularly those where someone voluntarily has assumed a duty (as in a duty to preserve a marriage or to fight in a war). I hope that you perceive that AG Holder probably doesn’t take that same view of cowardice, but like me sees it as something one can be struggling against on an everyday kind of basis, trying to find one’s courage to do things that are frightening or uncomfortable. A coward is defined by a person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition or pain. I see many more cowards than you do: I see a coward in the kid who knows better but says nothing when the popular clique is picking on someone; I see a coward in the adults who avert their eyes when they see a parent hitting a small child; I see a coward in all of us who haven’t spoken up when we see something wrong because we don’t want to draw attention to ourselves or face the anger of the wrongdoer or take the risk that we’ve misinterpreted the situation. I think cowardice is very common and therefore not something we always should be expressing contrition about, but instead should be resolving and working to do better.
Perhaps you think it bad to use the term cowardice in such a commonplace way, but it does seem to fit with the dictionary definition and general usage. You’re also putting a word into Holder’s mouth he didn’t use when you start talking about “public cowardice.” I think he was talking about that everyday cowardice where, in order to avoid discomfort or confrontation or any negative consequence, we don’t speak honestly about race in our private lives. We lack the courage to face the difficulty or opposition that we fear. You want to claim that he made the extremely harsh charge of “public coward” on a whole nation when he did no such thing.
You also have at least one factual error in your listing of public cowards:
Marc Rich, the fugitive tax evader Holder helped get pardoned, is a coward for not facing the punishment for the crime he was convicted of.
Marc Rich never was convicted of any crime; Giuliani indicted him in 1983 on charges of tax evasion and illegal trading with Iran. Republican lawyer Scooter Libby (himself actually convicted of a crime, and excused from prison by Bush’s commutation of his sentence before he’d served any time) and many tax experts have looked at Rich’s case and said he did not clearly violate U.S. law.
He mentions a list of prominent African-Americans that have made a difference in this country, and rightly so. But to me, and this is a big problem of discussing race in the United States, there is little or no mention of any of the others who helped those African-Americans in the struggle.
Perhaps you didn’t notice that Holder’s speech was specifically for Black History Month, and that he prefaced that list with: “Some may consider me to be a part of black history. But we do a great disservice to the concept of black history recognition if we fail to understand that any success that I have had, cannot be viewed in isolation.” I think that when speaking specifically about Black History Month and commemorating the achievements of Black Americans, it is permissible not to name various non-black people who assisted in the abolitionist and civil rights movements and instead to focus on the black individuals whose names should be known. It’s not like Holder is writing a history textbook in which he ignores that white people also fought for abolition and civil rights.
But what can be done through the law is the one that is most worrisome. To me as a conservative, the law can’t be any more coercive than it needs to be if it is supposed to maintain our freedoms.
I understand the concern about legal coercion rather than incentives, but you seem to be categorically opposed to documenting or even acknowledging racial segregation, regardless of the purposes (if any) for which the information will be used. Can you point to any legal coercion that arose from the studies I noted above? If not, why do you find their existence so threatening? You have made no substantive critique of their methodology; you apparently just don’t think there should be any interest in people’s choices to segregate from one another based on race.
I’m going to act as a litigator on this one and say, “I object. Badgering the witness.”
So much for the courage required for honest conversation on race.
OK, SteveIL, I think it’s been clearly established that your personal fright of the word “cowardice” is neither at issue, nor in any way relevant. If your primary line of argument here is “how dare someone call me a coward, my penis is spectacularly enormous!” then I think it’s time for you to pick a new argument (or even a new subject) rather than continuing to derail this thread as a method of proving your oh-so-impressive masculinity.
SteveIL
That has been my experience also. I think it’s a difficult subject to talk about without people feeling like they have to draw battle lines. I would love to talk about it more with other people, but well, it’s difficult to begin a discussion on it.
I’ll say this, the discussions I’ve had on it have usually been beneficial.
I completely agree here. There are still racist people out there, the trick is avoiding them. You know sometimes I think it’s possible to change their attitudes but some people can’t be helped in that respect.
