Hank Aaron gets hate mail

[Mr. Brooks]

My thought is that I can't and never will know what its like to endure what Aaron had to deal with as a) a black man in the south in the 50's and 60's to begin with, and a black man in the south in the 50's and 60's attempting to break Babe Ruth's record.

It's easy for us to sit here in 2014, in Minnesota, and pretend we know one way or another whether Aaron's comments were valid or playing the race card.

However, considering what Aaron would have had to deal with during his life, I think I'll go ahead and give him the benefit of the doubt as to knowing racism when he sees it.

 

By the way, I think some of the comments that the USA Today received kind of partially validate what Aaron had to say.

I'm paraphrasing but basically the response was:

 

"Are you calling me a racist you worthless (racial slur)?" I'd say that type of candid response speaks volumes about the type of racism that still exists.

[Shane Wahl]

That there is covered up racism in our society? Tons of information on it.

 

For instance, cops see black kids as older than they are. Our education system punishes minority kids at a much higher rate than white kids, even in pre-school programs. Our justice system punishes minorities more often and harder than whites. This is a nice article by ACLU of MN board member Bill Pentalovch on that problem in MPLS.

 

And this is a nice opinion piece addressing the idea that we should ignore racism now because it's not that bad.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/yes-republicans-racist-063434578--politics.html

 

There's some more (linked to in article).

[TheLeviathan]

Does racism exist? Absolutely, and quite honestly it will always exist. We live in a country where people are free to be racist, whether or not you or I approve of it. But simply playing the racism card tends to exacerbate the problem and excite anger. It tends to mobilize... and sadly I think that's exactly what the political parties want.... Meanwhile, nothing is done on either side of the aisle to alleviate a system that stacks the deck against the poor and middle class.

 

Well said. Both parties and both ideologies drive me nuts on this. Liberals are so busy blaming the systems and fanning the flames of racism that we basically can't have a genuine conversation. Conservatives are so busy blaming people that have the deck stacked heavily against them that they refuse to look at how the systems could be changed or how racism has shaped the landscape to this point.

 

It should be possible to acknowledge the racism that has, and does, still make things difficult for people and that we need to do things to correct this, while at the same time not completely excusing every difficulty to racism or "the system". I can tell you from my experience that there is more than just latent racism that is complicating things for some cultures/races.

[TheLeviathan]

http://news.yahoo.com/yes-republicans-racist-063434578--politics.html

 

There's some more (linked to in article).

 

Cmon now. I'm sure there are bigots, misogynists, and all sorts of other awful people in politics but this series of anecdotes and Republican Z listers is hardly evidence of opposition to Obama being driven by racism.

 

If a conservative came on here and claimed that the reason Bush got blocked on things was because of hatred for Christians I'd scoff too. The politic divide is happening on all levels of government largely amongst a bunch of old white guys.

 

This is a sad argument couched in a real problem.

[Shane Wahl]

Cmon now. I'm sure there are bigots, misogynists, and all sorts of other awful people in politics but this series of anecdotes and Republican Z listers is hardly evidence of opposition to Obama being driven by racism.

 

If a conservative came on here and claimed that the reason Bush got blocked on things was because of hatred for Christians I'd scoff too. The politic divide is happening on all levels of government largely amongst a bunch of old white guys.

 

This is a sad argument couched in a real problem.

 

I suggest you talk to community college students in Indiana (and not in Indianapolis or Southeast Chicagoland). There is real opposition based on race. Anyway, my original point was pretty blown out of proportion. It still seems bizarre to hold the view that a significant (is def. of this word tripping up people?) amount of anti-Obama views aren't based on race. Maybe it "only" amounts to a million people in America.

[strumdatjag]

I think the Pro-Steroids crowd is also behind the opposition to Obama. Think about it. the big crackdown on 'roids happened during his presidency. So, both the hate mail to Hank and the Obama opposition are rooted in fandom for Bonds and McGuire, the people the Steroidists see as the true record holders. I'm starting to see this clearer now .

