Let's Have a Frank Discussion on Race

Great Debates
101

Der Trihs’s comments are probably exaggerated, but there is a strong element of truth in them.

By the time of the riots that began around 1966, blacks had been subject to a lot of anti-wealth violence. Tulsa stands out, of course, but there was a lot more–some direct violence, some financial violence.

The riots of the early 1920s were the culmination of years of similar events and they tended to be directed, not against the poorest blacks and the “criminal elements,” but against the wealthier sections of the black communities. Springfield, IL, Duluth, MN, Chicago, and other often resulted in the destruction of the black middle class. In 1943, in the first Detroit race riot, whites who did not want to live near blacks in Federal housing, (not poverty housing, but war production housing), rampaged for days, almost ignoring the public housing over which they were supposed to be angered and attacking middle class neighborhoods. The police reported, afterward, that the “colored people” had finally settled down, as if they were the rioters.

1943 was as close in memory to 1967, (Detroit’s next big riot), as the Reagan years are to us, today. Much of the earliest violence was directed, (not necessarily with much thought), against white store owners who were perceived to be robbing the black community. Once the fires got started, of course, the black neighborhoods bore the brunt of the flames.

In addition to the physical violence were other events. During the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, the whites were escorted out of the flooded region while the blacks were herded onto levees and forced to camp, surrounded by flood waters, with few provisions. When the waters receded, the blacks were not permitted to return to their homes to recover their losses, but were compelled to act as forced labor to clean up the white neighborhoods while their own property rotted.
During the 1930s, when blacks and whites competed to sell farm goods, black farmers were inhibited from equal access to markets and then their farms were claimed as the result of foreclosures and tax liens while many white farmers who had not been kept away from markets were permitted to use their revenue to purchase the blacks’ lands.

In the industrial North, immigrants were given preferential hiring over blacks, hence the origin of the phrase, “last hired, first fired.” Until the unions stopped the practice, companies in a soft market would routinely fire blacks, then hire immigrants to replace them when the economy turned up again. (And a great many unions never challenged that practice, allowing that behavior to continue well into the 1960s.)

Those actions sent a strong message that there was little point in trying to accumulate wealth.

102

I think this is mistaken.
If a frank discussion is just a bitch or blame session this might be true but it doesn’t have to be that. You enter it with the goal of understanding and improving race relations.

It interests me that the two posts that dismiss the need or use of any FDOR assume that its all about blaming white people or white guilt. Do you have any idea why that is because I sincerely don’t get it.
IMO a FDOR {noticing the word frank} would also include a recognition of black anger and resentment toward whites and views of whites as the enimies. A recognition of how very counter productive those attitudes are. A discussion that includes personal responsibility.

103

I just want to know if Cokie is a nickname and how she got it.

104

I was thinking more along these lines:

A) Figure out what the discussion is supposed to be about
B) Have the discussion

From reading this thread, it seems that the ‘frank discussion on race’ isn’t new. I’m hearing exactly the same stuff I’ve heard when Americans have talked about race for at least 20 years now. So I don’t think this is the discussion Donna Brazile and Cokey were talking about. Bitch sessions are easy, substantial dialog that affects outcome isn’t.

For one thing, I don’t understand how this ‘frank discussion’ leads to an end of racism. I think the racial divide persists because it’s in the interests of activists on both sides to keep it going. Accusations of racism are routinely thrown at the right as a tactic to marginalize non-racist opinion, for example. Race baiting has been used by both sides for a long time.

Also, I think that the conflict (at least between blacks and whites) has more to do with an honest difference of opinion as to what the correct steps are to eliminate racism or at least to make society more just. I get the sense that the black activist community is looking for special accommodation from government, funding for black organizations, reparations for past racism, and other concrete demands. It’s not just a ‘discussion’ - it’s an airing of demands that they want met. And just like the result of paying the Danegeld, I think that if such conditions were agreed to, you’d never ever get rid of racism because it would be shown to be an effective means of funneling power your way.

But let’s say we want to have this frank discussion. I’ll play the role of HR facilitator for America, since I’m not one of the parties involved. So let me call the meeting.

In my opinion, meetings that are held to just ‘air grievances’ are more than useless. People blather around for an hour or two, the meeting breaks up, and nothing is accomplished.

So let’s structure this a bit more, which is what I’d do if I were facilitating a business meeting

Discussion Announcement: “A Frank Discussion on Race”

Attendees Required: All Americans who are still complaining about racism

Agenda: Each side will compile a list of their top five issues, broken down into specific action items that they think should be addressed in order to satisfy the issue. They will order them by importance and present them to the other side, along with their preferred resolution to each item.

Action Items: When this meeting is over, the attendees will be expected to have come to agreement on what the top issues facing race are. Subsequent meetings will address each item in order. At those meetings, attendees will be required to bring specific evidence as to where they see harm being committed, and what concrete steps need to be taken to resolve the issue. The meeting will conclude when both sides come to an agreement that involves specific, actionable steps.

In my experience, if you can’t define the problem in terms of specifics and come up with a list of demands or suggested actions to solve the problem, then a ‘frank discussion’ is a waste of time, and is probably just a code phrase for, “You need to listen to what I want you to do, then you need to shut up and do it.”

105

Actually, Dinsdale’s statement is more accurate than yours.

Chattel slavery–the kind practiced in the U.S.–particularly chattel slavery based exclusively on ethnicity, has been pretty rare. It has occurred in other places and times, but the more common form of slavery has rarely been formed on the notion that one person was property with no rights and no way to purchase freedom, based exclusively on his or her appearance.

