goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: michigancat on August 01, 2018, 09:06:34 AM
-
sys has been putting a lot of this kind of stuff in the college campus thread but it probably deserves its own thread.
The American middle class (predominantly white by definition) was created after World War II by way of federal programs like the VA, the FHA home programs and the G.I. Bill. This example of white welfare was one of the largest wealth-creation and intergenerational wealth-transfer programs in history. Again, African-Americans and other nonwhites were, for the most part, denied access to those opportunities. Today's extreme racial wealth gap is the most obvious result.
What economists and other social scientists describe as "the submerged state" — government programs such as mortgage interest deductions, capital gains and other tax credits and cuts, and financial subsidies for entire industries — is another example of white welfare. Whites are disproportionately overrepresented as beneficiaries of the submerged state. Moreover, the submerged state is a central means through which the racial wealth gap is maintained in so-called "post racial" "colorblind" America.
There is a complication. New research by Robb Willer, professor of sociology at Stanford University, and Rachel Wetts, a researcher at the University of California, demonstrates that despite all the ways that government provided welfare programs to help them, white Americans are willing to cut such programs if they believe that African-Americans and other nonwhites may benefit.
https://www.salon.com/2018/08/01/white-americans-support-welfare-programs-but-only-for-themselves-says-new-research/
https://academic.oup.com/sf/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/sf/soy046/5002999
-
good idea, splitting the pc thread.
-
sys has been putting a lot of this kind of stuff in the college campus thread but it probably deserves its own thread.
The American middle class (predominantly white by definition) was created after World War II by way of federal programs like the VA, the FHA home programs and the G.I. Bill. This example of white welfare was one of the largest wealth-creation and intergenerational wealth-transfer programs in history. Again, African-Americans and other nonwhites were, for the most part, denied access to those opportunities. Today's extreme racial wealth gap is the most obvious result.
What economists and other social scientists describe as "the submerged state" — government programs such as mortgage interest deductions, capital gains and other tax credits and cuts, and financial subsidies for entire industries — is another example of white welfare. Whites are disproportionately overrepresented as beneficiaries of the submerged state. Moreover, the submerged state is a central means through which the racial wealth gap is maintained in so-called "post racial" "colorblind" America.
There is a complication. New research by Robb Willer, professor of sociology at Stanford University, and Rachel Wetts, a researcher at the University of California, demonstrates that despite all the ways that government provided welfare programs to help them, white Americans are willing to cut such programs if they believe that African-Americans and other nonwhites may benefit.
https://www.salon.com/2018/08/01/white-americans-support-welfare-programs-but-only-for-themselves-says-new-research/
https://academic.oup.com/sf/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/sf/soy046/5002999
Literally none of this is true. :facepalm: It is completely contrived.
This so so goddamn stupid I cannot believe educated adults actually believe it. A modicum of research completely dispells the entire premise.
-
link?
-
What is an intergenerational wealth creation program? Does that mean the VA and GI Bill etc resulted in money from older Americans of all racial backgrounds flowing to primarily younger white americans?
-
Didn't read the article, but what the excerpt implies is that whites were over-represented in either the draft or voluntary military service or both. Is that true? I had never thought about it, but I guess I just assumed that wasn't the case.
-
What is an intergenerational wealth creation program? Does that mean the VA and GI Bill etc resulted in money from older Americans of all racial backgrounds flowing to primarily younger white americans?
In a way, yes, while excluding minority veterans from the benefits.
http://progressive.org/dispatches/how-african-american-wwii-veterans-were-scorned-by-the-g-i-b/
Also the FHA systematically denied government-backed loans to all minorities, not just vets.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/05/the-racist-housing-policy-that-made-your-neighborhood/371439/
Didn't read the article, but what the excerpt implies is that whites were over-represented in either the draft or voluntary military service or both. Is that true? I had never thought about it, but I guess I just assumed that wasn't the case.
It doesn't look like you read the excerpt.
-
Well the excerpt doesn't make it clear what "denied these opportunities" means, but now I understand. If the theory is that whites disproportionately benefited from low-cost or free education (believable), and that this is the leading cause of a racial wealth gap, then isn't the most obvious solution focusing on current federal financial aid programs based on income?
-
It does make sense that white people would be interested in cutting programs that might benefit them in order to keep other groups from benefiting. Same way people in business or other hierarchies often want to create barriers to entry for other people when they find themselves on top.
-
It does make sense that white people would be interested in cutting programs that might benefit them in order to keep other groups from benefiting. Same way people in business or other hierarchies often want to create barriers to entry for other people when they find themselves on top.
yes
Well the excerpt doesn't make it clear what "denied these opportunities" means, but now I understand. If the theory is that whites disproportionately benefited from low-cost or free education (believable), and that this is the leading cause of a racial wealth gap, then isn't the most obvious solution focusing on current federal financial aid programs based on income?
housing is the other big one. But maybe make aid (for education and housing) more based on overall wealth rather than income? It's kind of already done with education aid, but the wealthy have plenty of federal aid to help them buy property. Disproportionately more than is provided for housing the non-wealthy.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/where-we-live/wp/2017/10/11/the-federal-government-spends-more-than-twice-as-much-subsidizing-homeowners-as-it-does-helping-people-avoid-homelessness/?utm_term=.f4464062c95d
Just spitballing.
-
It's repackaged richard rothstein bullshit based upon a number of patently inaccurate premises.
-
New research by Robb Willer, professor of sociology at Stanford University, and Rachel Wetts, a researcher at the University of California, demonstrates that despite all the ways that government provided welfare programs to help them, white Americans are willing to cut such programs if they believe that African-Americans and other nonwhites may benefit.
https://www.salon.com/2018/08/01/white-americans-support-welfare-programs-but-only-for-themselves-says-new-research/
https://academic.oup.com/sf/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/sf/soy046/5002999
the abstract says "if these programs were portrayed as primarily benefiting minorities, not if they were portrayed as benefiting whites." which is pretty different.
-
It's repackaged richard rothstein bullshit based upon a number of patently inaccurate premises.
coleman hughes is on the latest sam harris podcast and they take two hours breaking down all of the inaccurate premises piece by piece. it's a good listen for those who would notice any discrepancy in racial outcomes and scream racism.
