Tag: history

By on

Glen Reynolds, Conservative/Libertarian pundit, had a meltdown about Jacob Savage’s The Lost Generation. Reynolds missed a lot of Savage’s point as did many other conservatives (see my previous post). Indeed Savage says he was an ordinary talent and he holds no grudges against the women and people of color who got the jobs he failed to get. It was bad luck for him that he was born during a time that more aggressive measures to right previous wrongs were being taken. He, unfortunately, didn’t make the cut.

Reynolds thinks that a whole generation was hollowed out because some white men didn’t get the jobs. While personally disappointing to some, Reynolds, in no way, proves the generational disaster he contends occurred. White men didn’t get all the jobs but somebody else did. So how was a whole generation hollowed out because some members of that generation didn’t get the jobs. The jobs were filled. People performed the tasks. TV shows were produced. History 101 taught to students. The only difference is the more of these jobs were done by women and people of color. How is this a disaster?

Reynolds unspoken contention is that the best people aren’t performing the tasks. Does Reynolds mean that when white men aren’t over represented in employment statistics, then the best people aren’t getting the jobs. For example, a piece of data that Reynolds refers to from Savage’s article points to a significant decline in white men presently in jobs in television writing. Yes, there was a significant decline in white males in these jobs but, then, what about the other piece of the data Savage writes about, and Reynolds ignores — the over representation of white males in these positions in the past. He doesn’t seem the least bit bothered that there was a deliberate exclusion of women and people of color from these positions that favored white men.

Also, these jobs are prestige jobs. An awful lot of people are vying for them and an awful lot of people are disappointed when they fail to get them. Even in the good old days when white men were over represented. Even today, an awful lot of women and people of color aren’t getting these prestige jobs. A lot of very talented people have to dust themselves off and find a different path. This has been going on since the founding of the Republic. Not everyone gets their dream job. Why Reynolds thinks this is such a national disaster is unclear. The only thing that Reynolds keeps yammering on about is that a white man didn’t get the job and white men are somehow always the best candidates for the job — even, say, jobs writing about a Black Woman on a television show.

This is a personal disappointment that most people will survive not a societal disaster. Since women and people of color now have a chance to get these jobs, there is even more competition for these coveted jobs. And this is a good thing. We are hearing from people who never had a voice and are now able to express it.

But what about the meritocracy? Give me a fucking break. By all means, lets work for a better process but the world isn’t coming to an end because for a very short time in the history of the country, we are, after all, talking about ten years here, white men have had more trouble getting jobs in the studio and academia. The DEI model is under attack and is likely to be replaced with a different model. Let us hope it is fairer. But it will not be perfect and things like family connections and money will still help people who have these advantages to get jobs that more talented people should get. There is no meritocracy solution that will stop this. So the next time Reynolds cries about the absence of meritocratic values in making decisions, he knows what orifice he can stick his whining ass.

By on

I can’t believe I find myself in the position of defending Piers Morgan but such is the world we live in that a pompous ass like Morgan has become the voice of reason. Tucker Carlson tried to get Morgan to use the word faggot. Morgan politely declined which didn’t satisfy the feisty Carlson as he fired off a round of faggots. He then wondered why he couldn’t say the N word.

Interestingly Carlson used the N word instead of the actual word. The repercussions for the N word were too much even for him. He knew enough not to say the actual word which also means he knows why he shouldn’t say faggot. Free speech comes with repercussions. He thought he could get away with faggot but knew enough not to gamble on saying the N word. And he has the balls to complain he doesn’t understand. He understands all too well.

When people complain that they can’t use words like faggot or the N word, they are being incredibly disingenuous. They understand the meaning of these words. They are derogatory and hateful words. People use them to hurt people and that’s why most people avoid using them. People know that and choose their words carefully as a way to manage their way through civil discourse.

In the good old days, say 50 years ago, a White man could say the N word without much of price. Thankfully this has changed. The audience for people willing to hear a White man say the N word without repercussions has gotten infinitesimally small. You are free to say it but there will definitely be a price as there should be.

But, why then do Blacks get to use the N word and he can’t. Well, hmm, let me think about that one. Maybe, and I am just guessing here, it might be that for a good portion of American history that whites used the N word as a way of putting Black people down. A White person carries some historical baggage for racism so it becomes important for them to avoid using the N Word to avoid looking racist. Blacks, on the other hand, do not bear this same historical baggage so are better able to get away with using it. Yes, it is unfair but then life is unfair.

