Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

I have noticed this same phenomenon in GA. I have asked around and the only response that I got was that the black community and the hispanic community were in competition as the biggest minority so they are sort of in competition. I'll ask around more, this is a really good point.

0 Replies

Quote:

However, when racism is debated by politicians -- mostly by Democrats, Republicans tend to ignore the issue -- it always seems to be discussed in terms of Whites vs. Non-Whites, especially Whites vs. Blacks. Can someone please make sense of this apparent mismatch for me?

Once again, I am basing this off of my own personal anecdotal experience, so keep that in mind.

In the neighborhood I grew up in in Houston, we had maybe a 40/40/20 mix of Black/Hispanic/White folk. Definately a minority of Caucasians.

Part of the problem is in lower-class gang activity. Gangs are one area where segregation still has a long way to go, lemme tell ya. Each community would look at the problems of the other community's hellraisers, and it brought up a lot of bad feeling.

Another reason there is a large difference, in my eye, was the religious differences. The Hispanic community I was around was very Catholic; they would march down the streets on holidays holding mini-parades. The African-Americans were religious, but it was a grab-bag and not a unifying thing in the African-American community as it was for the Hispanic community.

We had serious problems in my community with 'Black-on-Black' violence. You saw a lot less of that in the white and Hispanic portions of the community. I'm not making a value judgement, here, just stating the facts as we saw them.

I guess, to a certain degree, that the Hispanics felt that they had more of a bond, a community, with each other than the African Americans did. This causes them to look down upon them, perhaps? Who knows.

My real suspicion is just that everyone is pretty racist all around, and there's not reason to expect two groups of minorities to get along just because they are minorities.

Cheers

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Thomas,
Immigrants to this country arrived in waves each generally dominated by one or two source countries. Lots of Irish in the 1830s (British penal laws ) Germans & Hungarians in the 1840s (near revolution), Irish again in the 1870s, Russian Jews in the 1880s, Poles in the 1890s, Italians again in the years just before WWI, and Irish in the civil war that followed there - all interspersed with smaller wavelets of Scandanavians and others. Ethnic friction in the big cities was generally greatest between those groups that came in adjacent waves. The competition at the bottom rungs of the ladder is always the greatest.

The early gang wars in New York, Chicago & other big cities were generally between Irish & Jewish gangs, followed later by the Italians. Today much of that involves Blacks vs Puerto Ricans in the East Coast and Blacks vs, Chicanos on the West. (In some areas Vietnamese gangs are a factor.) The latest wave (and the most vicious gangs ) in New York are the Russians.

Much of that had passed by the time I arrived on the scene but I do recall the folklore of the Irish community (then on the verge of dispersal and loss of identity) in Detroit -- Italians were not to be trusted, probably weren't really Catholic anyway, and Poles were only slightly better. I grew up assuming they all secretly wished they were Irish. Didn't find out that was wrong until it no longer mattered. Until 20 years ago "the Avenues" and "the inner Sunset" in San Francisco were solid Irish neighborhoods and North Beach was still mostly Italian. Today the Avenues and much of North beach are Chinese.

The actors change, but the play is the same.

0 Replies

Seven pages of new posts!?

0 Replies

Yup. It was fairly busy hereabouts for a while nimh ...

0 Replies

I can see that! Razz

Thomas obviously doesnt need me to defend him either, and in general, when I post some kind of remark about how I feel about one person addressing another poster (like I did earlier with Einherjar, in the most elliptic way possible), it is rarely to 'defend' someone and mostly to express my own feeling.

Anyway, that on an aside -

Lola wrote:

And Soz, I don't think Cy was putting Thomas down. She has a point. Come live with the people and do it for a long time and then state an opinion. The value of statistics only goes so far. Since none of us can live everywhere, it would be a good idea to consider the experience of those people who do live in whichever region is being discussed.

The logical problem presented in a string of posts like this one, responding to Thomas, is how it phrases the dialogue as Cyclo, who lives there and thus should know, versus Thomas, who talks out of stats and articles he read and, while stats are useful, should pay some kind of deference to Cyclo's real-life experience. (Did I get that more or less right?)

Problem is, there were two people with real life experience in the South arguing here. Cyclo, who makes a persuasive argument about how the South is still racist, and Finn, who argued that segregation in the South is actually less than in the North.

Two people arguing, in Blatham's words, "from familiarity and experiential knowledge". One said yes, the other said no.

I dont see why, as an outsider, if you're presented with such conflicted personal testimony, you shouldn't rely on data or statistics to arbite for yourself when there's a verifiable enough point of contention.

Blatham, Lola, Cyclo all in more or less gentle words told Thomas off because he should realise that sometimes, real-life experience trumps book knowledge - but their point ignored the fact that the testimonies based on real-life experience seemed to be diametrically conflicted.

And while the point that real-life experience sometimes trumps book knowledge is obvious enough, it is not at all so obvious why an outsider like him or me should necessarily believe one side's account of real life experience, because its from real-life experience, but at the same time, apparently, reject the other side's opinion on the matter - even though it's also based on such experience.

