[

The idea that being poor is a character flaw predates Trump's entry in the political sphere.

Did Trump blame blacks?

The idea that being poor is a character flaw predates Trump's entry in the political sphere.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

At the founding of the Country which was the original point, the enslavement of Indians and whites (indentured servitude) had subsided. Blacks were the only ones considered 3/5 ths of a human being. By that point slavery was a racial issue. As far as working class whites go they were among the biggest of the proponents for continuing the slave trade. They didn't want to compete with blacks for wages and as long as blacks were enslaved they too could feel a sense of superiority.

The system has not been rigged against lower class whites. They may not have benefitted but that is different from saying that it is rigged. If you dissect each of the more prominent institutions in this country you find that in just about every instance blacks have been disenfranchised. There isn't an equivalency and in Trump's case it is interesting that he chose to not make the same arguments against "disenfranchised" whites that he chose to make against blacks. He never blamed them for their bad lot in life. Where do you think that all of his "working class" support would have gone had he done so?

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

I don't deny that blacks "had it worse", but what's the point in having a pissing contest over historic suffering? Saying that the system has not been rigged against lower class whites is ridiculous. At the founding of the country, your standard, only land owners could vote. Up until the Civil War there were many places that denied voting rights to white males unless they paid enough in taxes. It was not until after the Civil War that voting rights became fairly universal for the white working class, around the same time that blacks were granted the vote in federal rule, (in most places reality, of course, was different).

My issue again goes into this idea that you can't understand black suffering unless you were black, and that whites living now need to feel guilty about a racial oppression that they did not take part in. These both strike me as ways to end conversation and an avoidance of a solution to suffering across races.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

It is not a pissing match. Whites have never been denied anything solely because of the color of their skin. Blacks have. There has never been a systematic effort to keep the white man down. In the case of blacks there has. The system of slavery was not merely propped up slave masters either. It was propped up by lower class impoverished whites too. The majority of whites in the south didn't even own slaves. It doesn't mean that they didn't have skin in the game where slavery was concerned. During Segregation the people that enforced it on the ground level were many of the same working class whites that you consider to be disenfranchised.

In terms of Unions do you want to look at the systematic denial of blacks into Unions. Look around Chicago right now and you'd be hard pressed to find any blacks doing construction. Think that is an accident? Do you think that there isn't racism involved?

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Blacks don't do construction work now because of racism? I've never heard that one before. And it certainly seems like a non-sequitur off topic fact that's totally getting off base from the original discussion. You seem to be getting back to black people had in worse in this white majority country, which I have already granted.

The question becomes: What revenge do you want for past sins? Does being white make someone inherently guilty of some primordial American sin?

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

I actually want none. I'm not stumping for Reparations. Don't want revenge either.. The past sins of which you speak have not been completely eradicated. That is why I brought Unions and Construction. Racism still permeates this country. It is just a question of what effect it will have and what the response will be.

The effort to equate the two (disenfranchised blacks and whites) is faulty on a number of levels. There are still inherent advantages enjoyed even by impoverished whites in this country. For all of the bellyaching regarding unemployment, blacks have historically always had unemployment figures that were at least twice that of whites. In a number of cases historical instances it has been 3 to 4 times that. When blacks are unemployed and complaining they were instructed to quit their whining. They also were told to quit looking to govt for solutions. What is happening that is really all that different now? Working class whites are doing the same thing.

When Affirmative Action was the topic dujour it was working class whites who fought feverishly in an effort to have it rolled back. Called it reverse discrimination.

While there is legitimacy to some of the angst it is simply wrong to attempt to equate it to what blacks have and still experience. Trump's entry into politics occurred because he attempted to delegitimize the country's first black president. When has that ever occurred? He wasn't even discredited for it. It had the perverse effect of enhancing his standing to be frank.

In the case of Coates I don't get the impression that he is stumping for reparations either. I don't profess to read all of his stuff but I don't get that impression. I think there is a certain segment in this country that will always be upset when race is brought up.

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

Stumping for reparations is what made Coates' career: http://www.theatlantic.com/projects/reparations/

And when has delegitimizing a president happened before? Bill Clinton. Who was impeached in a witch hunt, and who was rumored to have had an aide murdered on his orders. The right wing attacks wherever it can find an opening, and they certainly played the race game with Obama.

You also got to another point as well. You are never going to have "equality" in a capitalist system. And at this point I believe that its the system rather than racism holding black people back. Upward mobility has stalled across race.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

This was a great discussion between LTG and WFR. A tough topic, two guys with different viewpoints, and good respectful argument from both sides. Bravo, gentlemen.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

This was a great discussion between LTG and WFR. A tough topic, two guys with different viewpoints, and good respectful argument from both sides. Bravo, gentlemen.

Agreed, this place is going downhill.

LTG, what should the goals be for an ending to racism? .

LTG, what should the goals be for an ending to racism? I mean a total ending. I doubt I will see it in my lifetime actually. For all the seemingly great progress I have seen I really doubt a total solution will come.

People talk about systemic racism, personal racism and of course institutional racism. I see a situation so complex and intertwined between those three things I would not even know where the best place to start is.

I work on me. In a police force for instance they can implement a hundred things and a single cop truly racist in their heart can tear it down in a second. In the economy you implement a hundred things but due to the complexity you don't cover some small part and apart it comes again.

Sometimes I think it simply will only be time. The trials and tribulations over the last 70 years continue forward making incremental change until there is success? I don't even have some feeling that when the day comes when the white person is the minority it can be completely solved as money and power are still going to be concentrated.

