I agreed with the ruling in the Harvard case; 100%. For the majority of my adult life, I have stood against affirmative action, especially with regard to college admissions processes.
But I must say that I wasn't at all impressed by this piece.
Seriously. We need to broaden this discussion. Otherwise it's just another shallow boring talking point, and a massive wasted opportunity.
It is too easy to say, "We stand against racial discrimination!"
Real life is a bit more complicated. Hopefully, we are about to find out.
The same legal outfit that prevailed over Harvard have now sued a VC fund that targets Black & Latino female entrepreneurs. Fearless Fund was established as a result of Black & Latino female entrepreneurs complaining about Silicon Valley VC funds discriminating against them.
As I understand it, they could never prove their charge--no smoking guns.
In fairness, I don't know if these high-tech "good ol' boys networks" were guilty or not. But for argument's sake, let's say they were never guilty of any such discrimination. In the case of Fearless, it didn't matter; these ladies opted for another path:
"Let's do our own thing. If others wish to join us, we will welcome them with open arms."
Sounds eerily similar to, "Let's pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Let's take control of our own community. Let's make the free market work for us."
I could have sworn this school of thought was a staple in conservative philosophy (or used to be). But that's beside the point.
Bottom line, Fearless Fund was wide open about why they were created and what they were about. If anything, it was a key part of their pitch, and yes, an obvious form of racial and gender discrimination.
Enter Edward Blum's so-called American Alliance for Equal Rights. Apparently they are kind of feeling themselves these days: "Yeah, we kicked Harvard's butt! Who else wants some? How about the VC industry?"
I get it. But I don't think they realize what's ahead of them. As the article suggests, we may see a few unexpected allies in this fight. Some of the most anti-woke capitalists in Silicon Valley--like Jason Calacanis--are supporters of efforts like Fearless.
STRONG supporters. Have been for YEARS.
It all begs the question: What do we mean when we say we are against racial discrimination? Does that mean ANY discrimination based on race, or any OVERT discrimination based on race?
If the courts rule against Fearless, how do so-called conservatives reconcile their age-old principle of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps? Is it a simple matter of removing the explicit race-specific language on a firm's mission statement and moving forward with the same agenda "in stealth"? (Which, btw, is more or less what Harvard et al are going to do?)
I cannot wait to see this unfold. I am not a big believer in the slippery slope theory, but how far are they planning to go with this?
Ever heard of Project 21? They describe themselves as an initiative with the goal of "promoting the views of African-Americans whose entrepreneurial spirit, dedication to family and commitment to individual responsibility have not traditionally been echoed by the nation’s civil rights establishment."
Sounds a little like racial discrimination on some level, yes? What about Candace Owens' idiotic and obviously fraudulent "Blexit"? Are they next on deck? If not, why not?
A society with zero racial discrimination means one thing to me: One in which race doesn't mean a damned thing to anybody (a concept that I am 100% down with, by the way).
But what percentage of this country--left, right OR center--agrees?
The Constitution seems to be concerned primarily with the use of public funds. Harvard takes tax dollars and is supposed to play by the rules. If the VC is private money they can do as they please.
Private association with private money may be regrettable but I'm not seeing it as concerning. Most people don't have the time to bother with counting melanin cells.
"Most people don't have the time to bother with counting melanin cells."
That's what I thought. But Mr. Blum & Co. want their fair shot at fame and glory.
But on a more serious note, I *think*--not sure--that corporations are required to enter into a pact with the government. That's how they become official entities. That pact bounds them to US law, which includes discrimination laws.
A Jew once told me that he doesn't respect black folks people...they are liquid money... they can't seem to aggregate their economics like the Jews and Asians who bounce dollars numerous times among themselves before it leaves their communities.
Social integration is not measurable; it can't be deposited into the bank. For example, It's increasingly sad to see Koreans own and control the billion-dollar hair products industry. It's amazing and sad how black women get mistreated at these Asian-owned salons and shops and still go back.
Racism is a competitive relationship between groups for ownership and control of resources for wealth and power. It's a power relationship. Whites got the headstart, and blacks have never been part of the race. Blacks have been the boot and loot.
Racism is a team sport. Forfeiting is suicide. Other competing minority groups have figured this out. Black folks are still in la la land wearing their glasses upside down.
Wishing for a color-blind society is like wishing for one billion dollars to be placed in my checking account. Lol!!!!
It does really underline the difference between preference and discrimination. As I understand it, most small minority groups have as a value supporting their own. I don’t think most people would call that discrimination.
It also reveals the ways in which sex/gender is different than race/ethnicity. In my opinion, the difference in the way the sexes are treated comes from a much deeper place in our mammalian brains than does our potential treatment/mistreatment of the outgroup.
Maybe our utter incoherence in getting our stories straight about how society should be ordered is based on a fundamental unwillingness to be honest with ourselves about our real beliefs and real values.
We are all based. To not be biased would be to ignore our individuality. Clearly, we all have a right to like and to associate with whoever we please. How does that translate to employment and schools? I have yet to find a defensible line between the right of the individual to associate as they please, and the non-right to hire as they please.
And, speaking of discrimination, consider the people who are truly being discriminated against; employers, landlords, and other businesses. They are legally and arguably constitutionally prohibited from discriminating based on sex, race, religion or age. Sounds great, right? Sure, but why do these laws not equally apply to employees and tenants? Any employee or tenant can face their employer or landlord and state straight to their face that they don't like them because of the employer or landlord's sex, race, religion or age. If the employer or landlord answers back in like manner, it is they who are in trouble.
