Over the years, I’ve heard many people say that we need to have an honest discussion about race in America, but when the people who say this get the discussion, I’ve found 100% of the time (not most of the time, not even 90%, but 100% of the time) it turns out these are the very people who do not want an honest discussion about race in America. What they want is to dictate their subjective views about race to everyone else, even to the point of offending others, but they do not want others dictating their subjective views at them; even even to a point that they might find offensive.
They want to express their views to others and have others listen to them, without giving input or disagreement, and they attempt to conflate this with having an honest discussion about race. This is not a discussion, this is dictation; this is indoctrination. Now if this is what you want, fine; just just say so! Say you want to dictate your subjective views about race on to others and just have them listen; and quit calling it a desire for an honest discussion, because that it is not.
Your thoughts?
I think it's possible to have an honest discussion about race in America, although in order to do that, one has to be willing to be honest about our history and how we got to the point we're at now. Thing is, it's not so much a discussion about "race," per se, as much as it's a discussion about wealth, politics, power, privilege, and class. If not for those elements, then it's nothing more than a superficial discussion about melanin and shades of skin color.
The main problem that I see in relation to matters of race is that many (if not most) Americans appear to be ideologically and politically compromised. The focus and tone of the public discussion and overall narrative has shifted considerably from what I recall during the 1960s and 70s when there were more frank and open discussions on the matter. But it appeared to be a more holistic approach in which multiple issues were seen as interconnected to each other.
All of that changed in the 1980s when Reagan's ultra-capitalism came on the scene, and even liberals appeared willing to buy into it - or at least, they seemed to enjoy themselves well enough. And they felt they could do so with a clear conscience, since they were (by that time) patting themselves on the back for ending the Vietnam War, passing the Civil Rights Act and ending the era or Jim Crow, crushing the reign of the KKK in the South, celebrating landmark court cases ending segregation, advocating Affirmative Action as a means of reducing inequities and encouraging opportunities for oppressed minorities. In their eyes, the fight was won, and now, all they wanted to do was enjoy themselves and have fun, reveling in the excessive consumerism and ultra-capitalism which characterized the Reagan era (and has been with us ever since).
Another thing I recall during that time is that there was a greater emphasis placed on image and appearances - style over substance.
An example of the mentality at work might be a scene from the movie
The Verdict, in which a Boston lawyer (played by Paul Newman) in a malpractice suit had to scramble at the last minute to find an expert doctor to testify (since his star witness disappeared). He manages to locate a Dr. Lionel Thompson and requests his expertise in the case. It turned out that Dr. Thompson was an elderly black man, which was a surprise to the lawyer. The opposing attorney was played by James Mason, and the next scene shows him and a subordinate young attorney discussing this new development in the case (source:
The Verdict by David Mamet (dailyscript.com)):
YOUNG ATTORNEY
His name is Dr. Lionel Thompson.
City College of New York, Class of
twenty-six. Bachelor of Science; New
York College of Medicine; sixteenth
in a class of twenty-two. Nineteen
seventy-six got a courtesy
appointment, staff of anesthesiology,
Easthampton Hospital for Women. Never
married. Has no honors or degrees of
any weight. Since nineteen seventy-
five he's testified in twenty-eight
court cases, twelve malpractice.
(smiles, saving his
best 'til last)
And he's black.
CONCANNON
(beat; stern)
I'm going to tell you how you handle
the fact that he's black. You don't
touch it. You don't mention it. You
treat him like anybody else. Neither
better or worse.
(smiles)
And you get a black lawyer to sit at
our table. Okay...?
YOUNG ATTORNEY
Yessir.
In my opinion, this encapsulates the underlying racial cynicism being covered up by the false imagery and facade of tolerance and equality. Keep in mind that these characters were not portrayed as Nazis or Klansmen or even conservatives. Their politics were ostensibly moderate to liberal, but business is still business, and that's the bottom line. In my view, this is an example of the kind of thinking which led us to the phenomenon which many refer to as "Political Correctness." It's a more cynical, upper-class perspective, although the standard narrative nowadays is to portray racism as only coming from poor hillbillies from the sticks, as if the wealthy and powerful never had anything to do with it.
However, I don't believe it had anything to do with indoctrination, so I disagree with you on that point. It's more a matter of people trying to cover up centuries of national disgrace, dishonor, and embarrassment. And they've done a botched job of it. For the past 3 to 4 decades, there's been this pretense that everything is rainbows and unicorns, enjoining people "Don't Worry, Be Happy." Liberals got duped as well, seduced by Reagan's ultra-capitalism and consumerism, but in a slightly different form represented by the Clintons. Progressive Democrats such as Jerry Brown and Ralph Nader were tossed aside in favor of the toxically mendacious creatures who dominate that party nowadays.
At this point, the public narrative on race has gotten so wildly absurd and out of touch with reality as to be unbelievable. These days, it's become more of an academic exercise than anything that would have value in practical politics, which is why it appears to be falling flat and causing a great deal of dissension and divisiveness in recent times. Many people claim "it's all Trump's fault," but they're missing the forest through the trees.
The elephant in the living room is economics, as it relates to distribution of resources and class inequity. In a world of cooperation, absolute equality, and economic justice - where everyone has the same level of resources and wealth - then none of these problems would have ever come to pass. (Perhaps other problems might come up, but nothing is perfect.)
The main problem with an equitable, socially-just world (as I've been told by those who believe in global capitalism) is that there is, apparently, an inherent need within human nature to want to be superior to other humans. The standard argument goes, if one works harder than other people, then one should receive a greater reward and a greater share of resources than those lazy drones and bums who deserve to live in sub-standard housing and work menial jobs for crappy pay. This is the "way of the world" as some people might say. And I've been told that there's no practical way of changing that, because "human nature."
Moreover, a large part of American political culture has been to champion hyper-individualism, focusing on "freedom for the individual" and "individual rights." Our culture is replete with images and symbols of the great individual who makes all the difference. A common trope is the lone gunfighter who single-handedly saves the town from a band of outlaws. Our culture has a fixation on hero worship - the great general who wins the war single-handedly, or the tycoon who rises up from rags to riches because of their supposed brilliance, hard work, and vision. The same mindset can also be used to attribute villainy, since it's always the individual that matters, both for good and evil. This is why (for example) many historical viewpoints put an inordinate focus on the individual person and character of Adolf Hitler, as if he himself was an indispensable component to the events and crimes with which he is associated. Similarly, it's the same idea that "it's all Trump's fault," as if Trump and only Trump is single-handedly responsible for racism in America.
So, America is a bit ideologically compromised right now. Our ruling class has to keep pushing for hyper-individualism, consumerism, and capitalism, championing a dog-eat-dog, competitive world. They also want to maintain America's status as "leader of the free world," claiming to be all about human rights and respecting the sovereignty of other nations. However, this requires a strong enough support base within America to go along with global interventionism and militarism, which necessitates a facade of patriotism and national loyalty (aka "nationalism").
Yeah your reply doesn't really address my post.
