As a matter of fact, we've had ample rain this year (unlike last summer) and it's a little more than knee high. The farm fields and gardens -- including mine -- are jumping. The point of this seeming digression is that July 4 is not really an occasion for people to contemplate the nature of the American experiment or the meaning of patriotism or anything else having to do with national purpose or identity. It marks the unofficial start of summer, and it's an occasion to drink too much, grill cheap (and carcinogenic) meat products, and watch fireworks displays.
Contrary to Lincoln's famous oratory, our fathers did not actually bring forth a new nation on July 4, 1776. Rather, a loose coalition of independent polities individually and severally renounced allegiance to the British king. It took another year before they even had a formal agreement of alliance, and thirteen before they created a functioning nation. The extent to which the preservation of slavery motivated secession by the southern states is fiercely disputed, but this seems to me pretty much a quibble. However they viewed the practicality of secession, they were tenaciously committed to the preservation, and indeed the expansion of the institution of slavery, for more than the next 90 years when they finally suffered a bloody military defeat.
All of which is also to say that the stirring words of the Declaration of Independence, that "all men are created equal . . . endowed . . . with inalienable rights" were foully hypocritical. It omitted half of humanity entirely and was simply lying in its intentions toward most of the rest. (The author owned dozens of humans, one of whom he serially raped over several years, producing several children who he continued to enslave.) This contradiction was at the heart of the struggle to create a real nation over the next decade plus, and continued to lie at the conflicted heart of the ultimate construction.
Nevertheless in the ensuing centuries revolutionaries and reformers continued to evoke these words, and to maintain that their goal was to transform the United States to conform to the original intentions of the founders. The claim that these stated ideals were somehow sincere, but just thwarted, is probably fanciful, but politics does depend considerably on rhetoric, and invocation of rhetoric to reveal contradictions is a common tactic.
Anyway, it turns out the civil war isn't over after all. Enjoy your grilled meats.
12 comments:
The Civil War ended briefly, for 10 years, until the white folk in the Senate and House decided to go back to the bad old days for financial gain.
Large elements of this country are rotten to the core.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/diverse-streams-african-migration-united-states
Black African immigrants represent one of the fastest-growing segments of the U.S. immigrant population, increasing by about 200 percent during the 1980s and 1990s and by 100 percent during the 2000s. This report, part of MPI's Young Children of Black Immigrants in America research initiative, finds African immigrants generally fare well on integration indicators, with college completion rates that greatly exceed those for most other immigrant groups and U.S. natives.
What this should tell anyone with two synapses to rub together is that the USA is a very attractive place to be, even for blacks. It also demonstrates that culture plays a major part in the success of the individual.
The problem you're experiencing is "Presentism", interpreting past phenomena in terms of current beliefs and knowledge.
While I totally agree that it looks awful looking at the founding documents through a current day lens, there is no doubt that slaves were not considered 'men' when the those documents were originally written.
There have been many amendments to address these issues.
Anatidaephobia is the irrational fear that, at any given moment, a duck is watching you from somewhere.
Unhinged -- I think you're missing the point. That's more or less what I said.
It recently occurred to me that since bringing blacks from Africa to sell in the US was outlawed in the early 1800's, their families have been in this country longer than virtually all of the descendants of immigrants currently complaining about immigration. (Their ancestors most definitely did not immigrate here.) Their families have also contributed far more to this country's wealth due to the terms of service under which they labored.
Yeah, well my point is we have moved with several amendments to the constitution to correct this. And yet...AND YET...the whining about the constitution remains.
It's like those amendments are conveniently forgotten when discussing this issue.
Sure, the Reconstruction Amendments and the 19th corrected some of the most egregious wrongs in the constitution. However, the Reconstruction Amendments weren't understood and enforced as they are now until the 1960s and 70s, and now the SC is going backwards. Furthermore the constitution continues to have undemocratic features, notably the 2 Senators per state and electoral college; and the unaccountable SC. The main issue is not the literal words of the constitution, but the political culture in which the constitution is manifested.
There is little doubt that having different rules for different races is....RACISM. There is no other objective definition.
If you want special rules that favor only blacks and Hispanics, but not Asians or Jews,then just say so.
Well, MiniTru, it's not that simple. Race is not a biological reality, but it is a social reality. People of different races are differently situated within the culture and society. Pretending that isn't true is racism. Treating everybody the same is discriminatory, because in fact everybody is not the same. However, I'm not sure what you're reacting to. I didn't say anything about affirmative action here or the Supreme Court. Actually the admissions practice of the very few highly selective institutions of higher education in the U.S. affect very few people. I agree that just giving points for "race" is a bad look, actually, and kind of a lazy way for administrators to approach the problem, but it is preposterous to claim that Asians or Jews are disadvantaged for admission to Harvard. In fact, existing criteria for admission obviously advantage them. The question of how these institutions should evaluate applicants is much to complicated to discuss here.
It doesn't matter if it's social construct or not. And didn't say different races were not situated differently.
What I said is when you use race as a determinate, you're a racist. Use sex as a determinate, you're a sexist, etc.There's not enough weasel words to obfuscate that.
I think you just don't like the label. It's been used in a non-objective way and as a pejorative so long it seems almost normal. And now you're recoiling at it being applied in the most objective way.
Clearly the court disagrees with you and has decided to follow a more colorblind path. The problem with your path is...who decides? Well, I guess it's great if it's you and your university.
Also, I saw Michael Smerconish defend legacy admissions last Saturday morning on CNN. I couldn't believe the weak and twisted argument made. In light of the recent ruling, you'd think liberals would be all about forcing the privileged to give up these leg ups. That is until it hits a little too close to home.
Post a Comment