PG:
I don’t see it as a collective failing (this is the phrase I was looking for) in this country, which is the point I’ve been making, and which is what Holder tried to impart upon all Americans. Who is he to judge the rest of us?
In an earlier comment, you said:
From your latest comment:
Isn’t being contrite, when someone recognizes when they did something wrong and apologizes for committing that wrong, part of that process of resolution and working to do better?
I see. So, at the beginning of the speech, he can say:
Holder is saying this nation, all of us who have ever been a part of this country, regardless of our race or heritage, is essentially made up of people who are cowards in all things racial, despite the items I presented that show this isn’t the case. But when it comes to identifying who has been instrumental in advancing the cause of civil rights, it’s OK for him to pick and choose those Americans who did so, based on a specific set of criteria? And he was definitely not being all-inclusive, considering what he said after the parts you pasted (some of which I pasted in my previous comment):
It is certainly permissible for him to say anything he wants, since that right is guaranteed. But if he wants to be all-inclusive in chastising every single American for a failing, wouldn’t it then be better for the advancement of the discussion to be just as all-inclusive in whom he is praising, regardless that it happens to be Black History Month?
To answer your first question, no. But I think part of the reason is because the tools weren’t available to those in government who could take those studies to make new laws. To answer your second question, they have that tool now, Kelo. There may have been others prior, and you may know of them. But, Kelo is definitely a problem for all Americans.
thebigmanfred,
I think most people will discuss items such as race and politics when they feel it is appropriate to do so. Most people seem to talk about things that interest them and how things are going on in their lives more than anything else. But considering there are 300 million people in this country, there are already many of various affiliations who already choose to discuss racial and political issues in this country more often than not. I don’t see it as a moral failing that many others don’t discuss these things the others want them to.
SteveIL,
You seem to be clinging to this idea that Holder wasn’t including himself among Americans when he referred to “we” being cowards on the issue of race, based wholly on the fact that he didn’t express contrition, and you believe that cowardice is such a failing that one must express contrition about it. I think you ought to consider the possibility that Holder simply doesn’t think of cowardice the way you do, and therefore that he could refer to himself as one of the cowards without expressing contrition about it. Otherwise you are assuming that your way of thinking about cowardice is the way everyone else must think about it, and I think I have demonstrated that at minimum, you and I don’t think the same way about it, which would seem an indication that perhaps others also don’t share your view, and that group of others might well include Holder. Thus your continued insistence that he couldn’t possibly have been referring to himself by “we,” despite all the cues throughout the speech that he does use “we” to include himself, begins to look like a willful and bad-faith misreading of Holder’s speech in order to indict him as somehow holding himself above others.
Isn’t being contrite, when someone recognizes when they did something wrong and apologizes for committing that wrong, part of that process of resolution and working to do better?
Not necessarily, and particularly where there is no identifiable party injured by the wrong. If I look back over 2008 and realize that I ought to have given more time and money to charity, to whom do you think I ought to apologize? There are a million people in this country who could use my help, and yet none of them individually has a claim to it; the positive duty of charity is a general one with no corresponding right invested in a particular person. Similarly, Holder’s own cowardice in discussing race almost certainly has no identifiable injured party.
(This at least is a standard religious and secular-philosophical analysis of charity. I don’t know if you believe that there is no moral duty of charity, or believe that it is owed to some particular individual who thus also would be owed an apology if one does not fulfill that duty. Obviously if you have different beliefs about charity, this analogy won’t make much sense for you.)
You quote Holder saying “in too many ways,” and then say he says “in all things.” Do you see why, when you misstate what people actually have said, I have difficulty discussing this with you? It makes you look like a person who is willing to twist words, to what end I am not sure — do you think this is convincing me that you are right? I cannot tell if you do this deliberately or if you honestly think that “in too many ways” has the same meaning as “in all things.” If it is indeed accidental, then I will say that you are misunderstanding Holder; “in too many ways” in fact makes clear that Holder is saying in some ways but not in others, as “in too many ways” would make no sense if one actually meant “in all ways.”