We pretend that we're acting on principle. I think not. Isn't it interesting, in America, that justice almost invariably comes down to money. Lawyers speak of deep pockets. There is no point to suing someone with no money. "Justice" tends to center around who has enough money to be worth suing. Cue the employers and landlords...
Just a thought, there is more difficulty in drawing a line in those rights/non-rights you describe for a baker hiring his son in law or a landowner who rents out a house or two. There is a much clearer line when you are talking about a government entity or say a private entity with the government protection provided by “incorporation”. The problem many people may have is in recognizing all the government benefits given under condition of buying in to non-discrimination. For example, a doctor can probably legally discriminate against accepting patients, unless he takes Medicare or Medicaid (as almost all doctors do). Or maybe not, perhaps it is prohibited as part of the state issued license that allows him/her to legally practice and buy malpractice insurance and all the other protections afforded by various public entities. Or maybe it varies by state. Certainly there is an unlicensed doc somewhere who is free to discriminate, if you want to take all the risk and pay out of pocket. That is not, however, a way to build a modern society.
For the record, I started and ran a corporation. No, it wasn't huge, typically just four or five employees. Various kinds of corporations can have tax advantages, and can protect an individual from some lawsuits (the corporation get sued, not the individual, SOMETIMES).
It is not true that not being incorporated allows a private employer or landlord.to discriminate as he chooses. A court would tend to accept a business owner hiring family members instead of a minority. That would probably not be seen as discrimination. Yet, there's no guarantee.
Further, the doctor who works for cash only and is not licensed is, first of all, committing felonies just for practicing without a license. Second, he is STILL required to observe discrimination laws.
Yes, entities that accept government payments for patients, tenants, etc must abide by specific requirements attached to those payments. But those aren't laws, per se, they are contractual conditions. You or I could set our own conditions for contracts just as the government can. We could set as a condition to a contractor, that they must hire our son's plumbing company as the plumber, if they are to build our house. Those sorts of things happen fairly regularly. Not the law, a contractual agreement.
Sure, my point is you get responsibilities when you get rights. Do people go to jail for working “under the table” if they pay taxes? No, or I’ve never heard of it. If a guy rents his house to the nice young white family instead of the black college kids, is he going to get sued? I’m going to guess no. How would you know or prove it!? If you are a big company with lots of high paid employees, people are going to be looking for and notice discrimination far more than at a mom and pop shop. I know the consequence to the mom and pop shop are much worse, though. I also realize not all companies are giant multinational corporations. But the corporation, even a small one, is an advantage the government gives you that protects in more than just from lawsuits. My point is that the government can ask of you to do stuff, because you get something for it. Under your construction, you could look at a license, incorporation, etc as a “contract” with the government and thus they can set their own terms…
The Supreme Court just held that a company can discriminate, even against a protected class, in some cases — explicitly in that case was when it violates the providers first amendments rights. Right?
Also, I think you have a distorted view of how often people sue over discrimination, or how often they win. I too have read idiotic cases with ridiculously large settlements. But having experienced discrimination/ harassment and seen it in workplaces, I have never met a person who sued or seen a person punished for it. It’s kinda one of those empty threats like that waiters will be audited by the IRS about their tips.
PS, that everything comes down to money (from your original post) is that “late stage capitalism” progressives complain about… it seems to me though that is more of our monkey nature… take the side of the big guy so he doesn’t hurt you or the guy whose got something you want and is willing to share…
I totally, absolutely 100% disagree. First and foremost, the constitution states that rights are GOD given, not government given. You may or may not believe in God, but that's not the point. The point is that we are all 100% free, and governments can do nothing but restrict those tights. They can't grant them, because rights aren't theirs to grant.
We all get that there are governments, and governments make laws. We probably also agree that laws against murder, rape, theft etc are worthwhile laws. Still, those are restrictions. Now how about who you or I can rent to? How about who you and I can rent FROM? My point all along has been that, if the government, in its good conscience says that a landlord can discriminate on the base of race, then why can tenants? And they can. Never mind "under the table", a tenant can shout from the rooftops that he refuses to rent from blacks. Or Jews. Or whoever. It's not illegal. Well, why not?
You seem to be hung up on corporations, as if being a corporation protects them from discrimination charges or some such. It most certainly does NOT. Would you please just let go of that prejudice?
And, what is "late-stage capitalism"? Clearly, you've taken some sort of course in which they're implanting ideas in you that you decline to question. My rule of thumb is, question EVERYTHING. Yes, question me. Am I faulting you for questioning me? No. Well, while you're at it, question your teachers. If they deflect your challenges, they aren't teachers, they're indoctrinators. There is no late stage capitalism. We aren't at the end of something, about to start something else. That's fantasy. If you want something else, what is it? It takes capitalism to make your computer, your cellphone, your clothes, your home and pretty much everything else you have. Much of that was made in China, a communist country. Do you think that its being communist means there's no capitalism there? Far from it.
If we agree that racial discrimination is wrong, then we must understand that the government meddling either for or against discrimination is wrong. Government is force, and the hallmark of civil society is choice. I'll give two examples:
During the Articles of Confederation, six black slaves sued for their freedom in six separate cases, and were successful. After the Constitution enshrined black slaves as worth 2/3 of white votes, but accruing to the slave owner, no slaves sued or were freed of their own choice.
After Jim Crow laws were repealed, and before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the people (black and white) were on their own to find their own way into civility. The CRA has actually slowed that process, and in some ways reversed it.