-
The fact that Coleman Hughes is a name we are discussing as an undergrad, should tell you everything you need to know about how oppressed conservative “intellectuals” are and whether or not they truly necessitate a “dark web” because they can’t find a platform.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Also, that quilette history piece has been completely dismantled by actual historians.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
screaming
-
Haha I will not listen to that
-
I peeked at Hughes's racial wealth gap piece on quilette and just looking closely at a couple of his claims reveals that he's pretty misleading and terrible.
-
I’m planning on listening to that today and will report back cliffs
-
I don't know who Coleman Hughes or Sam Harris are but I know off the top of my head the premises in that dumbfuck argument are plainly wrong.
Also, lol at the clowns attacking the credibility of those guys while failing to do perfunctory research on the absurdity of the premises in the trash piece linked in the OP.
-
Also, that quilette history piece has been completely dismantled by actual historians.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mind posting a link to the criticisms?
-
I’m about a half hour in and the hard facts are few and far between. So far he has cited a few 2008 pew polls indicating a majority of the people of color do not believe their racial background has hindered them in getting into a college of their choosing or in their careers. Also mentioned he believes black people vote Democrat because the optics of voting republican are an endorsement of the fringe racist element of the party.
-
I’m about a half hour in and the hard facts are few and far between. So far he has cited a few 2008 pew polls indicating a majority of the people of color do not believe their racial background has hindered them in getting into a college of their choosing or in their careers. Also mentioned he believes black people vote Democrat because the optics of voting republican are an endorsement of the fringe racist element of the party.
i meant to warn that sam's request for podcast support is nails-on-the-chalkboard. the last thirty minutes has more numbers and stuff.
-
Yea that would be a fun discussion for another thread, I’m hoping it improves but I’ll stick it out regardless.
-
Also, that quilette history piece has been completely dismantled by actual historians.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mind posting a link to the criticisms?
I can't find the historical one, I think it might have been a twitter thread. But I could probably do enough on my own with this whopper:
But slavery is hardly the root cause of America’s prosperity. If it were, then we would expect American states that practiced slavery to be richer than those that did not. Yet we see precisely the opposite. The South, where slavery thrived, was “the poorest and most backward region of the country,” according to the economist Thomas Sowell.1 This remains true today.
Where to even begin with this? Yes, the industrial North did much better as industrialization continued to replace the importance of agricultural wealth and the South also lost a decent amount of wealth AS A RESULT OF THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION BECAUSE THE CHATTEL WAS NOW CONSIDERED A FREE PERSON.
This is a rebuttal that seems to pick at some of the bad statistics, but I honestly can't find what I was thinking of.
https://scienceofsocialproblems.wordpress.com/ (https://scienceofsocialproblems.wordpress.com/)
-
I honestly can't find what I was thinking of.
wow how convenient
-
I honestly can't find what I was thinking of.
wow how convenient
harder to find free help now than it was in the great American South.
-
I honestly can't find what I was thinking of.
wow how convenient
I mean the link he shared seemed like a pretty decent debunking
-
I honestly can't find what I was thinking of.
wow how convenient
I mean the link he shared seemed like a pretty decent debunking
i WANTED the link he was REFERRING TO
-
That podcast was rough. As you can imagine it was a lot of philosophy from a philosophy major at an Ivy League school. Was hoping for more facts and stats to oppose the premise of this thread and left sorely disappointed.
-
I can't find the historical one, I think it might have been a twitter thread. But I could probably do enough on my own with this whopper:
But slavery is hardly the root cause of America’s prosperity. If it were, then we would expect American states that practiced slavery to be richer than those that did not. Yet we see precisely the opposite. The South, where slavery thrived, was “the poorest and most backward region of the country,” according to the economist Thomas Sowell.1 This remains true today.
Where to even begin with this? Yes, the industrial North did much better as industrialization continued to replace the importance of agricultural wealth and the South also lost a decent amount of wealth AS A RESULT OF THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION BECAUSE THE CHATTEL WAS NOW CONSIDERED A FREE PERSON.
that's a really bad argument (freeing enslaved people does not destroy or impair their ability to work, the human capital available in the region is largely unchanged - ignoring migration and people killed/injured in the war, etc.). the argument you're arguing against is also really bad, but that doesn't excuse you from making a poor argument.
speaking of how bad your argument was, i saw a really cool thing a few days ago about how germany's economic efficiency is at least partly a function of how their capital stock is valued less than is capital stock in peer countries. like a german company or house is cheaper than the same entity would be in other developed countries. really interesting.
-
I can't find the historical one, I think it might have been a twitter thread. But I could probably do enough on my own with this whopper:
But slavery is hardly the root cause of America’s prosperity. If it were, then we would expect American states that practiced slavery to be richer than those that did not. Yet we see precisely the opposite. The South, where slavery thrived, was “the poorest and most backward region of the country,” according to the economist Thomas Sowell.1 This remains true today.
Where to even begin with this? Yes, the industrial North did much better as industrialization continued to replace the importance of agricultural wealth and the South also lost a decent amount of wealth AS A RESULT OF THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION BECAUSE THE CHATTEL WAS NOW CONSIDERED A FREE PERSON.
that's a really bad argument (freeing enslaved people does not destroy or impair their ability to work, the human capital available in the region is largely unchanged - ignoring migration and people killed/injured in the war, etc.). the argument you're arguing against is also really bad, but that doesn't excuse you from making a poor argument.
speaking of how bad your argument was, i saw a really cool thing a few days ago about how germany's economic efficiency is at least partly a function of how their capital stock is valued less than is capital stock in peer countries. like a german company or house is cheaper than the same entity would be in other developed countries. really interesting.
The people. They were assets.
-
yeah, they're still assets after they're free. their economic value is unchanged, what is changed is that ownership of their economic value is transferred from a slaveowner to themselves.
-
I bet the North benefited quite a bit from slavery, too... it limited industrial development in the South and *may* have provided the North with cheaper raw materials than they would have had with a paid southern labor force.
-
yeah, they're still assets after they're free. their economic value is unchanged, what is changed is that ownership of their economic value is transferred from a slaveowner to themselves.
there were things called markets that bought and sold people. the people themselves were property and a store of value, not just an input of human capital. This market was declared illegal. Further, the idea that the emancipated slaves were able to freely sell their labor in some free market is completely ludicrous.