The slave miners of ancient Rome were not the standard for slavery, even in Rome, and Roman slavery differed from that of Greece.

106

It is. She’s Hale Bogg’s daughter, you know. Anyway, her actual name is Mary Martha Corinne Morrison Claiborne Boggs Roberts, and when she was a baby, everyone called her Corinne. But her brother, who was only two years old when she was born, couldn’t say “Corinne”, and called her “Cokie”, and the nickname stuck.

107

A lot of modern blacks live in a separate society. They have terrible schools and getting ahead through education is very difficult. They often live in a dangerous neighborhood and grow up fast . They are pretty damn sure that most of the good things in life are out of their reach. There was a time when you could work in a factory and make a decent living through doing hard and dangerous work. Now that labor of the sort is offshored, they find few opportunities. They see they are not needed any more. Cities they live in are decaying around them. One of the few ways to get ahead is the drug trade. If you start to use ,it is easy to spiral down to the bottom.A lot of blacks just quit trying and spend their lives scrambling for money.

108

Not analogous at all. Among blacks, women and gays, who got their “complete package” of civil rights first? Blacks. And yet to someone who lives in the third world, blacks appear to whine so much more loudly than is necessary. Heck, gays can’t even marry yet and not only do blacks whine more, they are overrepresented among those who oppose gay marriage. Talk about hypocrisy.

109

So let’s just accept it as par for the course? What we are seeing now, not in political theory, is a pattern of reprehensible race baiting as a political tool. IMO it’s clear and obvious. Obvious enough that decent Republicans ought to condemn it. If they can’t because they agree, need the votes no matter how they get them, or are to worried about their job to take a stand, then they don’t deserve the job at all.
Now that I’ve vented a bit, let me say, racism will continue for some time, over several more generations. Frank discussions are only 1 component and are only helpful if they lead to a change of attitude and actions. That doesn’t make them useless.
Something as structured as you suggest isn’t a bad idea. I wouldn’t be surprised to find people have already implemented it. An ongoing panel devoted to improving race relations. I’d also say that any discussion or experience that leads to understanding and empathy is a step in the right direction. I’ve learned things in this thread about our own countries history that I didn’t know.

110

How exactly do you think they got those civil rights first? By “whining”. Loudly. Louder than women and gays did. Going along with the system means that nothing changes.

And officially having civil rights is certainly helpful, but it doesn’t make bigotry go away. Civil rights are a necessary but not sufficient precondition for justice.

111

Preecisely. Americans act as if you invented that damn thing. Everybody had it in varying degrees. This whole talk about having a “frank discussion about race” is code word for “we will play the white guilt violin till the end of time”. Frankly, it’s transparent and pathetic.

112

Their complete package of civil rights? Holy crap. Are you talking technically or in reality?
I think it’s pretty dam analogous.

WTF are you saying? That black americans shouldn’t compare their lives to their white neighbors up the street but to 3rd world countries and count their blessings. Jesus H Christ man.

113

Of course protest matters. Making your voice heard matters. But whining past the point of getting to your goal is just plain tiresome to watch. And having civil rights is all there is to it. When Democrats use it in their policy speeches, civil rights is all that matters. Without these “helpful” civil rights, no remedy exists. Tell me, in what form does this supposed bigotry still show itself that cannot be remedied by the court of law?

114

Of course not. They should compare their lives to their white neighbors. The fact that most of them wreck it themselves is their fault. But when I watch documentaries showing black americans in their most mournful faces about the supposed bigotry that they received - nevermind that it’s mostly imaginary - I can’t help but compare their level of despair to those who actually have it so much worse.

115

Except they aren’t at their goal yet. And no, you don’t get to determine what their goals are, they do.

Any and all forms of prejudice that are too subtle to be proven in a court, for one. For another, all the racist behavior and attitudes that could be remedied in courts, but haven’t yet. The courting and encouragement of the racists by the Republicans. Assault, robbery and murder by the cops while the justice system looks the other way. The large racial disparity in who gets punished and how much in the legal system. And so on.

No, having civil rights isn’t “all there is”; not even close.

116

And what is the goal? You get access to free elementary and secondary education. You get to choose where you get it. There is no abridgment to any rights regarding employment - in fact, a slight bias is in their favor (as with other minorities) because of affirmative action. You get all the rights given to your white counterpart. What ELSE is there?

And if it can’t be remedied in the courts, how exactly do they want to remedy it? What exactly about the law needs amending? Could the racial disparity in who gets punished and how much is more a function of poverty and actual incidence rather than race? Why is it the problem of “whites” if blacks are generally poorer and more inclined to criminality (whatever the root cause is)?

117

and there it is again. Being concerned about the state of our own society doesn’t make us oblivious to others. That’s not the point at all. Sure, white guilt exists. To dismiss the real issue racism on that basis is just a ludicrous generalization.

118

Equal treatment, no abuse.

Because to a large degree the “crime” in question is being black. Blacks are more likely than whites to be arrested and are punished worse for the same crimes. Or to just be harassed or killed for being black.

Yes, the situation is better than it was, but that doesn’t make it good.

119

How did you come across the ability to read peoples’ minds? You appear to have no interest in an honest discussion with ridiculous rhetoric like this.

120

And what’s the real issue? What exactly do blacks need in terms of rights, entitlement, etc? The only time I ever hear racism is raised is when some black person wants to play to white guilt. Nothing legitimate is ever presented that can’t be remedied in the courts. I say, it’s won. Blacks should get over it.