No, because there were two parts to the speech. Look at the speech again. The first paragraph is the introduction, and it incorporates both parts: 2) we attempt to recognize and to appreciate black history. … 1) the need to confront our racial past, and our racial present, and to understand the history of African people in this country, endures.
1) was the bit that grabbed all the headlines and attention. It concluded with a short transition paragraph: “the artificial device that is Black History month is a perfect vehicle for the beginnings of such a dialogue. And so I urge all of you to use the opportunity of this month to talk with your friends and co-workers on the other side of the divide about racial matters. In this way we can hasten the day when we truly become one America.”
Holder then moved on to 2) “It is also clear that if we are to better understand one another the study of black history is essential …” The remainder of the speech is about black history, and it is in that 2nd part of the speech that Holder listed off “Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, Walter White, Langston Hughes, Marcus Garvey, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, Joe Louis, Jackie Robinson, Charles Drew, Paul Robeson, Ralph Ellison, James Baldwin, Toni Morrison, Vivian Malone, Rosa Parks, Marion Anderson, Emmit Till.”
It is just the sort of speech that writing teachers love. Introduction to what you will discuss. Make point 1. Transition. Make point 2, providing specific examples. Writing teachers love this because it’s supposed to ensure clarity, but I guess I can go back to them now and say “nyah nyah, doesn’t work, people still can confuse what’s happening in point 1 with what’s happening in point 2.”
I’m not clear on what Kelo has to do with studies about self-segregated housing patterns. Indeed, Justice Thomas remarked in his dissent that ever-expanding meanings for the “public use” provision would work to the disadvantage of people further down the socioeconomic scale, particularly minorities:
Could you provide an example of the government’s doing a 5th Amendment taking for the purpose of residential racial integration? I’ve not even heard legal scholars discuss this as a possibility, much less heard of it attempted.
In an earlier comment, you said:
I followed that with this:
I’ve been studying how our politicians react to certain situations or criticisms, including what has been going on with the banks, and what’s going on in my state with the Blagojevich and Burris sagas. There is one behavioral pattern that is consistent: no individual politician will include themselves as part of any blame or criticism for anything they do unless evidence nearly proving an illegal act (which is not what Holder did) is about to land that politician in jail. This isn’t a Republican/Democrat thing, or even a conservative/liberal thing; they all do it. I’ve never seen Holder act any differently than any other politician. Therefore, and I’m repeating what I said earlier, I very much doubt he was including himself when he said, “Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.”
You said:
How about yourself? You are the best judge of you, nobody else, and certainly not me. Or be contrite with God, if you believe in God. Whatever works for you.
I keep asking a particular question, but I don’t hear an answer, and it is key. Who does Holder think he is to stand in judgment of the nation as he did? You and I keep going around about this or that, but that question needs to be answered. Holder being the Attorney General isn’t the answer, nor is his being an African-American. He’s still just as much a flawed person as anyone of us. So what gives Holder this kind of authority to pass this kind of judgment upon the country?
But the fact that Thomas wrote that in dissent is the problem.
No I can’t provide an example, and haven’t heard of it being attempted. I’m not a legal scholar, so maybe I’m wrong on this. But it does seem to me that Justice Thomas has it right that it is a distinct possibility.
SteveIL,
I’ve been studying how our politicians react to certain situations or criticisms, including what has been going on with the banks, and what’s going on in my state with the Blagojevich and Burris sagas.
Right, and when they do this, do they say, “We are all corrupt bastards” clearly not including themselves when they say “We”? Or do they deny any corruption in themselves at all? I keep asking you for examples for politicians saying “we” when they actually mean “you,” and you haven’t provided a single one.
How about yourself? You are the best judge of you, nobody else, and certainly not me. Or be contrite with God, if you believe in God. Whatever works for you.
How do you know that Holder isn’t contrite within his own conscience, or toward God, for his failures of courage on racial issues? You only know that he didn’t apologize to you, and have assumed that he therefore feels no contrition.