I am white, and I was raised to believe that a civil society is a society of chosen association, and that association can be race-based, religion-based, friendship-based. No one has the right to force anyone else to associate with anyone, nor anyone associate with me.
Businesses or groups that routinely shun people based on irrational standards, lessen the pool of intelligent people who could enrich their life with wisdom and kindness.
My Romanian grandmother gave me the strength to survive prejudice and discrimination (of which there was always plenty). She would say, "They're just jealous." The implication was, "Get over it, and you can triumph over it." I believe that.
If you truly want a color-blind America, not in the sense that we fail to see the individual qualities of people, but that the government is silent on these matters, because if we're all equal under the law, our individual, immutable characteristics don't matter to the law. The law must be silent on discrimination if you really want to diffuse this bomb.
The argument so far …I’m white. I got mine, you Blacks got yours to get. If businesses choose to discriminate, that is their affair. This is the message of Barry Goldwater’s Presidential campaign. We need reminders of what Conservatives believe.
Thomas Sowell is Booker T. Washington 2.0. He is a Conservative hero in the same vein as Candace Owens. These discussions are fascinating.
Hey Robert, there are plenty of people of all races who think “I got mine!” I wouldn’t think of myself as that type, as I believe taxes should be higher, mine specifically even. But I found myself basically sounding like that talking with a lovely young black man working a menial job (transporting patients in the hospital as a contractor) who wanted to “burn it all down”. I was lucky, worked hard, and made good choices so my family could be safe and comfortable. I want that for everyone, granted, but I don’t want to lose what I have. I suspect even the poorest don’t want to give up what they have, they’d say take from that other guy with more… would you want to give up what you have? Just to say… it’s easy to dismiss people and mischaracterize them.
Wealth is a mindset as much or more than a bank account. The "burn it all down" crowd would take yours and just add it to the pile. The politics of envy is no respecter of person or color, anyone can be poor of character.
Enjoy what you have earned and do what you can to help others earn theirs. That will be empowering for both of you and you both will be richer.
My assessment applies to what I see presented by the modern Conservative movement. My current solution is to vote as many of them out of office as I can. Conservatives are a threat to my children’s education and if they had their way would take away my ability to vote. I do not see Conservatives fighting against the racists in their ranks. I don’t think that I am mischaracterizing Conservatives.
As for the young man who wants to burn it all down, I strongly disagree with his position. I think voting can still make a difference. I do not see Conservatives creating a situation where that young man can advance. A Conservative icon is suing a venture capital group formed to provide funding for Black and Latino women. Conservatives go out of their way to make themselves my enemy. My solution is Vote.
Edit to add
DeSantis allows children to be exposed to Prager U
Conservatives are silent
The Governor of Arkansas bans AP African American studies two days before schools open
Republicans are silent
Alabama ignores a Supreme Court ruling on voting districts
Republicans are silent
The Governor of Texas puts up barbed wire to injure immigrants
I don’t disagree with your take on modern conservatives. My point is more that we need to be clear about what we are talking about. “Burn it all down” is a feeling of frustration on both sides of the political spectrum who see what others have as unfairly theirs or unearned. “I got mine” is a retreat from public discourse fueled, in my opinion, by a similar sense that our problems (maybe can but definitely) *won’t* be solved by government action. I agree on the importance of our civic voice and voting: I just also hope we will all educate ourselves about different perspectives and impacts before we do, so our vote represents both our personal but also our societal interests. Do you know what I mean?
Burn it all down makes no sense. Conservatives are the group that openly states government doesn’t work. They then run for office, obstruct and prove that government doesn’t work. The only solution is to vote for the person who is not a Conservative. Conservatives are not going to educate themselves. Conservatives want an uneducated public. What message do you have to change the Conservative mind?
Edit to add:
Kumbaya is not going to have any impact on Conservations. Liberals and Independents are the only option to avoid authoritarian government.
The best thing about this site is that Conservatives are revealing their beliefs to the public. Usually they keep the quiet part to themselves. This is a goldmine.
Edit to add:
Conservatives like to post things like “Kamala is Wrong again” or whine about “Woke Racism”, but the public notes the silence of Conservatives on the bigotry and racism within their own ranks. They can have a more civilized version of it in a Presidential candidate who told Don Lemon the Civil War was fought so Blacks could have access to guns and Juneteenth is a “useless” holiday, but we know who the red meat is geared to attract.
Conservatives align themselves who Proud Boys and then feign surprise when caught.
We have lots of Romanians living in Georgia. They seem to stick to themselves. I don't find them to be like the antebellum Southern crackers. Antebellum Southern cracker culture emanated from the old cracker culture in Northern England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. Thomas Sowell has written that the antebellum Southern cracker culture negatively impacted African descendants. Notably, the blacks from the Caribbean and Nigeria, not having been exposed to antebellum Southern cracker culture, have prospered in America (e.g., creating good businesses, etc.).
A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests. - Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell has one foot in the grave---a model meritorious transmission negro relic. They created the meritorious manumission act in Virginia in 1710 to better/manage black slaves. Slaves were rewarded with freedom and monuments for saving Massas's life, inventing something that increased Massa's' wealth, and snitching on other slaves who planned escapes and rebellions. People who saved Massa's life, invented something that increased Massa's wealth, and snitched on other slaves who planned escapes and rebellions, have monuments commemorating them. We still have numerous meritorious manumission Negroes today, with Clarence Thomas at the top of the list---the most conservative in SCOTUS. There's talk in Georgia by conservative whites to create a monument in honoring him. He recently wrote a scathing 50-page dissent against a majority ruling that didn't gut the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Mississippi wanted to gerrymander a dominant black area in Mississippi, diluting black representation. I live in the Deep South and white ultra-conservatives are on steroids in destroying black political power (self-determination) through white-dominant legislation (e.g., the ability to replace black district attorneys, judges, etc. who go against the grain of ultra-white right-wing-supremacist policies).