Anyway, not to pick on you but you generally have thoughtful answers and thought I would ask.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

We're counting on you and Someguy to make CFMB stupid again.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

This was a great discussion between LTG and WFR. A tough topic, two guys with different viewpoints, and good respectful argument from both sides. Bravo, gentlemen.

Yea....what's this shit all about? Where are the memes and gifs?

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?

It is not about equality. Blacks have never really had equality of opportunity. I just provided examples of it. Clinton and Obama's situations are completely different. There was grounds for impeachment. There was no basis for what happened to Obama other than not wanting to see a black guy in office.

When you say the "system" racism is part and parcel of said system.


There are two arguments here. There is yours and there is Coates. I'm really only choosing to address the points that you make.

If there really isn't a discrepancy as you seem to argue, then why even emphasize the term "working class whites". SHouldn't it be "Working class Americans".

For instance they were never taught that Columbus was a slave owner.

LTG, what should the goals be for an ending to racism? I mean a total ending. I doubt I will see it in my lifetime actually. For all the seemingly great progress I have seen I really doubt a total solution will come.

People talk about systemic racism, personal racism and of course institutional racism. I see a situation so complex and intertwined between those three things I would not even know where the best place to start is.

I work on me. In a police force for instance they can implement a hundred things and a single cop truly racist in their heart can tear it down in a second. In the economy you implement a hundred things but due to the complexity you don't cover some small part and apart it comes again.

Sometimes I think it simply will only be time. The trials and tribulations over the last 70 years continue forward making incremental change until there is success? I don't even have some feeling that when the day comes when the white person is the minority it can be completely solved as money and power are still going to be concentrated.

Anyway, not to pick on you but you generally have thoughtful answers and thought I would ask.

This is going to reach a head pretty soon.

White people as a whole? So some guy in Norway is a "force for bad" in the lives of inner city black? Or a family in Urbana? It's ridiculous. The vast majority of white people will have about zero impact/interactions on the lives of inner city blacks. And for the most part the white people that inner city blacks come into contact with are dealing with the similar struggles, perhaps a rung or two up the on ladder. This idea that white people are united against black people is both wrong and dangerous.

[
That's why Obama and his friends say they didn't share the view that MANY blacks in urban communities had. It's why I say kids should spend time around people who look different than them. It's why segregation is a terrible thing.

Winnetka in the first place. tough nut to crack

I am not a legal expert, how many times do I have to say it?

White people with money are going to evade blacks no matter what. Plus I don't think blacks are so eager to move to Winnetka in the first place. tough nut to crack

White people as a whole. MANY urban blacks only interaction with whites before adulthood is a teacher or police officer. When you add in the fact that MANY people in their families see whites as a "force for bad" they grow up feeling this way. Every negative interaction they have or someone they know have will just reinforce this.

That's why Obama and his friends say they didn't share the view that MANY blacks in urban communities had. It's why I say kids should spend time around people who look different than them. It's why segregation is a terrible thing.

That's why Obama and his friends say they didn't share the view that MANY blacks in urban communities had.

I think it's important to note that Obama is not descended from slaves. That weight has not been carried across the generations in his family. His ethic seems much more in line with the Greek immigrants I know. LTG drew the distinction between immigrants and slaves in this discussion. Obama is the son of an immigrant rather than the great great grandson of a slave. That's probably why there were whispers among some that he wasn't "black enough".

I think being exposed to people who were different than him had a bigger impact than not being a descendant of slaves. Even when he encountered racists and bigots he could always draw from his MANY positive experiences. That makes a huge difference.

Obama sees race through a different lens, Kaye Wilson told me. “It’s just very different from ours,” she explained. “He’s got buddies that are white, and they’re his buddies, and they love him. And I don’t think they love him just because he’s the president. They love him because they’re his friends from Hawaii, some from college and all.
“So I think he’s got that, whereas I think growing up in the racist United States, we enter this thing with, you know, ‘I’m looking at you. I’m not trusting you to be one hundred with me.’ And I think he grew up in a way that he had to trust [white people]—how can you live under the roof with people and think that they don’t love you? He needs that frame of reference. He needs that lens. If he didn’t have it, it would be … a Jesse Jackson, you know? Or Al Sharpton. Different lens.”
That lens, born of literally relating to whites, allowed Obama to imagine that he could be the country’s first black president. “If I walked into a room and it’s a bunch of white farmers, trade unionists, middle age—I’m not walking in thinking, Man, I’ve got to show them that I’m normal,” Obama explained. “I walk in there, I think, with a set of assumptions: like, these people look just like my grandparents. And I see the same Jell‑O mold that my grandmother served, and they’ve got the same, you know, little stuff on their mantelpieces. And so I am maybe disarming them by just assuming that we’re okay.”
What Obama was able to offer white America is something very few African Americans could—trust. The vast majority of us are, necessarily, too crippled by our defenses to ever consider such a proposition. But Obama, through a mixture of ancestral connections and distance from the poisons of Jim Crow, can credibly and sincerely trust the majority population of this country. That trust is reinforced, not contradicted, by his blackness. Obama isn’t shuffling before white power (Herman Cain’s “shucky ducky” act) or flattering white ego (O. J. Simpson’s listing not being seen as black as a great accomplishment). That, too, is defensive, and deep down, I suspect, white people know it. He stands firm in his own cultural traditions and says to the country something virtually no black person can, but every president must: “I believe you.”

Here's the link if you want to check it out: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ck/508793/