The annoying thing about this whole kerfuffle is that Carlson understands perfectly well why he shouldn’t say faggot and the N word. Pressing Morgan to partake in it was a childish attempt to undermine Morgan’s good manners. To Morgan’s credit, he refrained from getting pulled into Carlson’s nonsense. But if it is so darned important for Carlson to say faggot or the N word without social cost, I suggest he attend a KKK meeting, I am pretty certain he could get away with it there.

By on

I once was talking about reparations for the families of ex-slaves with a woman who finally had enough of me. Now here is the thing I doubt that reparations will be instituted anytime soon. The American public is too tax averse and the subject is too controversial to get anywhere near congressional passage. Even though it is unlikely to happen, there is a pretty reasonable case to be made for giving reparations.

So the woman I was arguing with finally stumped when she asked, “why should I pay for the sins of my father?” I didn’t have an answer at the time but I do now.

This same woman gets all weepy when speaking about all the good America has done. She visited Normandy Beach to see where D Day was fought. She had justifiable pride in those soldiers sacrifice. She believes she benefited enormously from her American heritage. She owed something to the forefathers for the sacrifices they made.

Well, then, doesn’t she also owe something to the victims of her ancestors mistakes. It is terribly easy to claim American heritage when it is doing good. But let’s face it, it didn’t always do good.

My mother’s family were some of the original settlers of my home state of Kansas. Presumably, they took their land from the indigenous people who roamed the plains prior to their arrival. Now I certainly don’t approve of forcing people from their land. On the other hand I have benefited greatly from their actions even though I committed no crime.

Might makes right. The bottom line is that the native population was, through a combination of trickery and force, removed from their land. My ancestors then took advantage of it. If I am proud of what they built and I also need to acknowledge the damage they did to the native population. History cuts both ways.

Getting back to the reparations debate. There is no clear cut dividing line when racism ended. Indeed it lingers on to this day but let’s use the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a dividing line. Before 1964, then, discrimination was legal. What did my ancestors do to prior to 1964 to ensure that Blacks had civil rights. Precious little, I am afraid.

Now these are ancestors that I actually remember not some distant myth of an ancestor. These are grandparents and parents. I am innocent of any crime but my ancestors sat idly by while something terrible was happening.

Which brings me to Trump trying to sanitize slavery by removing a picture of a whipped slave from the National Park system. Trump is concerned that this type of photo gives a negative view of our history and “distorts understanding rather than enrich(es) it.” This is an actual photograph. There is no argument about that. Trump is afraid that people will learn that actual flesh and blood human beings whipped this mans back until it was a mess of scars.

What? Seriously, what? What misunderstanding is Trump worried about? What is gained by removing this photograph? We don’t have to think of our ancestors doing horrible things in order to keep slaves? The problem with wanting to worship our ancestors is that our ancestors were human beings not saints. Sanitizing history doesn’t change it and it actually makes the Civil War more confusing. Why did so many people die to stop slavery when the slave owners were so nice and the slaves so happy?

And this is why reparations are useful. It would be a price that living Americans would pay for the mistakes of their ancestors. It might make, and might is the operative word here, people realizes that at one point in our history we behaved terribly to our fellow human beings and that is important.

Of course, it will never happen but the least we can do now is fight to show the brutality of slavery. A very small price indeed.

By on

No matter how much I want to blame Donald Trump for being the problem, he isn’t. He is a symptom of a problem. The problem with our system is that the system is the problem.

All this whining about gerrymandering is missing the point. Trump isn’t bad because he has decided to gerrymander. The system is bad because either party can gerrymander. And that is what is happening. Trump asked for 5 Congressional districts in Texas. So, California retaliates. Missouri is now retaliating because California retaliated against Texas. And round and round she goes. The problem is that either party can gerrymander. The whole strategy of both parties is to reduce the number of competitive congressional districts through gerrymandering.

This hardly seems like the forefather’s dreams of elections. Given the startling number of partisan dominated congressional districts, elections are pretty much a waste of time and money. Might as well have the party leaders of each district pick the candidate who will then go to Washington.

Gerrymander isn’t the only systematic problem with our democracy. There is the filibuster which requires a super majority in the Senate in order to make laws. The filibuster is not part of the constitution and is a Senate procedure that can be eliminated at any time by the Majority Party. We have had both Democratic and Republican Majorities in the past ten years, but neither party seems terribly interested in ending the filibuster as a simple majority would give the party in power to actually do things.