[TheLeviathan]

I suggest you talk to community college students in Indiana (and not in Indianapolis or Southeast Chicagoland). There is real opposition based on race. Anyway, my original point was pretty blown out of proportion. It still seems bizarre to hold the view that a significant (is def. of this word tripping up people?) amount of anti-Obama views aren't based on race. Maybe it "only" amounts to a million people in America.

 

I think what's tripping me up is that you seem to be talking about your average citizen who is anti-Obama, but Aaron's comments were about Congress. You didn't seem to differentiate so I took you to be defending Aaron, but that doesn't appear to be correct.

 

Am I close?

[diehardtwinsfan]

I suggest you talk to community college students in Indiana (and not in Indianapolis or Southeast Chicagoland). There is real opposition based on race. Anyway, my original point was pretty blown out of proportion. It still seems bizarre to hold the view that a significant (is def. of this word tripping up people?) amount of anti-Obama views aren't based on race. Maybe it "only" amounts to a million people in America.

 

I'm not sure you can quantify that, and as I said prior, I think the issue is far more complicated than "Joe white guy hates Obama only b/c he's a racist". Last I checked, the average Joe white guy isn't a fan of much of anything Obama has done and wouldn't be a fan of it if Obama was white. My beef with the political system is that in my observation, Joe white guy would be far more forgiving of Obama had he done the exactly the same things yet been a Republican instead. That's the main reason why I stopped voting Republican and now vote mostly Libertarian.

 

I'd go a step further and ask that if we are going to talk about racism, why aren't we talking of blacks who voted for Obama only because he's black? I'd argue that this is just as racist, yet for some reason, this is a forbidden topic on the discussion. It's all about fanning the flames.

 

As I said before, racism exists, but it's purpose these days serves more to fan the flames than to do anything constructive. It's rather insulting to tell someone that views X that a large number of people who have the view of X hold this view because they are racist. I'd argue that this line of reasoning is well... racist.

[TheLeviathan]

It's rather insulting to tell someone that views X that a large number of people who have the view of X hold this view because they are racist. I'd argue that this line of reasoning is well... racist.

 

I disagree here. I think we, as a whole, need to get over the evil of generalizing. Generalizing isn't racist. It's how we use stereotypes and generalizations that make them racist. Somehow, along the way, any generalization (no matter how accurate) has become taboo for discussion.

[diehardtwinsfan]

I disagree here. I think we, as a whole, need to get over the evil of generalizing. Generalizing isn't racist. It's how we use stereotypes and generalizations that make them racist. Somehow, along the way, any generalization (no matter how accurate) has become taboo for discussion.

 

You are right... I should have stated that it CAN be racist... but in general... yes. Generalizing is something we as a society need to get over.

[jokin]

Well said. Both parties and both ideologies drive me nuts on this. Liberals are so busy blaming the systems and fanning the flames of racism that we basically can't have a genuine conversation. Conservatives are so busy blaming people that have the deck stacked heavily against them that they refuse to look at how the systems could be changed or how racism has shaped the landscape to this point.

 

It should be possible to acknowledge the racism that has, and does, still make things difficult for people and that we need to do things to correct this, while at the same time not completely excusing every difficulty to racism or "the system". I can tell you from my experience that there is more than just latent racism that is complicating things for some cultures/races.