-
i'm aware of what slavery is, katkid. the value of the work a person can perform does not only exist if it is appropriated by another person. enslaved peoples were able to retain the value of their labor after attaining freedom, the value didn't disappear.
re. how free they were to sell their labor - no doubt there were inefficiencies and disruptions. however, slavery itself involves some pretty significant inefficiencies. just based on theory, i would be surprised if the post slavery economy wasn't more productive than the pre slavery economy. but that's clearly a question that can be addressed with data. i'll adjust my opinion on the issue to accord with what the data indicate, if any adjustment is needed.
-
i'm aware of what slavery is, katkid. the value of the work a person can perform does not only exist if it is appropriated by another person. enslaved peoples were able to retain the value of their labor after attaining freedom, the value didn't disappear.
re. how free they were to sell their labor - no doubt there were inefficiencies and disruptions. however, slavery itself involves some pretty significant inefficiencies. just based on theory, i would be surprised if the post slavery economy wasn't more productive than the pre slavery economy. but that's clearly a question that can be addressed with data. i'll adjust my opinion on the issue to accord with what the data indicate, if any adjustment is needed.
you are beyond help
-
I feel like an analogy could be drawn here to the difference between stock in a public corporation and a private company. Theoretically, if you have two companies (one public, one private) that are otherwise identical, the value of their shares should be viewed the same (sys). However, in reality the nature of the ownership drastically changes the value of the shares because who controls the resources turns out to be a pretty big deal (kat kid). And of course, the companies with less marketable shares tend to become less profitable overall.
-
you are beyond help
i feel the same way. how you can fail to understand something so basic is beyond me.
-
of course, the companies with less marketable shares tend to become less profitable overall.
no. unless the company requires access to capital and the higher valuation allows them access to cheaper capital.
-
You guys can’t imagine how much wealth building ass I’ve kicked because of the GI bill, FHA, and Va mortgages
-
of course, the companies with less marketable shares tend to become less profitable overall.
no. unless the company requires access to capital and the higher valuation allows them access to cheaper capital.
Well since you just described every company, I'm not sure why you said "no."
-
it doesn't describe every company, not even close.
aside from that, your statement seemed to me to be implying that something about having a high valuation was intrinsically advantageous - which is not accurate.
-
sys, your theory of human capital/labor has no distinction at all for the market conditions that labor must negotiate to sell their labor?
-
it doesn't describe every company, not even close.
aside from that, your statement seemed to me to be implying that something about having a high valuation was intrinsically advantageous - which is not accurate.
Ok I’m not talking about an LLC someone might use for their Etsy account. The analogy is about public companies and private companies that are otherwise identical.
Although you are correct about profitability. I meant to speak in terms of valuation. Not really the point of the analogy though.
-
this is a bit of a mess, but I discussed this more elsewhere and thought it might help if others care.
assets aren't included in GDP, the "market" for chattel was made illegal and a new separate market was created that was nearly as exploitative for the ability of emancipated slaves to sell their labor. GDP measures production/spending/outputs, not assets, slaves were property and a store of value completely separate from being an input, there were markets where they were traded, those markets became illegal and thus their "value" to the exploitative class was lost. for instance, female slaves that were fertile commanded a higher price as they could provide more property to sell. how is that ever realized in sys' view that the "human capital" the labor production (work of slaves e.g.--picking cotton) was transferred from owner to slave upon emancipation? Never mind, the insanity of claiming that the market that emancipated slaves entered was not completely rough ridin' rigged when they tried to sell their labor.
I was waiting to get to the part were there was this whole thing called the "great migration" that helps explain a lot of what coleman hughes completely ignores.
-
sys, your theory of human capital/labor has no distinction at all for the market conditions that labor must negotiate to sell their labor?
i don't know what you're driving at, but the value of an hour of labor is the same regardless of who benefits from that labor.
-
slaves were property and a store of value completely separate from being an input, there were markets where they were traded, those markets became illegal and thus their "value" to the exploitative class was lost.
the value was not lost. the value (the sum of their future work) was reclaimed from their former owners by each person that had formerly been enslaved.
the insanity of claiming that the market that emancipated slaves entered was not completely rough ridin' rigged when they tried to sell their labor.
the labor market was a good deal more rigged when they were enslaved.
-
slaves were property and a store of value completely separate from being an input, there were markets where they were traded, those markets became illegal and thus their "value" to the exploitative class was lost.
the value was not lost. the value (the sum of their future work) was reclaimed from their former owners by each person that had formerly been enslaved.
They weren't fairly compensated for their labor upon being emancipated. Therefore, it's hard to argue their value was reclaimed.
-
They weren't fairly compensated for their labor upon being emancipated. Therefore, it's hard to argue their value was reclaimed.
they were able to benefit from a greater portion of the value of their labor.
-
They weren't fairly compensated for their labor upon being emancipated. Therefore, it's hard to argue their value was reclaimed.
they were able to benefit from a greater portion of the value of their labor.
I'm not entirely sure I'm tracking this argument. Is Sys saying that freeing the slaves didn't hurt the South's economy? I agree with a lot of Hughes overall argument (spending habits have a significant effect on wealth), but I do think he cut some corners on his historical references.
-
Is Sys saying that freeing the slaves didn't hurt the South's economy?
correct.
-
I have no idea what sort of wage a freed slave could aquire. How long would a freed slave have to work to equal their previous value as property?
-
Setting aside whether the “value” of labor remains the same, I think changing the cost of labor has a pretty significant impact on a labor-based economy.
-
Seems pretty clear white people should be enslaved for 100 years and then call it even.
-
I have no idea what sort of wage a freed slave could aquire. How long would a freed slave have to work to equal their previous value as property?
I think many ended up in more of a feudal serf type relationship where they would keep a portion of what they produced but provide the vast majority to the landowners.
-
https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slavery-make-economic-sense (https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slavery-make-economic-sense)
here's an article about the economics of slavery
-
https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slavery-make-economic-sense (https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slavery-make-economic-sense)
here's an article about the economics of slavery
good link.
-
It's an interesting topic but sys is arguing something quite a bit different and far more insane.
Whether slavery resulted in a more efficient economy isn't the point. Southern landowners had already expended significant capital to acquire their labor force (which drove their entire business and most of the southern economy). Freeing slaves would be the equivalent of taking the machinery out of a manufacturing plant and saying "hey, the machines are just as valuable as they were before, you just have to start renting them now." The fact that slavery may not have been that profitable overall means the economic impact of emancipation would have been that more significant given the sunk costs. You need profit to grow.
-
It's an interesting topic but sys is arguing something quite a bit different and far more insane.