The Senate, which requires a super majority in order to pass laws, also is grossly undemocratic. Small rural states carry disproportionate power there. Every state gets two Senators. California with 37 million people gets the same number as Wyoming with little more than a half million people. This is difficult to change because a constitutional amendment would be required in order to make this happen. The idea that small rural states would give up power willingly is absurd. If I lived in a small state, I would certainly want to retain that power. So no change there is even possible.

So, because the legislative bodies are incapable of accomplishing anything and are incapable of instituting changes that would make their bodies functional, nothing gets done. It doesn’t matter who is in power.

The result then is Donald Trump. He lacks even a basic view of how government operates but he damn will has some ideas on getting things done. He does what he pleases and finds out later if it is OK and, even if it isn’t OK, he defends his right to do it. Maybe he will get away with it, maybe he won’t. The problem here is that the only way left to get things done in the USA is through near dictatorial power from the President. Trump’s lack of institutional knowledge or concern about precedent makes him the perfect executive to wield power.

Trump will be gone in 3 1/2 long years but the problem remains. It is illuminating that of the hundreds of democracies that have come into power since 1776, none of chosen to duplicate the American system and almost all emulate the British Parliamentary system where the political party who wins the election actually holds power until the next election.

Trump may be an asshole but the system is the problem and will remain the problem when he departs the White House.

By on

Donald Trump was upset about the Smithsonian’s failure to talk about the good parts of slavery. There are good parts of slavery? Who knew. I am greatly interested in hearing more. I am sure he will be forthcoming with more details sometime in the future.

Trump may have had a point about the information in Smithsonian displays but it was lost when he started to talk about the good parts of slavery. Because Trump has a reputation of never apologizing and never backing down, there will be no apology which puts his supporters in the awkward position of defending Trump’s ridiculous statement when the only sane response is Trump is wrong and he never should have said something so stupid.

A good portion of the Conservative side has taken the best option available to them — they are ignoring the statement completely. Anyone who tries to defend him looks like an idiot and no one dares contradict the notoriously vengeful Trump so silence is about the best option a sane person would have.

Why Trump and Conservatives feel that American History has to always paint the country in a positive light is baffling. History is about human beings doing things. Human beings, some of the time, are going to do the wrong thing. It is inevitable. And it is a good lesson for children. Even people who do good things can sometimes believe and do terrible things. Children need to know this. How do you expect them to navigate life in this rough and tumble world if they believe Americans only do good?

Facts are facts. Slavery existed in the United States at one time. How do you explain American History without talking about it? The Civil War was all about slavery no matter how hard people try to make it about State’s Rights. This fails when looking at what people living at the time say. All the historical evidence points to slavery as the cause of the war. It wasn’t tariffs, agricultural policy, industrial policy, or any one of a million different issues that states might disagree about — it was about slavery.

Well, then, a lot of Southerners opposed slavery but they felt compelled to support their state, friends and family who did. So where exactly do you stop supporting your friends and family when they have bad ideas? I don’t really want slaves but all my friends and family have slaves so, in order that they don’t feel awkward, I am going to fight a bloody civil war so they know I really like them. These people are actually worse than the people who believed slavery was acceptable. It is the old mother’s adage if everyone was jumping off the Empire State Building, would you? Give me a break.

The Civil War is over with. It is no longer relevant to a modern discussion of civil rights. Now, I happen to disagree with this but say I give it to Trump’s defenders in this debate. The Smithsonian’s displays are about the Civil War. They are trying to explain what happened in 1860 and not how we live now. In order to understand America in the 1860’s, slavery has to be discussed and, if it is discussed honestly, the evils of slavery come up from time to time — it is unavoidable.

Some slave owners were nice to their slaves. Oh come on, really. They may have been nice people but they still believed it was OK to own people, to sell people, and to retrieve people if they ran away. That is your definition of nice? There is little evidence that this niceness was apparent to the slaves. If the slave owners were so nice why did they have to have laws returning runaway slaves? Why would anyone want to leave paradise on the plantation?

The slaves were fed and housed. Big Whoop. Prisoners are fed and housed. Hostages are fed and housed. This is basic human behavior. Nothing particularly special or nice about. If you are going to buy someone, force them to live somewhere and tell them they can’t leave — you better damn well feed and house them.

Why people try to make the South out to be the good guys in this scenario is beyond me. They were wrong about everything and I mean everything. There is nothing redeeming about the South’s position on slavery. It was wrong for them to have slaves and it was wrong for them to start a war about it. Trying to make lemonade out of this tainted basket of lemons is impossible. So, for God’s sakes, stop it.