That's why data are so cool. Because no matter whether you're liberal or conservative, you can always find someone on your side to articulate the opinion you share on the basis of his/her own experience. Problem is, so can the other side. So (relative) outsiders like Thomas and me have to rely on verifiable data. It's either that or join the gang and see a confirmation of our beliefs in any personal testimony that underlines it while fact-checking apart any personal testimony that doesn't.

Instructive episode there, perhaps.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

Dobson (Focus on the Family) said he was also soured on Specter by the senator's support for embryonic stem cell research and his opposition to the Supreme Court nomination of conservative Robert Bork in 1987.

A coalition of religious pro-life groups is also against Senators appointing Specter as chairman of the Committee. Backed by national pro-life leaders Troy Newman of Operation Rescue, Rev. Pat Mahoney of the Christian Defense Coalition, Rev. Rob Schenck of Faith and Action, and Chris Slattery, a Catholic pro-life, pro-family activist from New York City, the coalition is planning a "pray-in" at the Dirksen Senate Office building on Nov. 16 and possibly inside the office of Sen. Bill Frist, to ask that Specter not be given the position.

More on that story HERE

blatham wrote:

...and read this, please, everyone

Quote:
The gay marriage deception

In pivotal Ohio, for example, the voters may not have realized it but they voted to strip people of the right to contractually arrange distribution of assets, child custody, pensions, and other employment benefits. They most definitely were not "protecting" marriage; they were attacking gay people.

Thanks for posting that, Blatham. You're right - that these ballot initiatives were reported overwhelmingly as if they were merely about gay marriage, when they were about a much wider spectrum of legal arrangements, is an embarassment.

(And yes, I read Thomas' rebuttal. But unlike him I do not find his correction much reassuring, even if it usefully debunks the detail in Oliphant's claims. If what the vote bans the state from is "creating or recognizing a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance or effect of marriage", I can not easily see how civil unions or other measures involving the range of opportunities Oliphant cites can still be passed through the system. It sounds like a vote that conservative politicians or judges can very efficiently use to cease or resist any number of them.)

0 Replies

Nimh,

I agree with you, but only to the extent that the phenomenon in question is capable of accurate representation in the statistics being examined. This is a big country with significant regional and local differences in manner, speech, and style of living. Our history is fairly brief compared to our extent and complexity, We have not been homogenized by the passage of time nearly to the extent that prevails in Europe - and Europe itself presents enormous diversity.

Moreover how does one measure or identify the fact of racism, since it is essentially an internal phenomenon? The racism that does exist in the Northern states generally has few vivid external manifestations, while words and gestures that are relatively common in the South are far more obvious, but often mean less to both parties.

That individuals in this thread vary in their interpretation is meaningless - even from a statistical perspective. You are drawing an inference about a population of 280 million from a sample of two or three here. Not a very favorable confidence interval, as any undergraduate student can tell you.

In general I agree that objective data is preferable, but only in dealing with the quantities directly measured by the data.

0 Replies

Considering the question Thomas referred to statistics on was segregation (in housing/schools), I think it was specific enough to find representative data on ...

Regarding all the other various way in which racism can manifest itself, yes, Cyclo made a persuasive point about how it manifests itself in the South.

0 Replies

Quote:

Lola wrote:

Quote:
If people who think like you continue to join the bible-thumpers in bashing them, how are the grown-ups ever going to reclaim the Republican Party?

If I saw any movement in this direction from any grown ups in the Republican party I would send large sums of money to support it.

It would be nice to hear from these "grown ups" about their view of the take over of their party and better yet, I'd like to hear what plans they have to do something about it.

Having not heard a word from them on this matter, I have concluded that they would rather bury their heads in the sand. Unfortunately, their fannies are in the breeze.

Well, how do I look Lola?

How would you react if the question were turned around and directed at the cacophonous single issue extreme groups in the Democrat party?

george,

You look fine dear.......but I asked first. I'll show you mine, only if you show me your's first. Now start talkin. What concerns do you have about how your party has been op-opted? Do you even agree that it has been? If so, what are you, or other "republican grown ups" planning to do about it?

What's that? I can't hear you...........sounds like you may have your head in the sand.......

Are you listening, Thomas?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

I can't hear you...........sounds like you may have your head in the sand.......

No. I was just signalling you.

Quote:

I'll show you mine, only if you show me your's first.

I remember !! ...Age 12, Marianne Brown ... that started everything!

Quote:

What concerns do you have about how your party has been op-opted? Do you even agree that it has been? If so, what are you, or other "republican grown ups" planning to do about it?

None. No. Nothing.

You exaggerate the importance of the demon Evangelicals. Even the election statistics confirm this.

0 Replies

Quote:

Thomas obviously doesnt need me to defend him either, and in general, when I post some kind of remark about how I feel about one person addressing another poster (like I did earlier with Einherjar, in the most elliptic way possible), it is rarely to 'defend' someone and mostly to express my own feeling.