Whether slavery resulted in a more efficient economy isn't the point. Southern landowners had already expended significant capital to acquire their labor force (which drove their entire business and most of the southern economy). Freeing slaves would be the equivalent of taking the machinery out of a manufacturing plant and saying "hey, the machines are just as valuable as they were before, you just have to start renting them now." The fact that slavery may not have been that profitable overall means the economic impact of emancipation would have been that more significant given the sunk costs. You need profit to grow.
good god, what a load of drivel. the economic interest of the slaveholding class is not synonymous with the economy.
-
https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slavery-make-economic-sense (https://www.economist.com/free-exchange/2013/09/27/did-slavery-make-economic-sense)
here's an article about the economics of slavery
good link.
Only a mind completely poisoned by the logic of free market capitalism could argue that “reluctant” slave labor was likely not as productive because it was coercive and did not unleash the forces of innovation because slaves were uninterested in learning new farming techniques? The slaves had quotas enforced by a whip or worse. The article ask again completely ignores the point I’ve been making over and over which is that the forced breeding of slaves produced enormous profits wholly separate from the labor. This was priced in to the price of slaves at market, was regularly a source of profits for slave owners and impossible to account for once the market was made illegal. In addition, the idea that even in the dire conditions of share cropping, workers did not elect to forego selling ALL of their labor in the hopes of enjoying some meager time for leisure seems wrong. Again, that would be measurable by the GDP, but the value of the chattel (people) is not priced in as it is an asset.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
There are arguments about how the northern economy benefited from the southern economy and lots of other things being left off the table that we could discuss as well that go to Coleman Hughes thesis, but sys won’t just concede his point so here we are.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Only a mind completely poisoned by the logic of free market capitalism could argue that “reluctant” slave labor was likely not as productive
:lol:
the forced breeding of slaves produced enormous profits wholly separate from the labor. This was priced in to the price of slaves at market, was regularly a source of profits for slave owners and impossible to account for once the market was made illegal.
the value of freeborn children is retained by those children rather than appropriated by a slaveowner. that does not destroy the value of the child.
-
There are arguments about how the northern economy benefited from the southern economy and lots of other things being left off the table that we could discuss as well that go to Coleman Hughes thesis, but sys won’t just concede his point so here we are.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
my god, you actually think you've refuted a single assertion i've made. incredible.
-
Only a mind completely poisoned by the logic of free market capitalism could argue that “reluctant” slave labor was likely not as productive
:lol:
the forced breeding of slaves produced enormous profits wholly separate from the labor. This was priced in to the price of slaves at market, was regularly a source of profits for slave owners and impossible to account for once the market was made illegal.
the value of freeborn children is retained by those children rather than appropriated by a slaveowner. that does not destroy the value of the child.
Pricing the fertility of women to maximize their future potential profits is definitely economic activity that totally happens. The market for people is not like for like with people’s future earning from the fruits of their labor.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
https://quillette.com/2018/07/19/black-american-culture-and-the-racial-wealth-gap/#comment-28063
Quilette commenters
-
good god, what a load of drivel. the economic interest of the slaveholding class is not synonymous with the economy.
Considering the slaveholding class was the primary source of jobs, it’s pretty close.
I don’t know how else I can explain this. When a region’s economy revolves primarily around a specific resource, a change in the profitability of that resource affects the overall economy.
You’re acting like a change in the cost of labor shouldn’t impact a labor-based economy. Do you know what happens to an oil-based economy when the price of oil changes?
-
Pricing the fertility of women to maximize their future potential profits is definitely economic activity that totally happens. The market for people is not like for like with people’s future earning from the fruits of their labor.
i've googled around a bit for data on fecundity of african american women during and after slavery and haven't been able to find anything. if your assertion that they were more fecund during slavery is accurate, then you've finally introduced one factor that would argue for a higher rate of gdp increase in the slave economy than the postwar economy.
-
good god, what a load of drivel. the economic interest of the slaveholding class is not synonymous with the economy.
Considering the slaveholding class was the primary source of jobs, it’s pretty close.
I don’t know how else I can explain this. When a region’s economy revolves primarily around a specific resource, a change in the profitability of that resource affects the overall economy.
You’re acting like a change in the cost of labor shouldn’t impact a labor-based economy. Do you know what happens to an oil-based economy when the price of oil changes?
you're only considering the profitability to the slaveholder. in general when labor costs more, it drives an increase in gdp as the profits of labor are more broadly shared and this drives increased consumption. huge inequality retards growth and it's hard to imagine a system more unequal than slavery.
-
good god, what a load of drivel. the economic interest of the slaveholding class is not synonymous with the economy.
Considering the slaveholding class was the primary source of jobs, it’s pretty close.
I don’t know how else I can explain this. When a region’s economy revolves primarily around a specific resource, a change in the profitability of that resource affects the overall economy.
You’re acting like a change in the cost of labor shouldn’t impact a labor-based economy. Do you know what happens to an oil-based economy when the price of oil changes?
you're only considering the profitability to the slaveholder. in general when labor costs more, it drives an increase in gdp as the profits of labor are more broadly shared and this drives increased consumption. huge inequality retards growth and it's hard to imagine a system more unequal than slavery.
Correct, and as the only landowners in an agricultural-based economy, I am viewing the slaveholders as the primary source of jobs. Profitable companies employ more people, which reduces the available labor force, which increases the price of labor, which increases consumption. Post Civil-war slavery was a system of tons of available labor and depressed profitability for the main job creators. Not a recipe for success if you want a healthy economy.
-
job creators do not create jobs. demand creates jobs.
-
job creators do not create jobs. demand creates jobs.
Trigger warning
-
Post Civil-war slavery was a system of tons of available labor.
i'm not sure this is actually true, btw.
-
Post Civil-war slavery was a system of tons of available labor.
i'm not sure this is actually true, btw.
I think this may have something to do with our disconnect. Before emancipation I'm viewing slaves as capital. After, they are labor. So by definition, post-slavery you end up with a massive labor force that didn't exist before.
-
I think this may have something to do with our disconnect. Before emancipation I'm viewing slaves as capital. After, they are labor. So by definition, post-slavery you end up with a massive labor force that didn't exist before.
well that's the wrong way to think of them. they were people that were having their labor stolen from them. they existed.