By on

One of the historical debates I remember in school was why did so many German Jews stay when they could see what Hitler was doing. Wasn’t the coming Holocaust obvious to them? Of course, anyone living after post-World War II know this but how could someone living at the time know it. No one until World War II could imagine such a horror as happening. Now, however, the world remembers the Holocaust as an example of how things can go terribly wrong with Facism and Nationalism. So much so that it taints every reference to Facism/Nationalism. People could end in concentration camps if this goes on much longer. Unlikely but still has to be seriously considered given our knowledge of history.

I am thinking about this now because friends recently discussed leaving the country because of Donald Trump. I am not talking about Ellen Degeneres or Rosie O’Donnell either. People I know. And my first thoughts were why on Earth would they leave the country. Things just aren’t that bad. But, because Donald Trump is Donald Trump, I have to question myself — what if I am wrong?

The key to getting out is to leave before it gets too bad. It is best to leave while you can still get your money out and other countries are accepting political refugees, before the madness turns from you are a terrible person to you are so terrible that deserves to die. So, because I am Gay and stand very near to people Trump hates, I need to assess the situation. There must be some sweet spot between leaving too soon and leaving too late. Right now I still have a great deal of hope and I am not particularly worried.

I just can’t imagine my neighbors sitting idly by while I get sent to a concentration camp. Even the ones that voted for Trump would raise the alarm and, so far, I think I am right. Every Trump outrage has been met with some resistance and, while under tremendous strain, Democratic institutions are functioning as they should. It doesn’t mean that this won’t change.

Trump is arresting immigrants and shipping them off to foreign country jails without due process. There are people who argue that potential immigrants don’t deserve due process because they aren’t citizens and therefore are denied the Constitutional
Rights Americans have to prevent autocratic rule breaking. The vast majority of Republicans seems to be willing to go along with this in order to stay in power. So we have a bully with a strong authoritarian streak we need to keep our eyes on.

Right now this all seems manageable but I continue to have this nagging feeling of what if I am wrong. The problem with Trump isn’t the man but his voters. I honestly can see what people see in him. All I see is a buffoon, a clown unworthy of his office. I didn’t think he would be elected president and yet he was which means I am missing something really important about his voters.

I clearly don’t understand them, their grievances or their anger. This is what scares me then. Maybe I am so out of touch that I am misunderstanding all the signals which are telling me to leave. Again, I don’t think so but it is a gamble on my part which makes me think I might end up like the German Jews who staid because they thought things would get better. Am I blinding myself to the obvious and keeping my sunny disposition about the future here in America because I can’t see what everyone else is seeing? Does this mean I will end up on a train car to Auschwitz?

By on

Donald Trump thinks that Abraham Lincoln mishandled the Civil War. He should have tried more peaceful methods to end the conflict in order to avoid avoid the 600,000 deaths the war caused.

Wow. That is just gobsmackingly arrogant and stupid even for a man who is known for being gobsmackingly arrogant and stupid.

When someone talks like this, it gives me the impression that he has thought long and hard about the Civil War and that, through his study of the war, he saw some alternate peaceful approaches that Lincoln missed in 1860. Well, Donald tell me more. Trump is, after all calling into question the actions of the most esteemed president in American History regarding the pivotal issue of his presidency — the very issue that most people think makes Lincoln great. It requires a thorough explanation of Trump’s reasoning in order to understand how Lincoln erred so badly in his decisions.

Unsurprisingly, Trump just leaves it at that — Lincoln could have done better. Which leads to a different impression of what Trump said. Mostly that he doesn’t know a God damn thing about the Civil War and has no business expressing opinions about it.

The Lincoln of 1860 was quite willing to let the South keep their slaves. He drew the line at expanding slavery to any territory wanting to join the USA. He wasn’t seen as a hardcore abolitionist and was willing to do anything — including selling out the slaves — to keep the Union together. Something that many modern historians rightfully are critical of. What more could he have done to peacefully end the conflict? Particularly after the South attacked Fort Sumter which started the war. Yes, the South started the Civil War. Not Lincoln.

The most terrifying thing about Trump is that he is both painfully ignorant and he has his finger on the button that could send nuclear missiles flying through the air. He, facing his own divided country, delights in antagonizing his political opponents to such a degree that people are talking about a new civil war. Well, if Trump wants to show how to bring peace to a divided country he now has an opportunity to show it. Let Trump heal the divisions plaguing our country now.