Who does Holder think he is to stand in judgment of the nation as he did?
I imagine he thinks he’s an American, and therefore is an appropriate person to speak critically about himself and his fellow citizens on a matter that he believes affects us all. You may have noticed that lots of people who belong to a group will talk about how “we” need to do better about this or that. Democrats will talk about how “we” aren’t sufficiently welcoming of evangelicals; Republicans will say that “we” aren’t attentive to how we unintentionally alienate blacks and Latinos; some feminists will say “we” women have become too attached to and need to break free of the Democratic Party. I haven’t noticed that when someone from a group uses “we” about the group, he generally doesn’t mean himself by it.
But the fact that Thomas wrote that in dissent is the problem. … But it does seem to me that Justice Thomas has it right that it is a distinct possibility.
You might want to read the whole dissent, as evidently the excerpt I provided gives the wrong impression. Thomas is saying that these takings for economic purposes — to remove “blight,” to increase the tax base — fall hardest on people who are poor, economically dispossessed, politically unconnected. Historically, this has meant that black people tended to bear the brunt of slum clearing and urban renewal. When Charlottesville, VA enlarged its Downtown Mall area in order to have a pedestrian shopping area that hopefully would attract upscale merchants, it tore down the remains of the historically black Vinegar Hill neighborhood that had been previously cleared in the 1960s for “urban renewal.” (This was done by voter approval, at a time when Virginia still used the poll tax to block blacks from voting.)
Thomas isn’t saying that government is likely to use its takings power to somehow impose residential racial integration. If anything, he’s saying the opposite; he’s saying the takings power historically has been used to push black people out of areas that white people now find desirable. Thomas was arguing to the liberals in the Kelo majority that they were supporting further expansion of a government power that has been detrimental to precisely the groups that the liberals purportedly care about. And it’s still happening; the planned expansion of Columbia University, because of Columbia’s location near Harlem, will entail tearing down much of the predominately black and Latino neighborhood of Manhattanville for the benefit of a majority white university.
So why do you think the takings power will now be used to force integration? And how do you think this would work — the government would force half the white families in a white neighborhood to leave their homes and would put black families into those houses?
I have closely followed Kelo and similar cases. PG is right on the money: while it is THEORETICALLY possible for the government to take property for a public good, and it is THEORETICALLY possible for the public good in question to be integration…
Well, I literally have not read a single article, seen a single reference, or heard a single person–with the possible exception of Steve, here–suggest that someone would succeed in any noticeable percentage of taking for the purposes of integration. Obviously it may have happened, or may happen, somewhere in the U.S. (it’s big country) but in no real numbers.
So when we* suggest that the post-Kelo concern is forced integration rather than private shopping malls, it makes me thing that we* have a very odd understanding of the state of the law post-Kelo, and the reality of the process by which eminent domain occurs.
*by which I mean “you.”
PG:
Here’s a recent one.
Phil Gramm, while a member of McCain’s campaign, said in an interview that “We have sort of become a nation of whiners.” McCain chastised him, Obama chastised him, everybody chastised him. He tried to clarify his statement, which just made things worse, and it was too late by then. Gramm left the campaign (he was probably forced out by McCain) after a little more than a week. There’s nothing in Gramm’s statement that leads me to believe Gramm was including himself when he said “we”. Plus, Gramm was (and still is) being blamed for his role in the banking problems the nation is in (I’m not going to debate that here), and he was trying to counter it with his statement.
You asked for one example, and I have provided it.
Now I understand this isn’t Holder. And if you ask where Holder has done something similar prior to his speech, I doubt I could find anything. But other than party affiliation, how is Holder any different than Gramm?
It’s one thing to be personally contrite and a concerned citizen. What Holder said has nothing to do with that. My question is, who is Holder to make this kind of judgment:
Two follow-up questions. Do you believe Holder is right, even after adding in the information I provided above (where I mention the Civil War and other items)? And, do you believe Gramm when he said “We have sort of become a nation of whiners”?