-
Pricing the fertility of women to maximize their future potential profits is definitely economic activity that totally happens. The market for people is not like for like with people’s future earning from the fruits of their labor.
i've googled around a bit for data on fecundity of african american women during and after slavery and haven't been able to find anything. if your assertion that they were more fecund during slavery is accurate, then you've finally introduced one factor that would argue for a higher rate of gdp increase in the slave economy than the postwar economy.
i can think of another, btw. but i'm not going to make your argument for you.
-
well I went looking for your answer and the first paper I found reinforces both of my points.
http://web.utk.edu/~mwanamak/Slavespaper.pdf (http://web.utk.edu/~mwanamak/Slavespaper.pdf)
"Emancipation brought a reduction in the efficiency of former slave labor both because the efficiency of larger farms and plantations was replaced by small plot farming and sharecropping and because the labor available for hire in the postwar labor market was negatively selected in terms of efficiency. As a result, the productivity of Southern labor declined by approximately 30-40 percent between 1860-1880"
pg 5
"The literature on slave breeding and trade suggests that in locations where slave agriculture was relatively less profitable, slaves were assets not because of their production potential on the household's own farm, but because they could be sold to areas with more productive agricultural systems."
pg 14
the paper does not compare slave vs. emancipated fertility (I don't think, I didn't read it that carefully) but the other points stand.
-
I think this may have something to do with our disconnect. Before emancipation I'm viewing slaves as capital. After, they are labor. So by definition, post-slavery you end up with a massive labor force that didn't exist before.
well that's the wrong way to think of them. they were people that were having their labor stolen from them. they existed.
We're talking about economies. Lots of fictions in play. Emancipation fundamentally shifted their impact on the economy.
-
What the eff happened in here, this thread has become unreadable.
-
the efficiency of larger farms and plantations was replaced by small plot farming and sharecropping
heh. this was the argument i didn't want to make for you. good link, btw.
re. the productivity of labor - that's a measure output/laborer in one sector (admittedly a large sector). it doesn't imply that total production declined (although it may have). at least now we're actually talking about the factors that influence gdp instead of the ridiculous idea that liberating people destroyed capital.
-
the efficiency of larger farms and plantations was replaced by small plot farming and sharecropping
heh. this was the argument i didn't want to make for you. good link, btw.
re. the productivity of labor - that's a measure output/laborer in one sector (admittedly a large sector). it doesn't imply that total production declined (although it may have). at least now we're actually talking about the factors that influence gdp instead of the ridiculous idea that liberating people destroyed capital.
right, but GDP still doesn't capture all of the assets we've been talking about.
-
not sure what you mean by that, but my whole point, or at least one of my two whole points, was that the valuation of assets does not effect their productivity. that's the whole thing i brought up in my first post about how it actually has created a sustainable economic advantage for germany that their capital stock has been valued less than equivalent stock in peer countries.
-
Is Sys saying that freeing the slaves didn't hurt the South's economy?
correct.
This is the only point I took issue with. But it seems like you've come around.
-
Is Sys saying that freeing the slaves didn't hurt the South's economy?
correct.
This is the only point I took issue with. But it seems like you've come around.
i most definitely have not come around.
there were a ton of events that occurred during and immediately after the civil war that were temporally and spatially correlated. some likely had negative impacts on gdp, some likely had positive impacts. until i see data, i'm not going to be convinced one way or the other of the sum effect. and i assume, and will continue to so assume unless and until confronted with contrary data, that freeing enslaved people would be one of the events with a positive impact, because that accords with theory.
-
not to distract from the slavery discussion, but this is a good observo.
https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1025404246433431552
-
there were a ton of events that occurred during and immediately after the civil war that were temporally and spatially correlated. some likely had negative impacts on gdp, some likely had positive impacts. until i see data, i'm not going to be convinced one way or the other of the sum effect. and i assume, and will continue to so assume unless and until confronted with contrary data, that freeing enslaved people would be one of the events with a positive impact, because that accords with theory.
Well I stand corrected, but admitting you cannot be convinced provides me the same level of closure I suppose.
-
yeah, i mean, if you or katkid could make a cogent argument, maybe. but you both seem to be fixated by the losses suffered by the slaveholders.
-
not to distract from the slavery discussion, but this is a good observo.
https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1025404246433431552
That's something I've observed as well. Watched a doc on the Charlottesville marcher dudes and all of them denied being racist despite wanting the US to be a white only ethnostate. They would get really uncomfortable when the interviewer would use racist language. It was so odd.
-
yeah, i mean, if you or katkid could make a cogent argument, maybe. but you both seem to be fixated by the losses suffered by the slaveholders.
Well I'm not going to provide you with a line-by-line breakdown of the economic impacts of each discrete aspect of post-war reconstruction, so we appear to be at an impasse.
-
i do not agree to let you disagree, if that's what you're fishing for.
-
Agree with wetwillie on the unfortunate turn in this thread. A few otherwise good posters are stuck in a semantic quagmire. If you insist on continuing this discussion, you'll need to precisely define the terms you're throwing around. Otherwise, you'll just continue to talk past one another.
-
not to distract from the slavery discussion, but this is a good observo.
https://twitter.com/moebius_strip/status/1025404246433431552
Yes, definitely
-
Agree with wetwillie on the unfortunate turn in this thread. A few otherwise good posters are stuck in a semantic quagmire. If you insist on continuing this discussion, you'll need to precisely define the terms you're throwing around. Otherwise, you'll just continue to talk past one another.
without judgement regarding how entertaining you've found today's discussion, it really hasn't been a discussion of semantics at all.
-
:buh-bye:
-
this doesn't directly address our discussion, but it's clearly written, well sourced and related to the topic.
Slavery was a national tragedy that immiserated countless individuals, inhibited economic growth over the long run, and created social and racial divisions that still haunt the nation.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014498317302292#
-
The entire a slave was an asset then it wasn't, combatted with labor is an asset, was about like two sea lions fight over space on an 800 sq/ft dock.
-
interesting.
https://twitter.com/jwamble25/status/1025469726405914626
-
interesting.
https://twitter.com/jwamble25/status/1025469726405914626
Did you read the paper?
-
Did you read the paper?
no, just the thread and abstract.
-
i have to get better at remembering to read threads...
I'd really like to see what the statements were for each category.
-
https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-liberal-racism-a-horse-of-a-different-color-1533682618
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/style/white-guilt-privilege.html
-
I’m riddled with shame. White shame. This isn’t helpful to me or to anyone, especially people of color. I feel like there is no “me” outside of my white/upper middle class/cisgender identity. I feel like my literal existence hurts people, like I’m always taking up space that should belong to someone else.
