Interesting stuff. Frankly, it was way more positive than I anticipated. The central message I received was that the vast majority of African-Americans were (generally) content with their lives and potential, but increasingly anxious about the bizarre state of the White right.
The respondents also expressed genuine concern about *long-term* economic mobility. That is to say, getting ahead today is a more difficult proposition than a generation or so ago.
I get all of that, 100%. You don't have to be Black to get this.
Even during the Trump years, the FBI was consistent about who posed the biggest terrorist threat in America: White nationalists. (Needless to say, Jan6th didn't help alleviate such concerns. But that's another subject.)
As for economics: When longshot presidential candidate Andrew Yang touted Universal Basic Income, the concept resonated with all kinds of people because folks of every background recognize we are living in very different times.
I think that you and I--like a lot of people--part ways, not because we have opposite values, but because of how we interpret various data. You remind me a lot of my best friend (also Black). He and I butt heads in a very similar way and sometimes it gets pretty damn intense.
But I think I know why.
I draw clear distinctions between culture and politics, even though they are very much intertwined. I tend to view people as elements on a spectrum, especially in politics.
I see politics as competing self-interested factions constantly vying for position against each other. i.e., struggles that can exist at the highest levels (e.g., "Communism vs Capitalism", "slavery vs abolition"), all the way down to mundane s*** like where to put the next traffic lights.
Politics is shaped by those who care the most about politics, be they politicians, activists, pundits, opinion-makers, donors, what-have-you. But the vast majority of people aren't political. Most folk, ultimately, accept whatever hand they've been dealt and try to make the best of it.
But we all make up the culture.
To be clear, a lot of regular folk get manipulated and influenced by politics, and yes, s*** can go way off the rails if we allow the crazies to attain and maintain power.
But I will opt for honest and serious dialogue, every time, as long as it is an option. But if that cup ever runs empty, I can be a massive a-hole as much as anybody else =)
The respondents do not view today as the best time to be alive. It is harder to get ahead today. Black history is under attack. Venture capital attempts to increase the number of Black businesses is under attack. There are statewide organized attempts to block Black voters. These are not the best of times. That directly goes against the idea that there was no better time in the past.
"These are not the best of times. That directly goes against the idea that there was no better time in the past."
#1, my original assertion was not this general. I said *race relations in America* had never been better, and I added that this did not necessarily equate to "good", but simply better. (I also offered a dictionary definition of race relations.)
I didn't say Black American life had never been better. I said Black-White race relations had never been better.
Again, if there was a better time for Black-White race relations in America, when was it? I can't imagine anything prior to the 21st Century, and we're only 23 years into that.
It is not a shallow comeback. I provide data of the negative feelings voiced by Blacks in a poll. You view the data through rose colored glasses and still say race relations are better than ever.
In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, there was more of a sense of understanding of the importance of race and more understanding than there is now. Things were better. Not surprisingly, it was transient.
In this case, I was using "typical" as a bit of a pejorative (meaning, eye-roll inducing).
But yes, I am an outlier in many ways, and perfectly okay with that.
"If economics is not a measure, how are you assessing improvement?"
If I google "race relations", I get this:
"the way in which members or communities of different racial or ethnic groups feel about and behave toward each other within a particular area."
That is not necessarily about economics. Sounds more like a focus on basic respect in general, and based on that, there is no doubt that the current-day is better than previous generations. I honestly don't know how anyone could claim otherwise.
There are certainly other areas of importance, and other facts that don't at all comport with any idea of a racially harmonious society. But acknowledging that the current-day, overall, is better than back in the day, does not dismiss or ignore any of that. (Not with me anyway.)
Also, comparing Black American and White American wealth is complex. There is obviously the huge factor of who got the head start, but clearly that doesn't explain everything. There are other factors, such as, yes, culture.
One of the most interesting stats that I never hear about regarding African-Americans is how so many of our richest individuals hail from the entertainment industry: Oprah, Jordan, Jay-Z, Tyler Perry, Kanye (before he lost his damned mind), Bob Johnson (before his divorce).
We're talking billionaires, who mostly started off poor and working class, making their fortunes in the industry with the worst odds for success. That's mind-blowing if you think about it.
With every other ethnicity, the wealthiest got their bag from real estate, tech, finance, etc. But in Black America, tech billionaires like Robert Smith and David Stewart are the outliers. That suggests to me that we as a people have been too focused on a particular path, and that's cultural.