I got the same impression that you did and understand Thomas’ concerns. What I’m saying is that enough politicians don’t care how such a policy affects their constituents as long as they can control the message of the policy (“spin”) and increase their own power. You even show this when you said:
So, how can the politicians who represent the neighborhoods (I don’t know who they are, other than Mayor Bloomberg of NYC) allow it? What do you think they are getting out of allowing the expansion?
I never said it will happen, but that it’s a distinct possibility. I don’t think the politicians in office now have the wherewithall to do so at this time, so I’m not being paranoid about it. But as government expands more and more into the everyday lives of the people, some politician may decide to act to force integration, and can use Kelo to back it up.
Sailorman:
Like I said, I’m not being paranoid, since I think the possibility that it will happen is remote at this time. But it is a possibility. And if I can think about such a possibility, I wouldn’t doubt that others have thought about it too, people who may have the authority to act.
But other than party affiliation, how is Holder any different than Gramm?
Is that meant to be sarcastic? I can’t think of much the two do have in common aside from both having penises, advanced degrees and being middle-aged (Gramm 9 years older than Holder). Gramm is an economist; Holder a lawyer. Gramm was a longtime Congressman and Senator from Texas; Holder never has held elected office and has spent his life in NYC and DC. Holder’s a black Ivy League grad; Gramm’s a white Texas A&M grad.
You’re trying to generalize that all “politicians” (if someone who’s never run for elected office can be called such) are the same. But there are more similarities between my husband (who used to work for Gramm) and Gramm on the one hand (time residing in Texas, conservative politics, race), and between my husband and Holder (educational background, admitted to the bar of NYC, interest in working for the DOJ) on the other than there are between Gramm and Holder. Are you comfortable generalizing that either Gramm’s or Holder’s meanings must hold true for how my husband speaks? You claim Gramm’s statement was part of an effort to deflect responsibility for the banking crisis; is anyone holding Holder responsible for legislation that has enabled racial problems?
Moreover, Gramm was speaking off-the-cuff, not in a prepared speech, and didn’t use “we” consistently — he immediately switched from “we” to “You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness, America in decline.” Most importantly, I feel certain that if you asked Gramm if he was a whiner, he’d say no; if you asked Holder if he’s ever been cowardly about racial issues, he’d say yes.
Do you believe Holder is right, even after adding in the information I provided above (where I mention the Civil War and other items)?
I don’t think fighting in the Civil War inherently means that one has been courageous on racial issues. The reason Lincoln was slow to declare Emancipation (and did so only for the states in rebellion) is that there was not majority support in the Union for the abolition of slavery by force of arms. Even Lincoln wasn’t always courageous on racial issues: he didn’t favor universal suffrage for black men; he didn’t support interracial marriage. Shortly after the 14th Amendment passed, Congress legislated for continued racial segregation in DC schools.
There may have been some Union soldiers who were more radically progressive on race than Lincoln; there were some who shared Lincoln’s sentiments; there were some who didn’t care about slavery but did care about preserving the Union; there were many who were drafted and would not have volunteered for this cause. Do you really believe that every one who fought on the Allied side in WWII believed in Jews’ total equality with Gentiles, or do you see that people fight in wars for a variety of reasons and some of those will have nothing to do with a racial injustice that is occurring?
If you think that Kelo possibly could lead to the takings clause being used to force residential racial integration, sure, it’s possible. And the right of privacy declared in Griswold, Roe and Lawrence possibly could lead to the legalization of pedophilia, and the doctrine of preventive war used to justify war in Iraq possibly could lead to the U.S. declaring war on India to ensure India doesn’t build up any more nuclear stockpile. But I’m seeing a lot of roadblocks on those slippery slopes as well. I think I’ll wait for someone who favors these possibilities to suggest them before I’ll take them with any seriousness, much less use those ridiculously remote possibilities as a justification for opposing studies of racial segregation, of pedophiles or of India’s nuclear weapons. I don’t think those possibilities are quite plausible enough to justify wanting to avoid knowledge and information.
Not at all. Gramm was a political official, albeit an elected one, and Holder is a political official, an appointed one. The operative phrase is “political official”. The rest of their backgrounds is immaterial.