I consider myself an ally. I research proper etiquette, read writers of color, vote in a way that will not harm P.O.C. (and other vulnerable people). I engage in conversations about privilege with other white people. I take courses that will further educate me. I donated to Black Lives Matter. Yet I fear that nothing is enough. Part of my fear comes from the fact that privilege is invisible to itself. What if I’m doing or saying insensitive things without realizing it?
Another part of it is that I’m currently immersed in the whitest environment I’ve ever been in. My family has lived in the same apartment in East Harlem for four generations. Every school I attended, elementary through high school, was minority white, but I’m now attending an elite private college that is 75 percent white. I know who I am, but I realize how people perceive me and this perception feels unfair.
I don’t talk about my feelings because it’s hard to justify doing so while people of color are dying due to systemic racism and making this conversation about me would be again centering whiteness. Yet bottling it up makes me feel an existential anger that I have a hard time channeling since I don’t know my place. Instead of harnessing my privilege for greater good, I’m curled up in a ball of shame. How can I be more than my heritage?
-
hi spracne. thanks for writing in about your crippling sense of shame regarding your whiteness. my advice is that you stop deluding yourself into thinking you can be more than your heritage. if you were to fully understand the depth of your white privilege, which seems to be invisible to you, you would hopefully feel more white shame and white guilt.
good luck, spracs!
-
Man, the goPow c and p’s are getting weirder and weirder
-
Ha, I would love to see the replies if that was posted on gpc :eek:
-
That seemed made up
-
I never realized how tough you white guys have it in America. Now I understand why you had to vote for Trump.
-
I never realized how tough you white guys have it in America. Know I understand why you had to vote for Trump.
that's the future, afaict.
-
White guys in America: The riches to rags story.
A cautionary tale in losing the upper(white) hand
-
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/style/white-guilt-privilege.html
That guy is really admirable. We should all strive to hate ourselves to a similar degree.
-
Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers for a sincere expression of the parodied views.
-
why the difference in voter turnout along racial lines?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Voter_Turnout_by_Race-Ethnicity%2C_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png/400px-Voter_Turnout_by_Race-Ethnicity%2C_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections#Race,_ethnicity,_and_voter_turnout (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections#Race,_ethnicity,_and_voter_turnout)
-
why the difference in voter turnout along racial lines?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Voter_Turnout_by_Race-Ethnicity%2C_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png/400px-Voter_Turnout_by_Race-Ethnicity%2C_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections#Race,_ethnicity,_and_voter_turnout (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections#Race,_ethnicity,_and_voter_turnout)
“Cause they’re a bunch of illegals who are afraid of getting caught at the polls” —next governor Kobach (probably)
-
31.6% of all the hispanics in this country voted fraudulently for Hillary.
-
31.6% of all the hispanics in this country voted fraudulently for Hillary.
obama** and since it's census data you'd say it's like 15.8%!!
why don't asians vote? :confused:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Voter_Turnout_by_Income%2C_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png/400px-Voter_Turnout_by_Income%2C_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/Voter_Turnout_by_Educational_Attainment%2C_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png/400px-Voter_Turnout_by_Educational_Attainment%2C_2008_US_Presidential_Election.png)
-
here are some more updated numbers and thoughts
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/
https://psmag.com/news/low-voter-turnout-among-asian-americans
-
there's quite a disparity between pew's numbers and the census bureau's. i'm honestly curious about whose are more accurate.
it'd be easier to measure the effect of the language barrier than an attitude that asians keep their heads down. after thinking about it a bit, i'd guess that some of the lower turnout from asians and hispanics is due to not having families with historical political experiences. hearing that your grandma divorced grandpa because he voted for nixon is likely to give you a sense that these things matter, you don't get that if you're first or second generation american.
-
the census data look like they are giving the % of individuals who voted, the pew data look like % of eligible voters. obviously, asians and hispanics include many more non-citizens than whites and blacks do. my guess is that's the difference noted.
-
fascinating.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/americans-are-shifting-the-rest-of-their-identity-to-match-their-politics/
-
https://nypost.com/2018/ 09/18/school-superintendent-on-texans-star-you-cant-count-on-a-black-qb/
-
this is fascinating.
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1042113559625433090
-
Thread
https://twitter.com/louishyman/status/1051872178415828993
-
This is what shocked me the most about Trump's election. When I learned that I was not NEARLY as woke as I'd thought I might have been.
America is not, strictly speaking, a center-right or center-left nation. Rather, it remains the nation of the Dixiecrats, in which the majority’s desire for equal opportunity and a robust welfare state is mediated by the addiction of a large chunk of the polity to racial hierarchy.
https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1055475830082682880
-
Some decent points there.
-
chum has anyone posted the one about the dem. staffer on a hate crime watch group who got arrested for setting synagogues on fire?
-
chum has anyone posted the one about the dem. staffer on a hate crime watch group who got arrested for setting synagogues on fire?
https://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=39378.msg1868171#msg1868171
-
chum has anyone posted the one about the dem. staffer on a hate crime watch group who got arrested for setting synagogues on fire?
https://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=39378.msg1868171#msg1868171
different one. i'm surprised this didn't make much noise
https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1058565127778299904
-
He went to Brandeis! What in the world.
-
the rise/salience of antisemitism in the united states is surprising to me. i thought that was something in which we were strongly divergent from europe.
i guess i still think that, but the degree of difference is less than i thought.
-
the rise/salience of antisemitism in the united states is surprising to me. i thought that was something in which we were strongly divergent from europe.
i guess i still think that, but the degree of difference is less than i thought.
You really shouldn't be. It hasn't even been 100 years since the US was pretty damn antisemitic.
-
a hundred years is a long time.
-
Embarrassing stuff
-
the rise/salience of antisemitism in the united states is surprising to me. i thought that was something in which we were strongly divergent from europe.
i guess i still think that, but the degree of difference is less than i thought.
What evidence supports the US population is more antisemetic than it was at other points in our history?
-
What evidence supports the US population is more antisemetic than it was at other points in our history?
other than the recent spate of antisemitic events and the post-trump either rise of, or increased coverage of, antisemitic/neo-nazi stuff?
that's all i'm thinking of. i don't mean to imply that there has been a wide-spread rise of antsemitism in the us. that's possible, but it's probably more likely that my estimate of american antisemitism was wrong in earlier years.