 

Well stated, Levi. From what you've disclosed in past posts, your employment background and life experiences and mine bear some similarities. I lived and worked in education and academia in the city of Chicago for many years, a one party, all-Democratic town- the level of racism from all ethnicities and races- was/likely still is- as high or higher than just about any place in the country you can name. Despite record per/pupil spending in education, not only are the majority of public school kids not being trained in functional, job-retaining literacy, our stated policies as disseminated in the classroom concerning race has resulted in severe damage being done. In my own personal experience with the issue, majority kids come to assume minorities have to have help due to some "inferiority", and most minorities (not all Asian groups) assume the "typical" majority class persons are "typically" racist and selfish usurpers and oppressors. President Obama even threw his own Grandmother under the bus, characterizing her as a "typical white person" and all that that type of code-language entails, despite her documented non-racist bonafides:

 

Having said all that, I agree that both parties exploit human weaknesses to their own advantage, and in the process of shaping thought-processes, employ a constant feedback loop mode that reinforces the politics of division instead of inclusion. Couple that with the current implementation of unwritten, yet still rigid "speech codes"-of completely stifling freedom of thought and expression, and you have the situation we have now- where all the gains we've made since the 60s, resulting in our first African American President, threaten to unravel.

[jokin]

I'm not sure you can quantify that, and as I said prior, I think the issue is far more complicated than "Joe white guy hates Obama only b/c he's a racist". Last I checked, the average Joe white guy isn't a fan of much of anything Obama has done and wouldn't be a fan of it if Obama was white. My beef with the political system is that in my observation, Joe white guy would be far more forgiving of Obama had he done the exactly the same things yet been a Republican instead. That's the main reason why I stopped voting Republican and now vote mostly Libertarian.

I'd go a step further and ask that if we are going to talk about racism, why aren't we talking of blacks who voted for Obama only because he's black? I'd argue that this is just as racist, yet for some reason, this is a forbidden topic on the discussion. It's all about fanning the flames.

 

As I said before, racism exists, but it's purpose these days serves more to fan the flames than to do anything constructive. It's rather insulting to tell someone that views X that a large number of people who have the view of X hold this view because they are racist. I'd argue that this line of reasoning is well... racist.

 

Fellow Libertarian, you nailed it, through clever manipulation of the language, the term "racism" has completely lost its meaning relative to where we stood in the 1960s on the term. The stifling of free speech is the greatest impediment to getting past the current conundrum we face with regards to race relations

[jokin]

Uh, covered up racism is, ironically, blatant in our society. To deny that some significant portion of the opposition this President is simply racism seems preposterous. That attitude still makes up much of that party's "base."

 

 

I suggest you talk to community college students in Indiana (and not in Indianapolis or Southeast Chicagoland). There is real opposition based on race. Anyway, my original point was pretty blown out of proportion. It still seems bizarre to hold the view that a significant (is def. of this word tripping up people?) amount of anti-Obama views aren't based on race. Maybe it "only" amounts to a million people in America.

 

A million people is one million too many, but your last statement doesn't square with the last statement of the first post. And I would suggest that by your definition of "significant", that the other party is even more significant:

 

I

 

It's the Democrats who kept KKK Grand Kleagle, Robert Byrd in the US Senate until his death in 2011.

It was Democrats who called General Colin Powell a "house n*****".

It was Democrats who called Condi Rice - who grew up with and knew the little girls in Birmingham who were blown up, by Democrats - an "Aunt Jemima" and ran cartoons of her with fat lips doing Hattie McDaniel riffs.

It was Democrats, or at least Obama supporters, who called Stacy Dash (and Neurosurgeon Dr Ben Carson, Justice Clarence Thomas, Libertarian talk show host, Larry Elder) a hundred different racist names for daring to leave the Democrat plantation. It's the Democrats who hold annual dinners honoring Andrew Jackson, who owned slaves and who orchestrated the Removal, the Trail of Tears, the near genocide of several of the Indian Nations.

 

The Democratic party racism of low expectations known as affirmative action along with its diversity and pluralism relatives encompassing only certain so called minorities, contempt for those "clinging to their guns" and/or "religion",..... NASCAR aficionados.

 

 

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/the_democratic_partys_long_history_of_racism.html

 

To show how silly the depths the debate has morphed into, Malcolm X, who has ascended to equal status, as a Civil Rights hero and martyr, to Martin Luther King, held these views:

 

* Malcolm X viewed affirmative action and welfare as means to re-enslave Black people.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i...