"a model meritorious transmission negro relic"? His work is being read more and more and gathering stronger following in both black and white society. Put his ideology and intellect vs the left's torch bearer Kendi and it's no contest.
Black conservatism is as old as black enslavement, which has caused economic devastation for Blacks. Black conservatives represent a potential danger to their race because of their alignment with white conservatives, who have always been anti-black. When black-white conservative alignments occur, black conservatives become a liability to black and an asset to whites.
Black conservatives who place their personal advancements above the welfare of their race often gain significant benefits, recognition, approval, and access to power. They’re anointed by whites as leaders and touted as role models. Politically/socially, a black conservative is closely akin to ‘Sambo’ in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom's Cabin. Sambo was black America's worst nightmare. Sambo represents the extraordinary success of social control, which was the ultimate goal of a slavery conditioning process of social control that transplanted a white mindset into a black personality.
Modern conservatism ascension started in the late 60s as a white backlash to the Civil Rights Movement, which demanded improved living conditions, including more wealth and community control. This frightened/shocked white man (“we can let them Negroes have some autonomy and self-determination…we'll lose control.”). Anyway, the private class appealed to conservatism to reassert the supremacy of white authority and its exclusive claim to power and wealth (makes me think of the time when Senator Goldwater ran for the presidency in which he was against the Civil Rights act).
I don't support Kendis' work. Begging whites for affirmation is silly. I'm pro-black--- increasing black economic aggregation and power. Social integration doesn't translate into a monetary value that can be deposited into a bank. Blacks spending 98% of their dollars on non-black businesses doesn't generate enough black wealth and power. I and a number of other black individuals travel down a road less traveled.
Clarence Thomas certainly loves Ginny, the woman who worked for the racist John Birch Society Imagine me in bed with a woman who worked for the ku klux klan and supported a rightwing coup to overthrow democracy. Hating whitey? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
I used to rescue wannabe proud boys from Aryan Brotherhood prison gang rape during my 34 years working in the prison industrial complex back in California. I even went out of my way to help dumb white boys resolve their gambling debts vs being shanked to death. Momma would call me and say, "Thank you, lord Jesus." You should commend me for my black humanity.
My grandfather was half Scots-Irish and my daughter-is-law is white. Whites are regularly in and out of my home, especially some "Redneck Revolt" members (anti-fascist). 🤡🤡🤡🤡
Conservatives tell Blacks to pull themselves up by their bootstraps then sue a venture capital firms that aims to do just that. Conservatives have no moral authority to chastise anyone.
Here is a classic Sowell strawman argument
Sowell is an inveterate trafficker in straw man arguments and in slippery logic, so it really doesn’t matter that he “refers to rigorous research” if he misuses it to bolster his position instead of rational conclusions. His columns often impute the worst motives to Democrats and progressives instead of the most logical.
Here is a perfect example, in which Sowell warns against the consequences of “allowing” two Democratic senators to be elected from Georgia:
In this essay, we find two glaring examples of false logic. The first is his creation of a slippery little straw man by implication, when he writes:
Senate Democrats’ leader, Senator Charles Schumer, has already announced what he has in store, if the Democrats get a majority in the Senate. So has President-elect Joe Biden. And it goes way beyond specific policies. It includes institutional changes that can be permanent, and almost guarantee one-party rule in this country, as far out as the eye can see.
If more than 10 million people who are in this country illegally are given the right to vote — and most of those votes are almost certain to go to Democrats — that is a major new political reality that will be with us for generations.
Did you notice the little sleight of hand? Sowell says that Schumer and Biden have said what they “have in store” for the country—but doesn’t bother to quote anything they have said. Then he makes a declarative statement about illegal immigrants voting that has no connection to the previous paragraph, except by innuendo.
For national security reasons alone, we must apply a proper understanding of the 14th Amendment. The CCP controls its people precisely because they have no real legal protections. Can we pull together before they pull us apart.
I and other individuals are looking forward to the day when we can stop stocking up on ammunition, firearms, tactical training, and other essentials for possible neo-fascist violence behind Donald Trump's madness.
beautiful
I agreed with the ruling in the Harvard case; 100%. For the majority of my adult life, I have stood against affirmative action, especially with regard to college admissions processes.
But I must say that I wasn't at all impressed by this piece.
Seriously. We need to broaden this discussion. Otherwise it's just another shallow boring talking point, and a massive wasted opportunity.
It is too easy to say, "We stand against racial discrimination!"
Real life is a bit more complicated. Hopefully, we are about to find out.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/group-behind-affirmative-action-cases-130312268.html
The same legal outfit that prevailed over Harvard have now sued a VC fund that targets Black & Latino female entrepreneurs. Fearless Fund was established as a result of Black & Latino female entrepreneurs complaining about Silicon Valley VC funds discriminating against them.
As I understand it, they could never prove their charge--no smoking guns.
In fairness, I don't know if these high-tech "good ol' boys networks" were guilty or not. But for argument's sake, let's say they were never guilty of any such discrimination. In the case of Fearless, it didn't matter; these ladies opted for another path:
"Let's do our own thing. If others wish to join us, we will welcome them with open arms."
