You got to realize the uphill fight. I grew up in an Area that was primarily black (on the weekends) and, its like you know the odds, even being a white boy in that neighborhood changes you from other white people. My dad married a Latino woman whos son got shot in the stomach during a gang dispute. I was exposed to a ton of non white culture being on Apple Ave in Muskegon. Sometimes I prefer it to the mobile home park where my mom who made six figures just gave up and married a factory worker. It wasn’t until I was 18 she quit drinking and went back to work. So I’ve seen extreme white poverty, extreme black poverty. Growing up poor almost ensures you will be poor unless someone you know pulls you out and teaches you different. I wish it was less about race and more about class.
As Bill Maher pointing out: the Supremes having to stay in separate hotels from their own white admin staff doesn’t count?
And you sidestepped the substantive issue; CRT says even aiming for a color-blind society is a lie, and that incrementalism, of making improvements over time, is false.
That is a a clear shift from our own outlook on racial amenities, that look to color-blindness as the goal.
That is not neutral, that is not simply describing events, that is re-writing values. “Not wanting to talk about history” is a red herring.
I know 3 conservatives who actually don’t believe in this concept for non-altruistic reasons. I don’t know if we can have incremental equality in a country that doesn’t treat people equally under law, under healthcare, under goods and services. This country was built by wealthy slave owners, and the industrialization of the north changed the trajectory of that. Some countries with these ethnic issues create semi-autonomous republics within themselves like we do for native Americans. I don’t see why that is not an option here. One might argue the bay area is semi-autonomous at this point. Look if I were a black man I’d want the same deal the natives got period nuff said.
Except, no? Most of the industry has always been in the North, and those industries were not built with slave labor. Slave labor was only plentiful in places with extractive industries, which dominated in the South, the Caribbean and Central and South America.
Equally, Anglo-Saxon Common Law. It was the foundation of the Constitution, it was the first thing we adopted as a new nation, and it doesn’t recognize slavery. Something which never existed in Great Britain.
Sir William Blackstone whose manual James Madison had next to him as he wrote the Constitution, stated in no uncertain terms in the 1750s that slavery never belonged within the law, and it was illegal from the start.
If were going to go OG on this; Anglo-Saxon Common Law sets the tone, and its tone, is that all people are equal under the law. Considering the Founders were trying to use this ethic, explicitly, to replace the one that said we are all answerable to a King, they knew slavery had to be phased out.
And that’s exactly the plan they enacted, the plan that Abraham Lincoln and the Republicans evolved into the Cordon of Freedom.
To say nothing of the civil rights demonstrations that quoted words from the Declaration and the Constitution to make their case.
I was arguing that industry changed the demand for slave labor were agreeing.
You said the country was built using slave labor, and that is false. Slave labor was small portion of our economy, most was built by free born people right at the start, doing things that were not the far more simple extraction industry of sugar or cotton plantations.
You can argue Mexico and Cuba was built through exploitation, we majoritively were not.
Slaves were the largest capital in all of the us during the war.
Ron Paul often mentioned buying their freedom rather than going to war but they made up for more than half of the GDP.
By the way slavery still exists in the Arab World and China why should I have to compete with their wages? When they blatantly use slaves, harvest organs and give crap all about human rights? #End Free Trade with Slavocracies.
$3.5 billion. Out of $16.1 billion.
Meaning ~21%. Most American wealth, overwhelmingly, was in something else.
And BTW, $3.5 is on the high end, NBER estimated it at $2.7, most others sources just say $3.
Which Brazil did. It bought out slaves in phases, and then freed the rest after the population was marginalized.
A blueprint for what we should have done, from a nation more dependent on agriculture than us.
The war cost more than $3.5 billion.
It’s not even 1% of either’s workforce. But targeted sanctions to get them to end it? Sure.
For China, I’d say the bigger issue is the organ harvesting.
Alas, I was an exception in which I would have been better off without my father in my life.
My condolences some men don’t appreciate their children which is a reflection of drinking culture, true toxic masculinity, and cowardice. Appreciate that your mother worked double time to be there for you, and you seem to be quite well adjusted. Families Matter, I know that you know that too.
There is one thing we agree on.
When someone does something inhumane & Illegal. I don’t buy them out (slaves) you end that crap or your going to jail (war in the case). Maybe we can buy all the herion dealers out.
You get the same result, and with less lives lost, and less resistance and butt hurt from the would-be losing side. It’s the lesser evil.
Brazil shows that.
So do you suggest buying out Drug Dealers Drugs En mass by THE Dea and destroying them? End the Mexican drug war right?
You deal with drugs by ending prohibition.
Regulation in moderation works; prohibition only works under limited circumstances that don’t exist for marijuana or cocaine. And they never will.
Harm Reduction as a policy works better to help addicts, as the Europeans have shown. The war on drugs has never equalled those results, even after 50 years, so we know it’s failed policy. Just like Prohibitions of the 1920s.
The libertarian argument for legalizing drugs is similar to the position the late liberal commentator, Gore Vidal took years ago. He said that, “There wouldn’t be very many acid drinkers for long.”
The trouble is some of this stuff is very lethal, and if it were to be widely available, I would be concerned about really young people, below the age of majority, who would be experimenting with it.
Is that it works; Portugal decriminalized drugs use 20 years ago.
At the 10 year mark their top drug cop, the equivalent of a DEA chief, who had warned that decriminalization would explode drug use, admitted he had been wrong.
Switzerland in the 90s went a step further; they provided drugs for free to users.
The only catch was an expectation to also use counseling and work placement.
Their drug use rate was cut by half.
Harm reduction works better than drugs wars, that’s proven experience at this point. It better works into how people function; what incentives they listen to.
Drug wars drove younger person experimentation, just like Prohibitions did for Alcohol.
I’d choose this model if I had to. My cousin Od’ed on Heroin this year it was like laced with Fetynal that system would make sure they are getting what they are claiming to use. Making someone who doesn’t want to work will make a job out of not working.