* He was an avid gun owner

* As a Muslim, he viewed homosexuality as a vile sin. (Naturally, he'd consider a Black person who supported "gay marriage" or open homosexuality in the military to be a fool.)

* Malcolm X held Democrats in contempt. (He wasn't fond of the GOP either):

 

Sounds like the views he espoused are widely held by a certain segment of people today who instead of being championed, are held in vile contempt.

[gil4]

Case in point, blacks and crime. When this whole thing gets debated people talk about statistics... Yet I keep coming back to poverty, b/c to me, this is linked, and probably a much bigger explanation to the statistics than simply racism.

 

Except black crime rates were much lower prior to the 60's, when poverty and racism were worse, but the families mostly stayed together. Then came the so-called Great Society, which sent illegitimacy rates through the roof because there was a financial incentive to not marry. Having a family has an important civilizing effect on men, and having two parents is important for kids.

 

LBJ had one motive for the welfare state, and it wasn't concern for the poor. His reason, in his own words, was "I'll have those [deleted] voting Democratic for the next 200 years" The motives and the results haven't improved since.

 

[jokin]

Except black crime rates were much lower prior to the 60's, when poverty and racism were worse, but the families mostly stayed together. Then came the so-called Great Society, which sent illegitimacy rates through the roof because there was a financial incentive to not marry. Having a family has an important civilizing effect on men, and having two parents is important for kids.

 

LBJ had one motive for the welfare state, and it wasn't concern for the poor. His reason, in his own words, was "I'll have those [deleted] voting Democratic for the next 200 years" The motives and the results haven't improved since.

 

 

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was a liberal intellectual darling from New York. He worked with both Kennedy and Johnson in constructing the framework for the War on Poverty. Even as it was being implemented by LBJ, Moynihan published the scholarly "Moynihan Report" and "Beyond the Melting Pot", warning of possible unintended consequences from overt government intervention:

 

In it, he wrote that blacks could only achieve equality with the

"establishment of a stable Negro family structure."

Citing statistics about government intervention causing rising welfare dependency, illegitimate births, and divorce, Moynihan pointed to a "tangle of pathology." He characterized black family structure as "highly unstable"

and "approaching complete breakdown."

 

"Moynihan’s study of the relationship between poverty and family structure, famously known as the Moynihan Report, is, as I noted in a recent article in the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, an important and prophetic document. It is important because it continues to be a reference for studies on the black family and the plight of low-skilled black males. It was prophetic because Moynihan’s predictions about the fragmentation of the African American Family and its connection to inner-city poverty were largely borne out......."

 

http://aapss.org/news/2009/05/25/william-julius-wilson-on-daniel-patrick-moynihan-s-agenda-setting-contributions-to-social-science

 

Some sources claim that Moynihan was the first victim of "PC", largely because of these works (http://prospect.org/article/moynihan-enigma). Moynihan (wisely for his future political fortunes) abandoned study in this area, leaving it to fewer and lesser-quality scholars for further research. His work in this area became focused on job skill training, but the damage of the Great Society was already baked in the cake. The first casualty was the Truth, the second, to future race relations, but the greatest casualty was to generation after generation of Americans mired in the very cycle of poverty that the War on Poverty was supposed to eradicate.

[TheLeviathan]

That LBJ quote is about as damning as I could possibly imagine a quote being. I have enormous problems with The Great Society - in my opinion it's the quintessential piece of liberal policy.

 

Great ideals, noble missions, truly at the heart of what it means to be a good citizen - everything that makes liberalism great. And then....written without a care for how effective it will be in achieving those ends and ultimately being a bigger burden on those ideals than a path to achieving them, but nonetheless glorified without merit and protected irrationally on the basis of it's intents and not effects. In other words, everything about why liberalism is so damn frustrating.