Immaterial. In my opinion, both said dumb things. I have to add this; Gramm was punished for his statement, since he was no longer able to assist McCain in getting elected. Holder’s statements are still being defended, and I doubt he will face any retribution.
Are you kidding? I wouldn’t hold what Holder said against someone hired to work at the DoJ. Why would I hold what Gramm said against your husband?
From September, 1862 (after Antietam) to Lincoln’s re-election, the war took the political turn it did to be about preserving the Union AND abolishing slavery. Before the victory at Gettysburg, the surrender of the Confederates at the siege of Vicksburg, and the conquest of Atlanta, all of which guaranteed that the U.S. was going to win the war militarily and politically, Union soldiers took hundreds of thousands of casualties at Fredricksburg, Murfreesboro, Chancellorsville, Grant’s initial assault on Vicksburg, the aforementioned Gettysburg, Chickamauga, Chattanooga, the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Grant’s initial assault on Petersburg, Sherman’s march into Georgia to lay siege to Atlanta, and an uncounted number of smaller but bloody engagements. Northern towns were losing huge percentages of their male populations in these battles (sometimes more than 50%); Union soldiers were watching friends and family members get blown to bits and hideously maimed in bloody combat after bloody combat. Yet they stood with the war aims, stayed with the fight, even if the individuals didn’t necessarily agree with all of those aims.
Of course, you are looking at it from a 20th and 21st Century point of view, not in the point of view of the 19th Century world Lincoln was living in. He was a very vocal opponent of slavery, and understood the politics of the day. Lincoln was very adept at pushing things as far as they could go at the time. He certainly wasn’t a coward, especially on the big racial issue of the day. Lincoln’s death so soon after the war negated any political ramifications he could have had with the items you mentioned; we’ll just never know what he would have supported or opposed had he lived and served a second term (or beyond). In the end, what Lincoln did cost him his life, joining the hundreds of thousands of his fellow Americans killed for the same cause.
To return to what Holder said:
With the further information that I provided here, plus other information that I presented earlier, do you believe Holder is right?
SteveIL,
So you see no need for there to be any similarity between Gramm and Holder whatsoever so long as both are what you deem to be “political officials,” because your belief is that all “political officials” mean the same thing when they use particular words? If you become a “political official,” I can assume that Holder’s meaning for “cowardice” must be what you use to mean “cowardice,” simply by dint of your getting elected dogcatcher? All “political officials” share a common rhetoric?
In my opinion, both said dumb things. I have to add this; Gramm was punished for his statement, since he was no longer able to assist McCain in getting elected. Holder’s statements are still being defended, and I doubt he will face any retribution.
Which is fine, but Holder’s getting defended because a lot of people (myself included) don’t think what he said was dumb even if we wouldn’t choose to be as provocative. I am offended that Gramm called me a whiner for being anxious about our economy (and events have proven, by the way, that it was quite sensible to be anxious about our economy, and I only wish I had become anxious a year earlier and not bought in the bubble housing market). I am not offended that Holder called me cowardly in many ways on racial issues, because I am aware that I have been cowardly; I have been unwilling to challenge family friends or acquaintances when they have said racist things because I did not have the courage to lose their friendship or business or good opinion of me.
Your conviction of your great courage in racial matters may mean that you are offended by Holder’s words, but a lot of us don’t feel the same way and therefore can accept what he said in the spirit intended. Holder will be “punished” and face “retribution” from people like you who are wholly convinced of their own perfect rectitude in these matters, and he will be supported by people like me who are aware of their own failings and appreciate the reminder to try harder and do better.
“generalizing that X’s meanings must hold true for how my husband speaks” is not the same as “holding what X said against my husband.” An example of generalizing X’s meaning to another person would be if I assumed that because someone is citing Kenji Yoshino, she is using “covering” in the same sense that Yoshino does. An example of “holding what X said against another person” would be if I assumed that someone is citing Kenji Yoshino, she must agree with all of Yoshino’s statements about covering. One is about rhetoric/style; the other is about substance.
