Also, just a pattern I’ve noticed.
Whenever people make a racial analysis of class structures, the call comes - “it’s not about race, it’s about class”. Well, not in those words, but the appeal is always about dealing with poverty instead of race.
Then, when the discussion is about class and poverty, the same people who object to talking about race this way seem to be against any means to reduce the wealth gap.
It just feels like a distraction, is all.
Likewise, I’m sure.
I’ve seen that in some people. Usually because they lack empathy in general, which is how they managed to internalize racism in the first place, and why they don’t care about the plight of the poor. I suspect that they cling to the argument about class because it’s easier to own up to (and looks better) than “screw the coloreds,” but however wrong they may be in reasoning, even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
Class is a vastly superior indicator than race for most outcomes. Addressing our system that is neigh-on perfectly designed to reinforce class distinction and punish poverty ruthlessly would do a lot to alleviate the plight of minorities. Focusing on race, however, is far less likely to produce the necessary society reforms that would benefit the most people in the most drastic ways.
This is why I am staunch opponent of fiat currencies and the cantillon effect, why I support M4A, advocate for ending private prisons, argue fiercely against fee-for-being-poor structures, oppose the war on drugs and treating drug abuse as a moral failing, advocate for getting money out of politics, advocate for vastly increased education spending, just to name a few. They’re all aimed at reducing poverty. Doing so would end the economic segregation that keeps minorities concentrated in low income zones and thereby isolated from wealthier populations. The most effective cure to racism is exposure. It’s easy to demonize “that thing that I only see on COPS doing bad stuff” and much harder to demonize “My neighbor who invites me to barbeques.” It’s also harder to sustain systemic racism when you give the economic power to everyone rather than concentrate it in one particular population’s hands.
Wow, that is alot. I might get it.
I’d be interested in alternative suggestions. My previous thread on the subject.
And rereading that thread, I’d misremembered it: I thought folks from other nations had a lot more awareness of the speech than they did. My apologies for misrepresenting it. Still and all, I’m not sure there’s a more famous speech out there.
Are you just looking for political speech? I’d suspect “To be or not to be” would be more widely recognized.
Yeah, I was definitely not including oratory from drama; otherwise Shakespeare takes it in a walk :). More thinking about things people said in public that are their own words, and that the event of the speech is part of what’s known.
You are now making different claims.
My claim: 75% of whites receive no inheritance, this means that inheritance makes no difference in the lives of most white people. So it is wrong to say that white people have been acquiring wealth for 300 years.
The fact that Indian Americans are the richest ethnic group despite most being in the country less than 30 years shows that time in the country is not what causes an ethnic group to accumulate wealth. What causes wealth accumulation is current high income and high savings, not history.
I would add onto that, pushing their kids to go to college and get high paying careers.
The Millionaire Next Door cites some interesting figures about wealth accumulation. I don’t have the exact figures, but it puts self-made millionaires at about 80% if memory serves of all millionaires as of the time of the study therein. The idea that most wealth is an ancient accumulation passed down to a select few is off by quite a considerable amount. There are wealthy inheritors, but they don’t make up a significant portion of the wealthy. Not remotely. Most wealth in the US is self generated.
That is not to dismiss the historical effects of racist policies against minorities though. If you’re born poor, odds are you stay poor. There isn’t nearly as much class mobility as people think there is (in fact, moving up in class is significantly less common than moving down). Because generations ago there was an obvious race-based disparity, and because the poor stay poor, the lions-share of every minority generation thereafter has stayed poor. But that’s also true of poor whites. The racist history of the US created the initial poverty within minority groups, and the US economic system perpetuated it to this day.
That’s also not to dismiss the relatively unmentioned set of policies such as the ongoing drug war that was instituted specifically to punish poor minorities and continues to do so today. There’s definitely racism that specifically makes minorities poor today. Depriving any family of stability by stripping away a primary income earner, parent, and partner is a huge push towards poverty. That needs to stop immediately. We need to stop doing our darndest to punish the poor and especially poor minorities, which includes throwing a bunch of potential fathers and partners in prison… but minorities from families that don’t come up in poverty and in the neighborhoods where poverty is entrenched are far more resilient against the factors that lead to incarceration. Fixing poverty takes the teeth out of racist policies and directly aids families across the board. It also unifies people instead of allowing for the divide and conquer tactics that have so effectively crushed any and all attempts to address the problems of today.
Maybe Churchill’s “Fight them on the beaches” speech, then? I can see people outside the US seeing MLK as addressing a specifically American problem, whereas fighting Nazis was everybody’s problem.
This and IHaD are my personal favorite two speeches, not for their content but just for their poetry and delivery.
I obviously think this is an interesting question, but it’s kind of a hijack from the main point of this thread. Maybe we should continue discussion of it in the previous thread, even though it’s a second grader by now?
Trump’s most recent incoherent rambling about trucks and how he knew as a child that he’d be president has to be up there. Maybe not the up to the Churchill one (Never surrender!), but right there with “Ask not what your country can do for you.” Just wait and see. Only time will tell.