[Mr. Brooks]

That LBJ quote is about as damning as I could possibly imagine a quote being. I have enormous problems with The Great Society - in my opinion it's the quintessential piece of liberal policy.

 

Great ideals, noble missions, truly at the heart of what it means to be a good citizen - everything that makes liberalism great. And then....written without a care for how effective it will be in achieving those ends and ultimately being a bigger burden on those ideals than a path to achieving them, but nonetheless glorified without merit and protected irrationally on the basis of it's intents and not effects. In other words, everything about why liberalism is so damn frustrating.

 

Except there is no proof that LBJ ever said such a thing.

It is a attributed to a single person, Ronald Kessler, a right wing author, and has never been corroborated by anyone.

 

Ronald Kessler has already been proven once to have fabricated a story regarding an Obama/Jeremiah Wright anecdote, then admitted to attempting to remove the story from his Wikipedia page biography when the story was proven to be false.

[TheLeviathan]

Except there is no proof that LBJ ever said such a thing.

It is a attributed to a single person, Ronald Kessler, a right wing author, and has never been corroborated by anyone.

 

Ronald Kessler has already been proven once to have fabricated a story regarding an Obama/Jeremiah Wright anecdote, then admitted to attempting to remove the story from his Wikipedia page biography when the story was proven to be false.

 

Perhaps it wasn't said, but it's also not out of character with his beliefs. Here's a little more evidence of that:

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism

[gil4]

I'm finally going to post what I was originally planning to write when I clicked on the thread, before I got mad. (After I finished writing, I said a lot more than I originally planned to say.)

 

I never understood the hate. It was a tremendous accomplishment. The countdown was exiting. I remember (and I think I remember accurately) watching Monday Night Baseball and having them switch to the Braves game for Hank Aaron's at-bats. I remember seeing the home run live. And I remember hearing about the people who were upset because a black man was breaking Ruth's record, and in the ears of a nine-year old, it was just stupid.

 

In the ears of a 49-year-old, it's still stupid.

 

I saw the movie "42" for the first time last weekend. There was one scene where Branch Rickey told about a white kid immitating Jackie Robinson. That was me, except I wasn't Jackie Robinson rubbing dirt on my hands (he was before my time). I was the stocky, right-handed white Rod Carew using a lefty open stance, with the bat tilted back, an inside-out swing, and a number 29 taped on the back of my cheap plastic Twins helmet.

 

I also remember a Sports Illustrated article and his wife endured a lot of abuse because he's black and she is white. And that made no sense to me, either.

 

That's not to toot my own horn. If I had been born 10 or 20 years earlier, it probably would have made sense to me, but I wasn't and that wasn't how I was raised.

 

I also know how well prejudices can be hidden. My younger sister was asked to the prom by a kid who was black. My mother gave me the third degree about him, and I gave all the wrong answers. "He's a really nice kid, very polite and respectful (not being condescending - he was just a very "yes sir/no sir kind of kid, and that wasn't the norm in the northeast, so that kind of stood out), they go to our church, you know the family his father is a teacher at the high school... My mother's answer was "But he's black." It shocked the hell out of me. She hadn't raised me like that, but it was there. I answered "So-o-o-o?" She started to cry. She had nothing else. But I'm pretty sure she still said no. (My sister was a few years younger, and I did my best to ignore here at the time.)

 

Arthur C., if your daughter asks my daughter to the prom, and he's as nice a kid as you were, the answer will be yes. That's all I can do. I can't go back and right old wrongs.

 

Our country has come a long way since Jackie Robinson - huge strides, not baby steps. Is there a ways left to go. Of course. Will we ever get there? This study leads me to believe we probably won't: http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/04/16/study-babies-show-racial-bias/. All we can do is work to identify our biases and evaluate our decisions in the light of them.