There are other meaningful factors as well. Like the African and West Indian immigrants. Their narrative is a lot closer to the overall American immigrant story and the results are similar--oftentimes better than their White counterparts.
Can't think of a creative way to end this post, so I'll just leave it there.
I did an edit to add in the previous post to note the results of a recent poll noting the negative feelings about the current situation
I am surprised that you haven’t come across multiple discussions on why athletes and entertainers top the wealth list. David Steward and Robert F Smith are known to be rarities.
"I am surprised that you haven’t come across multiple discussion on why athletes and entertainers top the wealth list. David Steward and Robert F Smith are known to be rarities."
We're talking about slightly different things. Of course Smith and Stewart are rare; billionaires are quite rare.
I am saying that the percentage of African-American billionaires that come from the entertainment industry is astonishing in and of itself, esp. when compared to other American ethnicities.
We all kinda know why. But no, I honestly haven't heard that particular fact stressed in any discussions.
As you note, entertainment was the only way to really advance in the past. There are many Blacks in government jobs because private industry did not have open arms until relatively recently. Conservatives are doing their best to keep Blacks out of industry. There is a lawsuit against a venture capital firm founded by Black women to fund Black women. Black women have a high percentage of entrepreneurs, but often lack access to funding. Conservatives see the venture capital firm as a threat and want to block the focus on Black women.
Black people are working to correct a problem, and here come Conservatives to obstruct progress.
"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 assume they were never guilty of any such discrimination. In the case of Fearless, it doesn't matter; it’s about their solution:
"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?"
In a capitalist system, economic situation is a very important measure.
If economics is not a measure, how are you assessing improvement?
Edit to add:
If the author is typical, are you the outlier?
2nd Edit to add:
The negatives from a recent poll
About half of Black Americans say racism will get worse over the rest of their lifetimes
69% of Black Americans say it is more dangerous to be a Black teen now than when they were teens; higher among older Black adults
Most Black adults are concerned about states blocking teaching of Black history and history of racism, banning books about race
About 8 in 10 Black Americans say America's economic system is stacked against them
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/06/16/black-americans-racism-poll/
RE: The WaPo Poll:
Interesting stuff. Frankly, it was way more positive than I anticipated. The central message I received was that the vast majority of African-Americans were (generally) content with their lives and potential, but increasingly anxious about the bizarre state of the White right.
The respondents also expressed genuine concern about *long-term* economic mobility. That is to say, getting ahead today is a more difficult proposition than a generation or so ago.
I get all of that, 100%. You don't have to be Black to get this.
Even during the Trump years, the FBI was consistent about who posed the biggest terrorist threat in America: White nationalists. (Needless to say, Jan6th didn't help alleviate such concerns. But that's another subject.)
As for economics: When longshot presidential candidate Andrew Yang touted Universal Basic Income, the concept resonated with all kinds of people because folks of every background recognize we are living in very different times.
I think that you and I--like a lot of people--part ways, not because we have opposite values, but because of how we interpret various data. You remind me a lot of my best friend (also Black). He and I butt heads in a very similar way and sometimes it gets pretty damn intense.
But I think I know why.
I draw clear distinctions between culture and politics, even though they are very much intertwined. I tend to view people as elements on a spectrum, especially in politics.
I see politics as competing self-interested factions constantly vying for position against each other. i.e., struggles that can exist at the highest levels (e.g., "Communism vs Capitalism", "slavery vs abolition"), all the way down to mundane s*** like where to put the next traffic lights.
Politics is shaped by those who care the most about politics, be they politicians, activists, pundits, opinion-makers, donors, what-have-you. But the vast majority of people aren't political. Most folk, ultimately, accept whatever hand they've been dealt and try to make the best of it.
But we all make up the culture.
To be clear, a lot of regular folk get manipulated and influenced by politics, and yes, s*** can go way off the rails if we allow the crazies to attain and maintain power.
But I will opt for honest and serious dialogue, every time, as long as it is an option. But if that cup ever runs empty, I can be a massive a-hole as much as anybody else =)
The respondents do not view today as the best time to be alive. It is harder to get ahead today. Black history is under attack. Venture capital attempts to increase the number of Black businesses is under attack. There are statewide organized attempts to block Black voters. These are not the best of times. That directly goes against the idea that there was no better time in the past.
"These are not the best of times. That directly goes against the idea that there was no better time in the past."
