I realize that equality is not here. We should be working to improve the situation. A lot of times black people are still not treated fairly and it really saddens me! But how we go about fixing it in the form of hand-outs is not the solution in my opinion.
The only way to help heal some of this racism is to actually treat us all as equal. Schools in black communities should be the same as schools in white communities. On the other hand, a black woman shouldn't get a deal on a house when another poor white single mother does not.
On a side note, considering the state of most African countries right now, I would say that blacks have a lot more opportunities here than they would have if slavery never happened. Is it such a stretch to be thankful and proud of the progress America has made? It's not fixed but thank goodness for the progress made in the 20th century! I hope to be alive when some form of equality is acheived.
What a deal!
by frozen one 76 Replies latest jw friends
-
reneeisorym
-
CoonDawg
renee...
While I agree in priciple to some of what you say, I find it distasteful (and I say this as a late 30's white male here in the US) that people actually use the argument that african americans should somehow be greatful that their forefathers survived the free boat ride, bondage, and centuries of abuse to get where they are. To me, that's no argument at all.
Yes, African Americans have many opportunities now, but that by no means exuses the way they ended up here. There was no choice involved. Same way with the Native Americans. They were given no choice, yet they are told to "deal with it".
Having said that...I do strongly buy in to the idea of asking...."so we're HERE now...where do we go next?" How do both minorities who have been unjustly treated in the past as well as this country as a whole, move forward? To me, it's exciting to think of the mix we have. As someone else stated, we all need to be Americans. That's what the whole idea of a melting pot is. We should be mixing together bringing out the best in one another...taking the best parts of all the cultures represented and making them our own. Not keeping seperate like the items on a grade schooler's lunch tray. As I said, I don't buy into that part of your argument, but the sentiment of equality (relative is the best we can really hope for) is a worthy aim.
-
wildflowermeadow
The Washington Post had a great column by an author about what happens in discussions of racism that's happening here. To quote it in small part and link
"Diminishers have a subtle intellectual superiority and depend on the word "ignorant." They believe that black people still encounter unpleasantness related to blackness but in benign forms and from unhappy people or crazy people or people with good intentions that are bungled in execution. Diminishers think that people can be "ignorant" but not "racist" because these people have black friends, supported the civil rights movements or had abolitionist forebears.
Deniers believe that black people stopped encountering unpleasantness related to their blackness when Martin Luther King Jr. died. They are "colorblind" and use expressions like "white, black or purple, we’re all the same" — as though race were a biological rather than a social identity. Incidents that black people attribute to blackness are really about other factors, such as having too many children or driving too fast, but if deniers are compelled to accept that an incident was indeed about blackness, they launch into stories of Irish or Native American oppression, as though to deny the legitimacy of one story by generalizing about others. Deniers use "racist" as one would use "dinosaur," to refer to a phenomenon that no longer exists." -- The color of an awkward conversation
Diminishers and Deniers are both racists. Most people are to some degree.
As far as the rightwingnuts whining against the poor benefiting from the government taxpayer dollar, they seldom whine as loud over all the corporate and rich folk welfare and unfair taxbreaks the wealthy (who they imagine to model themselves upon) receive via the taxpayer pockets. Thank to those (braindead) types, Paris Hilton will never have to worry about her inheritance and the Halliburton stock holders laugh while our food and fuel prices skyrocket, wages stagnant and taxes rise. Stupid racist neocon dumb suckers.
-
beksbks
Hello Wildflower! Pleasure to meet you.
-
PEC
I'll all end as soon as we decide to be Americans rather than Democrats and Republicans.
In four pages, only one person identified the real problem, thanks Dawg.
Philip
-
funkyderek
SixofNine:
In exactly what sense do you "pay out more than [you] get back"? And how do you quantify what it is you get back, do you peg it back to money values for services somehow?
Exactly. I pay out more money in taxes than I receive in services, i.e. if the government stopped providing all the services it currently does and I had to pay for only the ones I use, it would cost me less. At least I'm pretty sure it would. If that's not true for me with my modest income, it's certainly true for higher earners. For other people, the opposite is true.
And just so I'm not being coy; for example, do you assign any value at all to living in a society where the base level of the poorest is still much higher than it is in say, Somalia, or Ecuador, and where those people have at least some opportunity?
Of course I do. Everybody who's capable should have the opportunity to earn enough money to live comfortably.
If you do, how exactly do you figure that amount of value into "what you get back"? If you don't, this is off-topic but, why not?
It is advantageous to me to have a large number of potential trading partners, people who produce things of value with which I can exchange the value I have produced (directly or indirectly). It is not at all to my advantage (or to that of "society") to increase the number of people who rob me of the value I produce and give nothing in return.
Also, how much do you figure in for roads? Does it vary if you go on a road-trip vacation?
I don't use them all that much, although of course I still pay for them. I'd be happy to pay for only the roads I use. Toll roads are common in much of Europe and new technology makes it even easier to charge people only for the amount of road they use. This principle can be extended (admittedly, with varying degrees of difficulty) to practically every service currently funded by taxation.
What about libraries? (I'm very curious about this one). Has your view of libraries value to yourself (and society? or do you integrate yourself with society at all when assigning value?) changed since the internet?
Libraries are great. I haven't used one in years as I have disposable income and a book fetish so I prefer to buy but I'm all in favour of libraries and would be happy to give some of my money to help run them. Some people may feel differently and I do not think they should be forced to support an institution they don't believe in.
You mentioned that governments do things to keep their currency valued. Does the relative "health" (and I mean to include literal, mental/moral, and fiscal health) of a society contribute to the value of currency for a 1st world country?
Undoubtedly. I favour laws and principles that will improve the health of society. I do not believe that rewarding people for not contributing to that society is an effective way of doing this.
I really am curious how you think about these things Derek. I know we've butted heads on this a little in the past, but we've never gotten past the butting heads stage.
I kind of like that stage!
For instance, when you say that government builds roads inefficiently, I'm just not sure what metrics you're using. Maybe you know something I don't; maybe they do it differently in Ireland? "Inefficient" compared to what? Doesn't the government hire private or public companies to build roads there, after recieving bids? And sure, there is corruption in that process, but at least in government, it can be weeded out. If it was done only by private companies, why should I believe there would be less corruption? History, and common sense, just does not bear that out.
The corruption is much harder to weed out in government because there's no direct accountability. The people who make the decisions are rarely affected directly by those decisions. If I am a business owner and need a private road built, I will select the contractor who provides the best value for money. If I am a government official in charge of constructing a public road, I will select the contractor who gives me a nice fat brown envelope. At least that's how it's done here. Even without such obvious corruption, there is no incentive for the government to be careful when making such decisions. It's not their money they're spending so they never seem too concerned if they go over budget. I'm not sure what version of history and common sense you are considering but to me, it seems that it is always the case that people make better decisions when they have a stake in the outcome.
-
BurnTheShips
How is it a "downfall of socialist planning"? If what you say is true, and I think it basically is, at least in the strictest sense, how is that more of a "downfall" for any one type of planning over another?