 

If we want to have an honest discussion of race in America, we need to stop expecting to fix past wrongs. It can’t be done. Reparations are not forthcoming. All we can do is draw a line in the sand and start now. My great-great-great grandparents debt is not my debt, nor is my grand-parents’ nor my parents’. (My own sins are too heavy for me to carry without heaping theirs upon me too.) If you’d like to help combat racism of all types and colors, we can talk. If you just want to score points and place blame, don’t waste my time.

[PseudoSABR]

If we want to have an honest discussion of race in America, we need to stop expecting to fix past wrongs. It can’t be done. Reparations are not forthcoming. All we can do is draw a line in the sand and start now. My great-great-great grandparents debt is not my debt, nor is my grand-parents’ nor my parents’. (My own sins are too heavy for me to carry without heaping theirs upon me too.) If you’d like to help combat racism of all types and colors, we can talk. If you just want to score points and place blame, don’t waste my time.

It's not about blame or about honoring some unpaid debt; it's about examining why a disproportionate number of non-whites continue to live in poverty and populate American prisons. We can go on and on about personal responsibility but such talk (however true it is) does nothing to stop what is a systemic problem where evidently whole swaths of people (and their parents) aren't learning personal responsibility. Can't you accept that the original culture of racism has left a systemic economic and social system that works against many non-whites success, and leaves them hopeless and bitter? What ever it is that we've been doing to fix this obvious disproportion has not worked. Is it really surprising that education-by-property tax, and hand-out welfare programs don't fix the poverty? Personally, it's not so easy for me to shirk my own responsibility in helping to fix a problem that's much larger than one person's hate or another's lack of responsibility.

[TheLeviathan]

We can go on and on about personal responsibility but such talk (however true it is) does nothing to stop what is a systemic problem where evidently whole swaths of people (and their parents) aren't learning personal responsibility.

 

I would argue talk of one without the other is a hopeless pursuit of a solution. It doesn't matter which of those two issues you ignore, if you choose to ignore one then you aren't part of the solution in my eyes.

 

We need to address the systemic underpinnings of racial issues but we also have to have some courage to address the responsibility of people today to fix their own issues contributing to those systemic challenges as well. Doing one without the other (of either approach) leads to nothing in my opinion.

[Mr. Brooks]

Perhaps it wasn't said, but it's also not out of character with his beliefs. Here's a little more evidence of that:

 

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lyndon-johnson-civil-rights-racism

 

Jeez, that whole article is just gross to read.

[biggentleben]

I agree completgely with the post above. You had a little selective editing when you posted the Aaron quote (the bold part is what you left out):

 

"We can talk about baseball. Talk about politics. Sure, this country has a black president, but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he's treated. We have moved in the right direction, and there have been improvements, but we still have a long ways to go.

"The bigger difference is back then they had hoods. Now they have neckties and starched shirts."

 

 

That sounds to me like he said opponents of President Obama are gussied-up Klan members.

 

It is a blessing to live in a society where we can only associate hoods with Klan members. The truth of Aaron's life (and many of those today in the South in places) is that a hood has nothing to do with Klan. It has to do with people too ashamed of their own actions to show their faces when they perform acts of bigotry and hatred. Many who didn't associate at all with the KKK utilized hoods when they performed their acts of hatred. What Henry was referring to is the boldness of which blatant racism is performed in today's society, yet not seen as such because the men are adorned in suits and ties and seemingly proud of themselves for their actions. If anything, it could be seen as a step backward, not forward.

[TheLeviathan]

Jeez, that whole article is just gross to read.

 

Indeed. Makes that other quote look tame in some ways.

[PseudoSABR]

I would argue talk of one without the other is a hopeless pursuit of a solution. It doesn't matter which of those two issues you ignore, if you choose to ignore one then you aren't part of the solution in my eyes.

 

We need to address the systemic underpinnings of racial issues but we also have to have some courage to address the responsibility of people today to fix their own issues contributing to those systemic challenges as well. Doing one without the other (of either approach) leads to nothing in my opinion.