I am beginning to think that this conversation is not worth the candle, as apparently I am writing so poorly that you consistently don’t understand what I am saying, and misinterpret it to mean something different. Usually people only repeatedly misinterpret my writing when they’re hostile to me and want to find reason to put me in the wrong (I had this experience when I tried commenting on Feministe, for example).
From September, 1862 (after Antietam) to Lincoln’s re-election, the war took the political turn it did to be about preserving the Union AND abolishing slavery.
What’s your basis for saying that?
Yet they stood with the war aims, stayed with the fight, even if the individuals didn’t necessarily agree with all of those aims.
Like McClellan, Lincoln’s onetime general in chief of the Union Army, they fought for the Union, not to end slavery. In 1864, Lincoln thought he would probably lose to McClellan, who consistently opposed federal interference in slavery, told Southerners that the Union Army would not interfere in their slave-holding, opposed abolition and in general was so protective of slavery as an institution that before the war he had been approached by Southerners to be a military commander for the Confederacy, which he refused because he did not believe in secession. McClellan won 45% of the Union vote in 1864, and probably lost the election only because military victories the summer before the election led Northerners to believe they could win a total victory over the South.
He was a very vocal opponent of slavery, and understood the politics of the day. Lincoln was very adept at pushing things as far as they could go at the time.
I’m going on Lincoln’s views as they were expressed to friends and in his private writing, not just as they were expressed publicly and in political speeches. He used the word nigger, he believed blacks were inferior to whites (with the exception of Frederick Douglass, whose intelligence gave Lincoln hope that some black men might be suitable for the ballot box), he thought to solve the Negro Problem by deporting all blacks to Africa. “There is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.”
do you believe Holder is right?
Yes, I believe the majority of Americans throughout our history have been unwilling to fully confront either their own racism or that of their family, friends and others. Fighting for the Union doesn’t make you courageous on racial issues, where the most likely cost will be losing relationships as people find you unpleasantly “militant”; it makes you courageous in risking your own physical well-being to fight for your country (which, prior to the 14th Amendment, did not include fighting for the black people in it). You’ve offered no evidence that the majority of Union soldiers believed in racial equality, so why should I think that’s what they were fighting for?
I think you’re right, and apparently the same is happening with how you are interpreting what I’m saying.
You’ve been very nice and very patient. I don’t think much was accomplished, but that happens sometimes. The best of luck to you and your family.
Speaking of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder:
Eric Holder is a racial-minority individual, and in his heart and mind he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.
George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).
George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.
And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.
Many people know what Bush did.
And many people will know what Bush did—even to the end of the world.
Bush was absolute evil.
Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.
Bush is a psychological prisoner.
Bush has a lot to worry about.
Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.
In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.
Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993
“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
_____________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: “If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Oh wait—off the top of my head—I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.
I missed it when it first aired, but I thought Colbert rather nicely captured the “how dare you call me a coward/ I don’t *want* to be the kind of person who talks about race” attitude here.
Here’s the thing: we are all at least occasionally cowards. Even those who are usually, or at least sometimes, courageous. Abe Lincoln was both courageous and cowardly. Conservatives have pounced on this statement because they want to live in a black-and-white world where such polar opposites could never exist simultaneously. They don’t believe in complexity, in the fact that life is a paradox. They want the cowards completely separated from the courageous. Admitting that the two can coexist in a single person or even a single nation is too mind-boggling for them–hence the meme of liberals being “America-hating,” “traitors,” and the notion that “if you’re not with us, you’re against us.” Its easier for them to put liberals into a completely separate, “Anti-American” box, that way we’re not seen as polluting “their” country. I’m not speaking of all conservatives, of course, but the basic principles of the party in its current incarnation simply leave no room for complexity or nuance. This is the reason for the hatred of intellectuals and the lack of desire, let alone ability, to truly combat racism as it exists today. This is the reason they can’t handle the truth of Holder’s statements. Because they are courageous–other people are cowards. You simply can’t be both, in their eyes.