-
What evidence supports the US population is more antisemetic than it was at other points in our history?
other than the recent spate of antisemitic events and the post-trump either rise of, or increased coverage of, antisemitic/neo-nazi stuff?
that's all i'm thinking of. i don't mean to imply that there has been a wide-spread rise of antsemitism in the us. that's possible, but it's probably more likely that my estimate of american antisemitism was wrong in earlier years.
This seems the most likely scenario, but it’s probably true that trumps rise has emboldened the white supremicists to be more aggressive.
-
Why? Because they hate Jew loving Trump and his Jew lover daughter?
-
the guy who murdered the two black people in kentucky has a black ex-wife so obviously he didn't murder those black people.
-
Pathetic :flush:
-
I don't really think trump himself is much of an antisemite, but he either doesn't care or is too stupid to know that he inspires antisemitism for his own political gain
-
I don't really think trump himself is much of an antisemite, but he either doesn't care or is too stupid to know that he inspires antisemitism for his own political gain
I mean the fact that he's the president and he is willing or ignorant of how his words could be construed as or inspire anti-Semitisn means he's at least as bad and probably worse than a straight up anti Semite
-
he knows what he's doing. he's not a rough ridin' golden retriever.
-
I don't really think trump himself is much of an antisemite, but he either doesn't care or is too stupid to know that he inspires antisemitism for his own political gain
I mean the fact that he's the president and he is willing or ignorant of how his words could be construed as or inspire anti-Semitisn means he's at least as bad and probably worse than a straight up anti Semite
Definitely worse, yes
-
https://twitter.com/gregpmiller/status/1059450619126255616
-
https://twitter.com/steak_ham/status/1059459701547638785
-
https://www.thecut.com/2018/11/baraboo-high-school-boys-prom-photo-doing-nazi-salute.html?utm_source=nym&utm_medium=f1&utm_campaign=feed-part (https://www.thecut.com/2018/11/baraboo-high-school-boys-prom-photo-doing-nazi-salute.html?utm_source=nym&utm_medium=f1&utm_campaign=feed-part)
some of these kids are sooooo mumped.
-
https://twitter.com/barabooSD/status/1062093716545028097?s=20
Probs doesn't help that their letterhead resembles a symbol of the Third Reich.
-
My favorite race in America is the tractor pull. Followed by the Malibu Grand Prix, and then Kentucky Derby.
-
Steeple chase is a pretty lol race.
And is their anything whiter than competitive walking races????
-
why are you trying to run interference for a bunch of nazi wannabes ITT?
-
https://www.thecut.com/2018/11/baraboo-high-school-boys-prom-photo-doing-nazi-salute.html?utm_source=nym&utm_medium=f1&utm_campaign=feed-part (https://www.thecut.com/2018/11/baraboo-high-school-boys-prom-photo-doing-nazi-salute.html?utm_source=nym&utm_medium=f1&utm_campaign=feed-part)
some of these kids are sooooo mumped.
gah
-
Remember when Jesse Owens whipped nazi ass is a bunch of races????
-
it's good that they are getting pushback. unfortunate that there seems to be no mechanism to force them out.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-record-number-of-women-were-just-elected-but-the-womens-march-is-imploding?ref=scroll
-
the title is misleading, it's more a history than a state of the current woman's march. interesting.
https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/276694/is-the-womens-earch-melting-down
-
https://twitter.com/ericuman/status/1081724352075304960
-
Always thought money management should be taught in school.
-
This thread is so cringe-worthy
https://twitter.com/nhannahjones/status/1083407164356612100?s=19
-
I think Coleman Hughes is here for the long haul.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/martin-luther-king-colorblind-radical-11547769741
-
unpaywalled link, please.
-
run it through archive.is
-
run it through archive.is
apparently i don't know how to use that. i input the address and get back an archive that still has the paywall.
-
At my place of employ, we had some olds reply all to the whole firm today regarding an IT update, so I know these kinds of things do occasionally happen.
-
don't be mean to me, spracne.
-
The best part was other olds responding to everyone with "why am I receiving these messages?!?"
-
Martin Luther King, Colorblind Radical
He flirted with democratic socialism and opposed the Vietnam War but stood against identity politics.
kinda sums it all up :)
-
I think Coleman Hughes is here for the long haul.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/martin-luther-king-colorblind-radical-11547769741
Crazy, he sucks so much (as does quilette).
-
I think Hughes is great.
-
Looooooong career ahead. Probably a NYT column soon.
-
I think Hughes is great.
He's very good at what he does and I understand why he appeals/panders to certain people, I just find it to be a very forced, sloppy style.
-
Looooooong career ahead. Probably a NYT column soon.
Yep
-
Looooooong career ahead. Probably a NYT column soon.
Yep. He'll be triggering self-loathing libs like KK and Rusty for decades. I wonder if he has political aspirations? Shapiro/Hughes 2036!
He's very good at what he does and I understand why he appeals/panders to certain people, I just find it to be a very forced, sloppy style.
I don't understand what you mean. I think his style is pretty well organized and straightforward, regardless of whether you agree with his point of view. I agree that he's predictable, if that's what you mean by "forced."
-
A lot of words to say "but I'm one of the good ones".
-
He's very good at what he does and I understand why he appeals/panders to certain people, I just find it to be a very forced, sloppy style.
I don't understand what you mean. I think his style is pretty well organized and straightforward, regardless of whether you agree with his point of view. I agree that he's predictable, if that's what you mean by "forced."
Good commentary, in my opinion, attempts to convince the reader to adjust their opinion on a subject, or at least bring a new perspective and make people think about things differently. I've read like three of Hughes' pieces, and he honestly seems to only try to accomplish two things with his writing:
1) Speak for the whites who are thinking "I've been thinking this for years, but if I wrote this I'd be called a racist!"
2) Trigger the libs (also applies to #1)
And I think his writing is sloppy because he pretty much only argues strawmen, (typically a generic "progressive") and he consistently cherry-picks quotes without any context - he doesn't research to truly understand his subject, he's just looking for quotes that would most likely trigger the libs. Like he pulled a "people won't say black power or white power" quote from this speech:
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/where-do-we-go-here-address-delivered-eleventh-annual-sclc-convention
In the exact same speech King talks about protesting businesses for not hiring enough blacks or advertising in black newspapers or using black banks. Is this not identity politics?