Sounds eerily similar to, "Let's pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps. Let's take control of our own community. Let's make the free market work for us."
I could have sworn this school of thought was a staple in conservative philosophy (or used to be). But that's beside the point.
Bottom line, Fearless Fund was wide open about why they were created and what they were about. If anything, it was a key part of their pitch, and yes, an obvious form of racial and gender discrimination.
Enter Edward Blum's so-called American Alliance for Equal Rights. Apparently they are kind of feeling themselves these days: "Yeah, we kicked Harvard's butt! Who else wants some? How about the VC industry?"
I get it. But I don't think they realize what's ahead of them. As the article suggests, we may see a few unexpected allies in this fight. Some of the most anti-woke capitalists in Silicon Valley--like Jason Calacanis--are supporters of efforts like Fearless.
STRONG supporters. Have been for YEARS.
It all begs the question: What do we mean when we say we are against racial discrimination? Does that mean ANY discrimination based on race, or any OVERT discrimination based on race?
If the courts rule against Fearless, how do so-called conservatives reconcile their age-old principle of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps? Is it a simple matter of removing the explicit race-specific language on a firm's mission statement and moving forward with the same agenda "in stealth"? (Which, btw, is more or less what Harvard et al are going to do?)
I cannot wait to see this unfold. I am not a big believer in the slippery slope theory, but how far are they planning to go with this?
Ever heard of Project 21? They describe themselves as an initiative with the goal of "promoting the views of African-Americans whose entrepreneurial spirit, dedication to family and commitment to individual responsibility have not traditionally been echoed by the nation’s civil rights establishment."
Sounds a little like racial discrimination on some level, yes? What about Candace Owens' idiotic and obviously fraudulent "Blexit"? Are they next on deck? If not, why not?
A society with zero racial discrimination means one thing to me: One in which race doesn't mean a damned thing to anybody (a concept that I am 100% down with, by the way).
But what percentage of this country--left, right OR center--agrees?
The Constitution seems to be concerned primarily with the use of public funds. Harvard takes tax dollars and is supposed to play by the rules. If the VC is private money they can do as they please.
Private association with private money may be regrettable but I'm not seeing it as concerning. Most people don't have the time to bother with counting melanin cells.
"Most people don't have the time to bother with counting melanin cells."
That's what I thought. But Mr. Blum & Co. want their fair shot at fame and glory.
But on a more serious note, I *think*--not sure--that corporations are required to enter into a pact with the government. That's how they become official entities. That pact bounds them to US law, which includes discrimination laws.
But again, I could be wrong about all of this.
A Jew once told me that he doesn't respect black folks people...they are liquid money... they can't seem to aggregate their economics like the Jews and Asians who bounce dollars numerous times among themselves before it leaves their communities.
Social integration is not measurable; it can't be deposited into the bank. For example, It's increasingly sad to see Koreans own and control the billion-dollar hair products industry. It's amazing and sad how black women get mistreated at these Asian-owned salons and shops and still go back.
Racism is a competitive relationship between groups for ownership and control of resources for wealth and power. It's a power relationship. Whites got the headstart, and blacks have never been part of the race. Blacks have been the boot and loot.
Racism is a team sport. Forfeiting is suicide. Other competing minority groups have figured this out. Black folks are still in la la land wearing their glasses upside down.
Wishing for a color-blind society is like wishing for one billion dollars to be placed in my checking account. Lol!!!!
"black hair products"
Could be, that scheme has the solid ring of freedom. \s
I would add that a few educational establishments who refuse tax money are still legal entities but not constrained by the federal thuggery.
It does really underline the difference between preference and discrimination. As I understand it, most small minority groups have as a value supporting their own. I don’t think most people would call that discrimination.
It also reveals the ways in which sex/gender is different than race/ethnicity. In my opinion, the difference in the way the sexes are treated comes from a much deeper place in our mammalian brains than does our potential treatment/mistreatment of the outgroup.
Maybe our utter incoherence in getting our stories straight about how society should be ordered is based on a fundamental unwillingness to be honest with ourselves about our real beliefs and real values.
We are all based. To not be biased would be to ignore our individuality. Clearly, we all have a right to like and to associate with whoever we please. How does that translate to employment and schools? I have yet to find a defensible line between the right of the individual to associate as they please, and the non-right to hire as they please.
And, speaking of discrimination, consider the people who are truly being discriminated against; employers, landlords, and other businesses. They are legally and arguably constitutionally prohibited from discriminating based on sex, race, religion or age. Sounds great, right? Sure, but why do these laws not equally apply to employees and tenants? Any employee or tenant can face their employer or landlord and state straight to their face that they don't like them because of the employer or landlord's sex, race, religion or age. If the employer or landlord answers back in like manner, it is they who are in trouble.
We pretend that we're acting on principle. I think not. Isn't it interesting, in America, that justice almost invariably comes down to money. Lawyers speak of deep pockets. There is no point to suing someone with no money. "Justice" tends to center around who has enough money to be worth suing. Cue the employers and landlords...
Just a thought, there is more difficulty in drawing a line in those rights/non-rights you describe for a baker hiring his son in law or a landowner who rents out a house or two. There is a much clearer line when you are talking about a government entity or say a private entity with the government protection provided by “incorporation”. The problem many people may have is in recognizing all the government benefits given under condition of buying in to non-discrimination. For example, a doctor can probably legally discriminate against accepting patients, unless he takes Medicare or Medicaid (as almost all doctors do). Or maybe not, perhaps it is prohibited as part of the state issued license that allows him/her to legally practice and buy malpractice insurance and all the other protections afforded by various public entities. Or maybe it varies by state. Certainly there is an unlicensed doc somewhere who is free to discriminate, if you want to take all the risk and pay out of pocket. That is not, however, a way to build a modern society.