I say just that by noting that people aren't learning to be personally responsibility (for whatever reason); largely, because they live in a society that shrugs at the notion of actually teaching personal responsibility.

 

It's a difficult thing to teach (or learn) work ethic and change attitudes; ideally these attributes are best taught by the parents. But we do not live in that ideal world. At some point we have accept that if we don't collectively take the responsibility to teach each citizen born the value of personal responsibility, the same populations of people will continue to lack it (of course).

 

To do it right, costs money and talent; which far too many are unwilling to commit. Because the sad truth is there aren't enough jobs and real opportunities for any of us. And even if everyone of us possessed a deep sense of personal responsibility, we all know that so many will remain listlessly unemployed.

[TheLeviathan]

To do it right, costs money and talent; which far too many are unwilling to commit. Because the sad truth is there aren't enough jobs and real opportunities for any of us. And even if everyone of us possessed a deep sense of personal responsibility, we all know that so many will remain listlessly unemployed.

 

Very true, but even if we can't all aspire to the same opportunities there are fundamental issues in several cultures that are causing as much or more problems than systemic racism. There will always be listlessness and irresponsibility, but when it becomes overwhelmingly and disproportionately part of a culture is an equally serious problem.

 

To me there is something truly racist in the idea of holding back criticism because you lower the bar of acceptable behavior.

[PseudoSABR]

To me there is something truly racist in the idea of holding back criticism because you lower the bar of acceptable behavior.

No one is holding back the criticism, as we continue to discuss how groups of people seem to lack personal responsibility. The emphasis on criticism seems an extension of assigning blame or partial blame of the current sociological condition such people face, which does nothing to improve such conditions.

 

My point continues to be that poor attitudes and behaviors are totally unacceptable, but unfortunately (due to, imo, social negligence), large groups of people don't have individuals or institutions in their lives to teach them such.

 

Sure, it'd be nice for parents ten-generations ago to teach their children values and attitudes that lead to socially productive individuals and for such values and behaviors to be honed over that long time--of course, some groups of individuals weren't afforded the opportunity to have such a legacy survive today.

 

I think we (largely, I mean white people who have found some, even if modest, success) sheepishly take for granted the ancestral role in our own values and behaviors; we overlook the successes (and privileges) of our forebearers', and their contribution to being reared in a way that leads to self-reliance. It allows us to assume that people should just muster up trying-hardness or worth ethic. But such pervasive, life-affecting values cannot be mustered up--they are wisdom, and they are hard won over many-generations.

[TheLeviathan]

The emphasis on criticism seems an extension of assigning blame or partial blame of the current sociological condition such people face, which does nothing to improve such conditions.

 

Neither does ignoring it or minimizing our expectations. This isn't a "pull yourself up by the boot straps and stop complaining" message I'm communicating. I get the systematic issues. I get the added difficulty that causes. I reject conservative messages that it's so easy to do. I've seen with my eyes how difficult it truly is to some tragic consequences.

 

Liberalism, by and large, avoids discussing anything that would be controversial about race for fear of losing a big part of their voting base. You yourself are trying to say you hold people accountable for their behavior and would talk bluntly about unacceptable, uncivil behavior but the truth is you go and hide behind the "systems" again. It's both. It's an ongoing systemic problem but it's also that segments of our population (some would argue as earlier that liberal policy actually lead to much of this) shun education, child rearing, non-violence, and generally civil/acceptable behavior. And again, I've seen this firsthand where there was actual opportunity but the larger pull of culture lead to awful misogyny, recreational violence, dismissal of education, etc.

 

The only fix has to address both. Unfortunately most voices that speak out against the latter are shunned from public discourse. Ironically, in my opinion, for racist reasons.

[jokin]

 

Shelby Grad ✔ @shelbygrad

Follow

This will be an interesting banquet.

 

Donald Sterling, leftist Democrat.

[gunnarthor]

 

He's actually a registered republican.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/donald-sterling-registered-republican?utm_content=buffer30969&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer