Frankly, I'm perplexed that the issue needs so much introspection. "Equality" in no way translates into "we are all intermarrying and moving into the same neighborhood." Equality means that we CAN intermarry and move into the same neighborhood. To try to force-fit "equality" into some abstract notion of some ideology's idea of "equity" takes us in the opposite direction of equality.
As an ad hoc student of nineteenth century America, I have an observation along the lines of, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." People oversimplify the time of slavery as either for or against. It's not that simple. Even as some people argued in favor of the end of slavery, they did not necessarily argue in favor of intermixing races. There are libraries full of contemporary literature, from all points of view, and I have read lot of them. But I can't possibly sum it all up in a short essay. The fact is, there are so many facets, NOBODY can sum it all up. Suffice to say, do NOT try to simplify our cultural issues into a Cliff notes version. It cannot be done well. It cannot be done accurately.
But, here's one little piece of the puzzle, that is entirely missing from contemporary ideology: Slaves and slave owners were part of a singular culture. Not a good one, but a singular one. In a sense, it was yin and yang. Both slaves and slave owners had generations to become used to the idea that blacks NEEDED to be enslaved, because they were too inferior to fend for themselves. This was not a universal belief, but it was the predominant one. Abolitionists in the North (and the South) favored legal equality, but that didn't always translate into a sense cultural commonality. One big difference between North and South, of which slavery is just one manifestation, is that Northers largely had a Calvinist belief in the power and need for individual effort. Southerners were far more accustomed to top-down authority over the individual. Hence, slavery is the tip of the iceberg concerning a radical difference in cultures.
So, even with the end of slavery, the former slaves and former slave owners largely continued with their "peculiar institution." So, has this changed? Not that much. One thing I failed to mention: It is democrats who persisted in expanding and codifying slavery. The Republican party formed for the express purpose of ending it. Today, the democratic party insists on fealty from blacks, and many democrats become incensed at those blacks who fail to stay loyal to the reformulated "peculiar institution." Republicans, on the other hand, think largely in terms of "We freed you, the rest is up to you."
This is almost unnoticeably different from the thinking of nearly 200 years ago. So, I would not make it so much about race; I would make it about culture. There are those who want a strong central authority that sets the rules and expects individuals to subvert their sense of individuality in favor of conformity. And there are those who insist on their individuality and independence and see government as the means only of seeing to the paving of roads and such. THAT is the real difference. Not skin color.
The above does not even rise to the level of Cliffs notes. Yet I see it as a very significant aspect to our current situation. And it is completely overlooked. In case anyone cares to read it, I have linked an essay I wrote, asking "How Free Are You?"
Completely incorrect and way too wordy; equity means equal outcomes as in in we all get the same amount of money at the end of the year. Equality is about equal opportunities. Do better.
Thanks for nothing. Literally. Face it, your comment has no real content.
I have no idea how you got the idea that I must meet your idea of standards. That's not what I would have expected from someone calling themselves, "Libertarian".
Frankly, I'm perplexed that the issue needs so much introspection. "Equality" in no way translates into "we are all intermarrying and moving into the same neighborhood." Equality means that we CAN intermarry and move into the same neighborhood. To try to force-fit "equality" into some abstract notion of some ideology's idea of "equity" takes us in the opposite direction of equality.
As an ad hoc student of nineteenth century America, I have an observation along the lines of, "The more things change, the more they stay the same." People oversimplify the time of slavery as either for or against. It's not that simple. Even as some people argued in favor of the end of slavery, they did not necessarily argue in favor of intermixing races. There are libraries full of contemporary literature, from all points of view, and I have read lot of them. But I can't possibly sum it all up in a short essay. The fact is, there are so many facets, NOBODY can sum it all up. Suffice to say, do NOT try to simplify our cultural issues into a Cliff notes version. It cannot be done well. It cannot be done accurately.
But, here's one little piece of the puzzle, that is entirely missing from contemporary ideology: Slaves and slave owners were part of a singular culture. Not a good one, but a singular one. In a sense, it was yin and yang. Both slaves and slave owners had generations to become used to the idea that blacks NEEDED to be enslaved, because they were too inferior to fend for themselves. This was not a universal belief, but it was the predominant one. Abolitionists in the North (and the South) favored legal equality, but that didn't always translate into a sense cultural commonality. One big difference between North and South, of which slavery is just one manifestation, is that Northers largely had a Calvinist belief in the power and need for individual effort. Southerners were far more accustomed to top-down authority over the individual. Hence, slavery is the tip of the iceberg concerning a radical difference in cultures.
So, even with the end of slavery, the former slaves and former slave owners largely continued with their "peculiar institution." So, has this changed? Not that much. One thing I failed to mention: It is democrats who persisted in expanding and codifying slavery. The Republican party formed for the express purpose of ending it. Today, the democratic party insists on fealty from blacks, and many democrats become incensed at those blacks who fail to stay loyal to the reformulated "peculiar institution." Republicans, on the other hand, think largely in terms of "We freed you, the rest is up to you."
This is almost unnoticeably different from the thinking of nearly 200 years ago. So, I would not make it so much about race; I would make it about culture. There are those who want a strong central authority that sets the rules and expects individuals to subvert their sense of individuality in favor of conformity. And there are those who insist on their individuality and independence and see government as the means only of seeing to the paving of roads and such. THAT is the real difference. Not skin color.
The above does not even rise to the level of Cliffs notes. Yet I see it as a very significant aspect to our current situation. And it is completely overlooked. In case anyone cares to read it, I have linked an essay I wrote, asking "How Free Are You?"
https://donewithparties.com/how-free-are-you-2/
Completely incorrect and way too wordy; equity means equal outcomes as in in we all get the same amount of money at the end of the year. Equality is about equal opportunities. Do better.
Thanks for nothing. Literally. Face it, your comment has no real content.
I have no idea how you got the idea that I must meet your idea of standards. That's not what I would have expected from someone calling themselves, "Libertarian".
Least I didn’t take 6 paragraphs to say nothing. Lol.