Trump criticizing Lincoln. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

By on 1 Comment

Heather MacDonald writes that Donald Trump took “the most important step it can to restore meritocracy. to American society” by eliminating disparate-impact. When exactly was there a meritocracy in the United States? Certainly no time before 1964 when discrimination against people of color and women was legal. Not directly after the passage of Civil Rights laws in 1964 when White resistance to the new laws was so fierce it required the implementation of Affirmative Action in order to ensure that Whites complied with the new law. Since MacDonald finds any tool that aids people of color a boost is an affront to meritocracy, it certainly isn’t the recent past So MacDonald needs to identify the golden age of meritocracy in USA because from the evidence I can see, there never has been a meritocracy.

MacDonald glosses over 200 years of American History. She assumes that the 1964 Civil Rights ended discrimination and nothing more needed to be done. For her racial prejudice is obvious, racists are obnoxious assholes in a Ku Klux Klan robe screaming the N word. It certainly couldn’t be nice middle class whites who hire employees or admit students to Ivy League colleges. They wouldn’t be caught dead in a Ku Klux Klan robe, so how could they be prejudiced.

The advantage of the public bigots is that they are easy to identify. The problem is the more prevalent form of racism that Blacks encounter is from polite and powerful White who, just the same, might be disinclined to hire someone different from them. They don’t say we are picking a White over a Black. They know the game. They say that the White guy is just more qualified for the job than the Black guy. For this reason, discrimination is difficult to prove. This is the barrier that Blacks face. MacDonald doesn’t appear to be bothered much by this more subtle form of racism or even acknowledge that it might exist.

Disparate-impact was one of the tools that the government used to show discrimination. If an employer has never hired Blacks, year after year, in a community where the population is 25% Black, then the government can see that there might be a problem with discrimination in hiring. Without disparate impact, how does MacDonald propose to identify non-compliant businesses and schools?

She doesn’t. She views discrimination as a phantom problem that doesn’t occur any more so there is no reason to investigate. People are only looking for the best – Black, White, Man, Woman. Race and Gender don’t matter only quality. Well, maybe, but how do we know this is happening unless we evaluate?

Finally, for the record, there will never be a meritocracy as long as rich families hand over their businesses to their children. It is never going to happen as long as some people have connections and others don’t. It never is going to happen as long as people with money can buy their children’s ways into universities. It never is going to happen when White middle class people can avoid “bad” school districts. It never is going to happen as long as poor Black children are given a second rate educations while White middle class children are given a first rate one.

How does MacDonald feel about those problems? Until she addresses them, I don’t believe that she gives a damn about meritocracy.

By on

There is nothing more annoying than a white man whining about how badly white men are treated. So I don’t encourage reading Matt Walsh’s cri de coeur about how people should be thanking white men for all the good that they have brought to the world. But, if you must, the rundown can be found below:

” I am proud to be a white man. I think that if anyone’s writing an article singling out white men, it should be to thank us. After all, as I said recently, this country could not exist without white men.”

“The vast majority of the greatest pioneers, inventors, thinkers, leaders in the history of Western civilization have been white men.”

Isn’t that a mouthful of bullshit? There are so many juicy targets here, I don’t know where to begin. His basic premise is both wrong. All you have to do is google inventions by Blacks, then change Blacks to Asian, then change Asian to women, and you will find significant inventions from members of all these groups. So what exactly does he mean when he writes “Nearly every good thing you have in your life — everything that makes your life safer, more comfortable, more enjoyable — was given to you by a white man.” Walsh has written a tricky sentence here both allowing him to acknowledge that non-white men may have contributed something to civilization while, also, allowing him to repeat his false assertion of “everything.”

Then there is White Men tend to tell stories that make White Men the heroes. So, when he talks, for instance, of the pioneers he is failing to acknowledge that these White Men followed paths that the Native American population already travelled and, in some cases, they were assisted by a Native American guide. This changes the story significantly. Lewis and Clark didn’t just wander into the woods and find Oregon. Non-Whites told them where to go. But Lewis and Clark got to tell their story in a way that it looks very much like White Men found the pathway across the continent when they were traveling paths used for centuries by non-Whites.

Most importantly, since White Men have been the most powerful people these past few centuries, it also stands to reason that they are responsible for every bad thing that has happened too — like industrial pollution, World War I, World War II, Racial Prejudice, and the subordination of Women. When you are in charge you have to take the good with the bad. Walsh wants you to thank white men for the good while ignoring the bad. It is a much more complicated legacy than Walsh would have you believe.

Which makes his whining so irritating. Poor White Men. No one appreciates them. Get out your handkerchiefs.