For the record, I started and ran a corporation. No, it wasn't huge, typically just four or five employees. Various kinds of corporations can have tax advantages, and can protect an individual from some lawsuits (the corporation get sued, not the individual, SOMETIMES).
It is not true that not being incorporated allows a private employer or landlord.to discriminate as he chooses. A court would tend to accept a business owner hiring family members instead of a minority. That would probably not be seen as discrimination. Yet, there's no guarantee.
Further, the doctor who works for cash only and is not licensed is, first of all, committing felonies just for practicing without a license. Second, he is STILL required to observe discrimination laws.
Yes, entities that accept government payments for patients, tenants, etc must abide by specific requirements attached to those payments. But those aren't laws, per se, they are contractual conditions. You or I could set our own conditions for contracts just as the government can. We could set as a condition to a contractor, that they must hire our son's plumbing company as the plumber, if they are to build our house. Those sorts of things happen fairly regularly. Not the law, a contractual agreement.
Sure, my point is you get responsibilities when you get rights. Do people go to jail for working “under the table” if they pay taxes? No, or I’ve never heard of it. If a guy rents his house to the nice young white family instead of the black college kids, is he going to get sued? I’m going to guess no. How would you know or prove it!? If you are a big company with lots of high paid employees, people are going to be looking for and notice discrimination far more than at a mom and pop shop. I know the consequence to the mom and pop shop are much worse, though. I also realize not all companies are giant multinational corporations. But the corporation, even a small one, is an advantage the government gives you that protects in more than just from lawsuits. My point is that the government can ask of you to do stuff, because you get something for it. Under your construction, you could look at a license, incorporation, etc as a “contract” with the government and thus they can set their own terms…
The Supreme Court just held that a company can discriminate, even against a protected class, in some cases — explicitly in that case was when it violates the providers first amendments rights. Right?
Also, I think you have a distorted view of how often people sue over discrimination, or how often they win. I too have read idiotic cases with ridiculously large settlements. But having experienced discrimination/ harassment and seen it in workplaces, I have never met a person who sued or seen a person punished for it. It’s kinda one of those empty threats like that waiters will be audited by the IRS about their tips.
PS, that everything comes down to money (from your original post) is that “late stage capitalism” progressives complain about… it seems to me though that is more of our monkey nature… take the side of the big guy so he doesn’t hurt you or the guy whose got something you want and is willing to share…
I totally, absolutely 100% disagree. First and foremost, the constitution states that rights are GOD given, not government given. You may or may not believe in God, but that's not the point. The point is that we are all 100% free, and governments can do nothing but restrict those tights. They can't grant them, because rights aren't theirs to grant.
We all get that there are governments, and governments make laws. We probably also agree that laws against murder, rape, theft etc are worthwhile laws. Still, those are restrictions. Now how about who you or I can rent to? How about who you and I can rent FROM? My point all along has been that, if the government, in its good conscience says that a landlord can discriminate on the base of race, then why can tenants? And they can. Never mind "under the table", a tenant can shout from the rooftops that he refuses to rent from blacks. Or Jews. Or whoever. It's not illegal. Well, why not?
You seem to be hung up on corporations, as if being a corporation protects them from discrimination charges or some such. It most certainly does NOT. Would you please just let go of that prejudice?
And, what is "late-stage capitalism"? Clearly, you've taken some sort of course in which they're implanting ideas in you that you decline to question. My rule of thumb is, question EVERYTHING. Yes, question me. Am I faulting you for questioning me? No. Well, while you're at it, question your teachers. If they deflect your challenges, they aren't teachers, they're indoctrinators. There is no late stage capitalism. We aren't at the end of something, about to start something else. That's fantasy. If you want something else, what is it? It takes capitalism to make your computer, your cellphone, your clothes, your home and pretty much everything else you have. Much of that was made in China, a communist country. Do you think that its being communist means there's no capitalism there? Far from it.
Great essay, thanks!
If we agree that racial discrimination is wrong, then we must understand that the government meddling either for or against discrimination is wrong. Government is force, and the hallmark of civil society is choice. I'll give two examples:
During the Articles of Confederation, six black slaves sued for their freedom in six separate cases, and were successful. After the Constitution enshrined black slaves as worth 2/3 of white votes, but accruing to the slave owner, no slaves sued or were freed of their own choice.
After Jim Crow laws were repealed, and before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the people (black and white) were on their own to find their own way into civility. The CRA has actually slowed that process, and in some ways reversed it.
I am white, and I was raised to believe that a civil society is a society of chosen association, and that association can be race-based, religion-based, friendship-based. No one has the right to force anyone else to associate with anyone, nor anyone associate with me.
Businesses or groups that routinely shun people based on irrational standards, lessen the pool of intelligent people who could enrich their life with wisdom and kindness.
My Romanian grandmother gave me the strength to survive prejudice and discrimination (of which there was always plenty). She would say, "They're just jealous." The implication was, "Get over it, and you can triumph over it." I believe that.
If you truly want a color-blind America, not in the sense that we fail to see the individual qualities of people, but that the government is silent on these matters, because if we're all equal under the law, our individual, immutable characteristics don't matter to the law. The law must be silent on discrimination if you really want to diffuse this bomb.