In Cleveland, Ohio, a group of ministers have formed an Operation Breadbasket through our program there and have moved against a major dairy company. Their requests include jobs, advertising in Negro newspapers, and depositing funds in Negro financial institutions. This effort resulted in something marvelous. I went to Cleveland just last week to sign the agreement with Sealtest. We went to get the facts about their employment; we discovered that they had 442 employees and only forty-three were Negroes, yet the Negro population of Cleveland is thirty-five percent of the total population. They refused to give us all of the information that we requested, and we said in substance, "Mr. Sealtest, we're sorry. We aren't going to burn your store down. We aren't going to throw any bricks in the window. But we are going to put picket signs around and we are going to put leaflets out and we are going to our pulpits and tell them not to sell Sealtest products, and not to purchase Sealtest products.".....
We also said to Sealtest, "The problem that we face is that the ghetto is a domestic colony that's constantly drained without being replenished. And you are always telling us to lift ourselves by our own bootstraps, and yet we are being robbed every day. Put something back in the ghetto." So along with our demand for jobs, we said, "We also demand that you put money in the Negro savings and loan association and that you take ads, advertise, in the Cleveland Call & Post, the Negro newspaper." So along with the new jobs, Sealtest has now deposited thousands of dollars in the Negro bank of Cleveland and has already started taking ads in the Negro newspaper in that city. This is the power of Operation Breadbasket.
Also someone linked to this in the comments, where King basically makes a case for reparations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NNvzVCVhIM&feature=youtu.be
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/dyson-may.html
-
And I think his writing is sloppy because he pretty much only argues strawmen, (typically a generic "progressive") and he consistently cherry-picks quotes without any context - he doesn't research to truly understand his subject, he's just looking for quotes that would most likely trigger the libs. Like he pulled a "people won't say black power or white power" quote from this speech:
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/where-do-we-go-here-address-delivered-eleventh-annual-sclc-convention
In the exact same speech King talks about protesting businesses for not hiring enough blacks or advertising in black newspapers or using black banks. Is this not identity politics?
That's a good question and I think at some point, what is and isn't "identity politics" becomes semantics. I think the argument could be made that MLK wasn't advocating for these people to get these jobs simply because they're black, or because they faced discrimination or racism. I think he's advocating that they get the jobs because (first and foremost) they're qualified and the reason they're not getting the jobs is because other people (i.e. those in charge of hiring) are engaging in racism (identity politics). The same could be true for the advertisements and banks. Maybe to eradicate identity politics, you have to acknowledge that they exist. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of King's beliefs, but I don't think your quote is necessarily inconsistent with anything Hughes wrote.
To your point, I do agree that Hughes overreaches -- at least in this article. Though I don't think that's all that uncommon, especially for opinion writers discussing race. From my limited knowledge of King, I'm pretty sure he was a bigger advocate for specifically black rights than Hughes seems to acknowledge. But like I said above, I'm far from an expert on MLK.
-
And I think his writing is sloppy because he pretty much only argues strawmen, (typically a generic "progressive") and he consistently cherry-picks quotes without any context - he doesn't research to truly understand his subject, he's just looking for quotes that would most likely trigger the libs. Like he pulled a "people won't say black power or white power" quote from this speech:
https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/king-papers/documents/where-do-we-go-here-address-delivered-eleventh-annual-sclc-convention
In the exact same speech King talks about protesting businesses for not hiring enough blacks or advertising in black newspapers or using black banks. Is this not identity politics?
That's a good question and I think at some point, what is and isn't "identity politics" becomes semantics. I think the argument could be made that MLK wasn't advocating for these people to get these jobs simply because they're black, or because they faced discrimination or racism. I think he's advocating that they get the jobs because (first and foremost) they're qualified and the reason they're not getting the jobs is because other people (i.e. those in charge of hiring) are engaging in racism (identity politics). The same could be true for the advertisements and banks. Maybe to eradicate identity politics, you have to acknowledge that they exist. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of King's beliefs, but I don't think your quote is necessarily inconsistent with anything Hughes wrote.
Do you think it's inconsistent with the views of Black Lives Matter?
The Black Lives Matter Global Network is a chapter-based, member-led organization whose mission is to build local power and to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes.
We are working for a world where Black lives are no longer systematically targeted for demise.
We affirm our humanity, our contributions to this society, and our resilience in the face of deadly oppression.
https://blacklivesmatter.com/about/
-
They just need to get over it and move on with their lives.
-
I don't think it conflicts with Black Lives Matter's mission statement, no.
-
I don't think it conflicts with Black Lives Matter's mission statement, no.
Well that's just one example of why Hughes is sloppy and sucks.
-
Just googled Coleman Hughes and realized who that was.
My Gen X'er Trumper friend is a closet racist/bigot and loves him.
His interviews and soundbytes definitely make the Maga facebook rounds often.
-
i'm putting this here rather than in the beto propaganda thread because beto only talks for a few minutes at the end. i found this to be a very open and thoughtful discussion. it was quite interesting to me.
https://twitter.com/Tomtmjoe/status/1140338874855518208
-
https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1167143424157290497?s=20
-
also I mentioned this in the book thread but goddam this book is infuriating
https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness-ebook/dp/B07N8H53Z8/ref=dp_ob_title_def
-
I think Coleman Hughes is here for the long haul.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/martin-luther-king-colorblind-radical-11547769741
This dude is on Bill Maher tonight.
-
Thomas Chatterton Williams has been stealing his thunder for awhile, good to have Coleman back.
-
I think Coleman Hughes is here for the long haul.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/martin-luther-king-colorblind-radical-11547769741
This dude is on Bill Maher tonight.
https://twitter.com/coldxman/status/1334094183234093057
-
“Philosophers” are awful
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I prefer policy positions
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Thomas Chatterton Williams joined the American Enterprise Institute. So get ready for some more takes and panel discussions.
-
I should read more but Hughes strikes me as a younger, smarter, Whitlock
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
interesting
https://twitter.com/JasonKander/status/1340656499929063424
-
I heard about that on my drive home, has this happened anywhere else?
-
I heard about that on my drive home, has this happened anywhere else?
I sure haven't heard of it.
-
That's great for them, sad that it's necessary
-
Haven't read it but I suspect it will lead to the Nichols name being further scrubbed which is fine.
-
Fascinating articles, and all they're all out in front of the paywall too. Kudos KansasCity.com