#1, my original assertion was not this general. I said *race relations in America* had never been better, and I added that this did not necessarily equate to "good", but simply better. (I also offered a dictionary definition of race relations.)
I didn't say Black American life had never been better. I said Black-White race relations had never been better.
Again, if there was a better time for Black-White race relations in America, when was it? I can't imagine anything prior to the 21st Century, and we're only 23 years into that.
Enjoy your very, very narrow argument.
Edit to add:
There has to be a pony in there somewhere.
Enjoy your shallow comebacks.
It is not a shallow comeback. I provide data of the negative feelings voiced by Blacks in a poll. You view the data through rose colored glasses and still say race relations are better than ever.
In the aftermath of George Floyd’s murder, there was more of a sense of understanding of the importance of race and more understanding than there is now. Things were better. Not surprisingly, it was transient.
You are rigid. I am rigid. Life goes on.
In this case, I was using "typical" as a bit of a pejorative (meaning, eye-roll inducing).
But yes, I am an outlier in many ways, and perfectly okay with that.
"If economics is not a measure, how are you assessing improvement?"
If I google "race relations", I get this:
"the way in which members or communities of different racial or ethnic groups feel about and behave toward each other within a particular area."
That is not necessarily about economics. Sounds more like a focus on basic respect in general, and based on that, there is no doubt that the current-day is better than previous generations. I honestly don't know how anyone could claim otherwise.
There are certainly other areas of importance, and other facts that don't at all comport with any idea of a racially harmonious society. But acknowledging that the current-day, overall, is better than back in the day, does not dismiss or ignore any of that. (Not with me anyway.)
Also, comparing Black American and White American wealth is complex. There is obviously the huge factor of who got the head start, but clearly that doesn't explain everything. There are other factors, such as, yes, culture.
One of the most interesting stats that I never hear about regarding African-Americans is how so many of our richest individuals hail from the entertainment industry: Oprah, Jordan, Jay-Z, Tyler Perry, Kanye (before he lost his damned mind), Bob Johnson (before his divorce).
We're talking billionaires, who mostly started off poor and working class, making their fortunes in the industry with the worst odds for success. That's mind-blowing if you think about it.
With every other ethnicity, the wealthiest got their bag from real estate, tech, finance, etc. But in Black America, tech billionaires like Robert Smith and David Stewart are the outliers. That suggests to me that we as a people have been too focused on a particular path, and that's cultural.
There are other meaningful factors as well. Like the African and West Indian immigrants. Their narrative is a lot closer to the overall American immigrant story and the results are similar--oftentimes better than their White counterparts.
Can't think of a creative way to end this post, so I'll just leave it there.
I did an edit to add in the previous post to note the results of a recent poll noting the negative feelings about the current situation
I am surprised that you haven’t come across multiple discussions on why athletes and entertainers top the wealth list. David Steward and Robert F Smith are known to be rarities.
"I am surprised that you haven’t come across multiple discussion on why athletes and entertainers top the wealth list. David Steward and Robert F Smith are known to be rarities."
We're talking about slightly different things. Of course Smith and Stewart are rare; billionaires are quite rare.
I am saying that the percentage of African-American billionaires that come from the entertainment industry is astonishing in and of itself, esp. when compared to other American ethnicities.
We all kinda know why. But no, I honestly haven't heard that particular fact stressed in any discussions.
I need a minute to look into that poll.
As you note, entertainment was the only way to really advance in the past. There are many Blacks in government jobs because private industry did not have open arms until relatively recently. Conservatives are doing their best to keep Blacks out of industry. There is a lawsuit against a venture capital firm founded by Black women to fund Black women. Black women have a high percentage of entrepreneurs, but often lack access to funding. Conservatives see the venture capital firm as a threat and want to block the focus on Black women.
Black people are working to correct a problem, and here come Conservatives to obstruct progress.
"There is a lawsuit against a venture capital firm founded by Black women to fund Black women."
I am very familiar with it. But it's complex, too; more so than the plaintiffs realize. They may be in for a bit of a surprise.
I posted about it a week or two ago:
https://substack.com/@ltvnet/note/c-22324631?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=8umqe
"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 assume they were never guilty of any such discrimination. In the case of Fearless, it doesn't matter; it’s about their solution:
"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?"
I read your substack and agree. We have a very Conservative Supreme Court. I am not expecting a good outcome, but we shall see.