Anglo-Saxons eventually allowed the Romanians (slavs) to have white status, just like the Italians and Irish. Lol!
I think we could be friends, which each of us telling the other he is full of shit!
The argument so far …I’m white. I got mine, you Blacks got yours to get. If businesses choose to discriminate, that is their affair. This is the message of Barry Goldwater’s Presidential campaign. We need reminders of what Conservatives believe.
Thomas Sowell is Booker T. Washington 2.0. He is a Conservative hero in the same vein as Candace Owens. These discussions are fascinating.
Hey Robert, there are plenty of people of all races who think “I got mine!” I wouldn’t think of myself as that type, as I believe taxes should be higher, mine specifically even. But I found myself basically sounding like that talking with a lovely young black man working a menial job (transporting patients in the hospital as a contractor) who wanted to “burn it all down”. I was lucky, worked hard, and made good choices so my family could be safe and comfortable. I want that for everyone, granted, but I don’t want to lose what I have. I suspect even the poorest don’t want to give up what they have, they’d say take from that other guy with more… would you want to give up what you have? Just to say… it’s easy to dismiss people and mischaracterize them.
Wealth is a mindset as much or more than a bank account. The "burn it all down" crowd would take yours and just add it to the pile. The politics of envy is no respecter of person or color, anyone can be poor of character.
Enjoy what you have earned and do what you can to help others earn theirs. That will be empowering for both of you and you both will be richer.
My assessment applies to what I see presented by the modern Conservative movement. My current solution is to vote as many of them out of office as I can. Conservatives are a threat to my children’s education and if they had their way would take away my ability to vote. I do not see Conservatives fighting against the racists in their ranks. I don’t think that I am mischaracterizing Conservatives.
As for the young man who wants to burn it all down, I strongly disagree with his position. I think voting can still make a difference. I do not see Conservatives creating a situation where that young man can advance. A Conservative icon is suing a venture capital group formed to provide funding for Black and Latino women. Conservatives go out of their way to make themselves my enemy. My solution is Vote.
Edit to add
DeSantis allows children to be exposed to Prager U
Conservatives are silent
The Governor of Arkansas bans AP African American studies two days before schools open
Republicans are silent
Alabama ignores a Supreme Court ruling on voting districts
Republicans are silent
The Governor of Texas puts up barbed wire to injure immigrants
Republicans are silent
The list goes on and on.
I don’t disagree with your take on modern conservatives. My point is more that we need to be clear about what we are talking about. “Burn it all down” is a feeling of frustration on both sides of the political spectrum who see what others have as unfairly theirs or unearned. “I got mine” is a retreat from public discourse fueled, in my opinion, by a similar sense that our problems (maybe can but definitely) *won’t* be solved by government action. I agree on the importance of our civic voice and voting: I just also hope we will all educate ourselves about different perspectives and impacts before we do, so our vote represents both our personal but also our societal interests. Do you know what I mean?
Burn it all down makes no sense. Conservatives are the group that openly states government doesn’t work. They then run for office, obstruct and prove that government doesn’t work. The only solution is to vote for the person who is not a Conservative. Conservatives are not going to educate themselves. Conservatives want an uneducated public. What message do you have to change the Conservative mind?
Edit to add:
Kumbaya is not going to have any impact on Conservations. Liberals and Independents are the only option to avoid authoritarian government.
"I got mine!" I would hear this coming from my white subordinate staff regularly. Lol!
For Sowell the free market should have free reign. Chattel slavery and monopolies are aberrations.
A criticism of Sowell:
https://dawsonvosburg.medium.com/whats-wrong-with-thomas-sowell-464baab5978e
Did Thomas Sowell marry a white woman? I couldn't find any reliable information about this. He has been quite secretive about his personal life.
I could not find any real information.
The best thing about this site is that Conservatives are revealing their beliefs to the public. Usually they keep the quiet part to themselves. This is a goldmine.
Edit to add:
Conservatives like to post things like “Kamala is Wrong again” or whine about “Woke Racism”, but the public notes the silence of Conservatives on the bigotry and racism within their own ranks. They can have a more civilized version of it in a Presidential candidate who told Don Lemon the Civil War was fought so Blacks could have access to guns and Juneteenth is a “useless” holiday, but we know who the red meat is geared to attract.
Conservatives align themselves who Proud Boys and then feign surprise when caught.
We have lots of Romanians living in Georgia. They seem to stick to themselves. I don't find them to be like the antebellum Southern crackers. Antebellum Southern cracker culture emanated from the old cracker culture in Northern England, Wales, Ireland, and Scotland. Thomas Sowell has written that the antebellum Southern cracker culture negatively impacted African descendants. Notably, the blacks from the Caribbean and Nigeria, not having been exposed to antebellum Southern cracker culture, have prospered in America (e.g., creating good businesses, etc.).
A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests. - Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell has one foot in the grave---a model meritorious transmission negro relic. They created the meritorious manumission act in Virginia in 1710 to better/manage black slaves. Slaves were rewarded with freedom and monuments for saving Massas's life, inventing something that increased Massa's' wealth, and snitching on other slaves who planned escapes and rebellions. People who saved Massa's life, invented something that increased Massa's wealth, and snitched on other slaves who planned escapes and rebellions, have monuments commemorating them. We still have numerous meritorious manumission Negroes today, with Clarence Thomas at the top of the list---the most conservative in SCOTUS. There's talk in Georgia by conservative whites to create a monument in honoring him. He recently wrote a scathing 50-page dissent against a majority ruling that didn't gut the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Mississippi wanted to gerrymander a dominant black area in Mississippi, diluting black representation. I live in the Deep South and white ultra-conservatives are on steroids in destroying black political power (self-determination) through white-dominant legislation (e.g., the ability to replace black district attorneys, judges, etc. who go against the grain of ultra-white right-wing-supremacist policies).
"a model meritorious transmission negro relic"? His work is being read more and more and gathering stronger following in both black and white society. Put his ideology and intellect vs the left's torch bearer Kendi and it's no contest.
Black conservatism is as old as black enslavement, which has caused economic devastation for Blacks. Black conservatives represent a potential danger to their race because of their alignment with white conservatives, who have always been anti-black. When black-white conservative alignments occur, black conservatives become a liability to black and an asset to whites.
Black conservatives who place their personal advancements above the welfare of their race often gain significant benefits, recognition, approval, and access to power. They’re anointed by whites as leaders and touted as role models. Politically/socially, a black conservative is closely akin to ‘Sambo’ in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom's Cabin. Sambo was black America's worst nightmare. Sambo represents the extraordinary success of social control, which was the ultimate goal of a slavery conditioning process of social control that transplanted a white mindset into a black personality.
Modern conservatism ascension started in the late 60s as a white backlash to the Civil Rights Movement, which demanded improved living conditions, including more wealth and community control. This frightened/shocked white man (“we can let them Negroes have some autonomy and self-determination…we'll lose control.”). Anyway, the private class appealed to conservatism to reassert the supremacy of white authority and its exclusive claim to power and wealth (makes me think of the time when Senator Goldwater ran for the presidency in which he was against the Civil Rights act).
I don't support Kendis' work. Begging whites for affirmation is silly. I'm pro-black--- increasing black economic aggregation and power. Social integration doesn't translate into a monetary value that can be deposited into a bank. Blacks spending 98% of their dollars on non-black businesses doesn't generate enough black wealth and power. I and a number of other black individuals travel down a road less traveled.
We get it. You hate Whitey.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid021vw5EEs5ed5zacUKrURHwVmK9oYXHMegKgmg7FZofukpXU9VUNE59PGKzEwYqRagl&id=100001297767602&mibextid=IL1tDG
Not clicking a facebook link, but thanks for the effort. I dont trust Whitey Zuck.
Clarence Thomas certainly loves Ginny, the woman who worked for the racist John Birch Society Imagine me in bed with a woman who worked for the ku klux klan and supported a rightwing coup to overthrow democracy. Hating whitey? 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Becky is here rolling on the floor with uncontrollable laughter at my second home on the beach. She's wondering if you're a Beta or an Alpha man. Lol!
I used to rescue wannabe proud boys from Aryan Brotherhood prison gang rape during my 34 years working in the prison industrial complex back in California. I even went out of my way to help dumb white boys resolve their gambling debts vs being shanked to death. Momma would call me and say, "Thank you, lord Jesus." You should commend me for my black humanity.
My grandfather was half Scots-Irish and my daughter-is-law is white. Whites are regularly in and out of my home, especially some "Redneck Revolt" members (anti-fascist). 🤡🤡🤡🤡
Conservatives tell Blacks to pull themselves up by their bootstraps then sue a venture capital firms that aims to do just that. Conservatives have no moral authority to chastise anyone.
Here is a classic Sowell strawman argument
Sowell is an inveterate trafficker in straw man arguments and in slippery logic, so it really doesn’t matter that he “refers to rigorous research” if he misuses it to bolster his position instead of rational conclusions. His columns often impute the worst motives to Democrats and progressives instead of the most logical.
Here is a perfect example, in which Sowell warns against the consequences of “allowing” two Democratic senators to be elected from Georgia:
https://www.unionleader.com/opinion/columnists/thomas-sowell-a-vote-at-the-crossroads/article_e34abb8c-933b-5650-b0c0-5d43496aeeb7.html
In this essay, we find two glaring examples of false logic. The first is his creation of a slippery little straw man by implication, when he writes:
Senate Democrats’ leader, Senator Charles Schumer, has already announced what he has in store, if the Democrats get a majority in the Senate. So has President-elect Joe Biden. And it goes way beyond specific policies. It includes institutional changes that can be permanent, and almost guarantee one-party rule in this country, as far out as the eye can see.
If more than 10 million people who are in this country illegally are given the right to vote — and most of those votes are almost certain to go to Democrats — that is a major new political reality that will be with us for generations.
Did you notice the little sleight of hand? Sowell says that Schumer and Biden have said what they “have in store” for the country—but doesn’t bother to quote anything they have said. Then he makes a declarative statement about illegal immigrants voting that has no connection to the previous paragraph, except by innuendo.
https://www.quora.com/What-did-Thomas-Sowell-get-wrong-in-Basic-economics?top_ans=127308910
BTW, in Washington’s time, pulling your self up by your bootstraps was a joke. It was a physical impossibility.
For national security reasons alone, we must apply a proper understanding of the 14th Amendment. The CCP controls its people precisely because they have no real legal protections. Can we pull together before they pull us apart.
Imagine the looks on the faces of Glenn Loury and John McWhorter if Donald Trump succeeded in his neo-fascist coup. Their possible positions? Lol!!!!
I and other individuals are looking forward to the day when we can stop stocking up on ammunition, firearms, tactical training, and other essentials for possible neo-fascist violence behind Donald Trump's madness.
I visited communist countries. Have you?
My Grandfather fled Russia during the Revolution. He was a kulak i.e. a peasant farmer, millions of which were starved to death by Stalin.