Come on nimh, respond to a joke with a joke.......I understood very well what you meant, elliptical or not........I thought it was rather one sided and I disagreed. I wasn't sure why you felt the way you did about one person addressing another, since both people had addressed each other in a very similar way. I tried to respond by making a joke as a way to speak for myself. That's all. Anyway, Einherjar and I kissed and made up a long time ago now.

Quote:

The logical problem presented in a string of posts like this one, responding to Thomas, is how it phrases the dialogue as Cyclo, who lives there and thus should know, versus Thomas, who talks out of stats and articles he read and, while stats are useful, should pay some kind of deference to Cyclo's real-life experience. (Did I get that more or less right?)

No, nimh, since you asked......I don't think you have it quite right from my perspective.

There were three people speaking from experience. All three of us having considerable experience living both in the South and in a Northern State. Two of us, Cy and me, were brought up in the South and have lived there for long periods of our lives. Finn, having lived there for a shorter period and not much, if at all during his childhood.

Thomas posted some stats and stated that he had changed his opinion based on these stats alone. Among other things, he said,

Quote:

To be honest, I'm not quite sure what to think, and I'm not suggesting anything at this point. But when I see something that conflicts with my preconceptions, I conclude that my preconceptions are probably wrong. In this case, I saw credible data that Northerners avoid living on the same block as someone of a different race to a much higher degree than Southerners do, and I conclude that my preconceptions of Southerners as racist conservatives and Northerners as openminded liberals was probably wrong.

I replied:

Quote:

And I conclude that you don't have enough data to draw your conclusion. How many homes are on these streets? What is the average income level of those living on these streets? What percentage of blacks relative to whites exists in the cities where these streets are located?

You need more data, Thomas before you change your opinion about Southern bigotry.

I thought that Thomas' willingness to discard his previous conceptions based on these stats alone (about segregated and intergraded neighborhoods) was pre-mature. I suggested several other variables that might need to be considered. Dys added his:

Quote:

and a few other possibilites not mentioned here Thomas, Is the "liberal northeast" more residentially stabile (less movement either into or out of multi-generational neighborhoods vs higher mobility in the south due to jobs seach/economic factors. Industrial/service industries (north) vs agricultural occupations (small businesses) in the south as a traditional base. (and the recent advance of non-union manufactioring into the south requiring relocation) Something you might want to look into would be integration of churches north-south rather than integration of residential areas (indicative of social vs legal inspired integration) Actually I don't know the answers to any of these questions other than personal experiences like when I drove (last spring) though what I think of as the old south and heard, repeatedly, the issue of the confederate flag being flown.

And then I added another, etc.....

The best statement I can find that sums up my perspective is this one:

Quote:

The value of statistics only goes so far. Since none of us can live everywhere, it would be a good idea to consider the experience of those people who do live in whichever region is being discussed.

Of course, I do not deny the value of statistics in countering the danger of bias that is a component of empirical observation by definition. One should check the other.

I think this is a balanced conclusion. It's not a good idea to overly rely on empirical observation, emotional experience or statistical data alone. When using stats to reconsider a preconception or to make up your mind, I think it wise to consider if the referenced stats could be interpreted in any other way. Do you have all the data you need?

you wrote:

Quote:

Blatham, Lola, Cyclo all in more or less gentle words told Thomas off because he should realise that sometimes, real-life experience trumps book knowledge

It's funny you thought we were telling Thomas off. I thought we were having a discussion which was edifying for us all. And as you can see above, I didn't think Thomas should realize that real-life experience trumps book knowledge. I don't think it should. I said I thought both should be considered.

Now, when it comes to george.........I think he may not be a real person at all. He may be a little wind up doll that repeats the same condescending responses every time he's set loose. george, listen to me......cut out your signals, you're going to get us both banned. Laughing

george wrote:

Quote:

Quote:
What concerns do you have about how your party has been op-opted? Do you even agree that it has been? If so, what are you, or other "republican grown ups" planning to do about it?

None. No. Nothing.

You exaggerate the importance of the demon Evangelicals. Even the election statistics confirm this.

Your response is as predicted, george. That's the problem with dependence on statistics alone. They can be interpreted and manipulated in as many ways as can subjective observation or experience. We must make use of both scientific investigation and common sense if we are to find our ways. We should challenge and study the methods used to collect statistics and to consider if our conclusions based on those stats may contain logical fallacies.

It does surprise me that you have no concerns at all about the religious right in the Republican party. But I can see why you might hesitate to speak about it if you did. Look what they [religious fanatics, like the FRC] are doing to Arlen Specter because he has attempted to resist them. It can be career ending these days to resist those who seek to dominate both your party and everyone's personal lives.

There's no place for you and I or Timber and I to go from here on this. We disagree. But we're all going to see soon if Timber's bear comes out of the cave......... As much as I hate to be wrong.......I would love it if I were this time. Sadly, I don't believe I am. But I can always hope.

0 Replies

george wrote:

Quote:

How would you react if the question were turned around and directed at the cacophonous single issue extreme groups in the Democrat party?

In answer to this question, george, since you showed me yours (and I'm sadly unimpressed). I don't think we have any single extreme group that has taken over the Democratic party. There are those, however, whose causes I sympathize with, but require too much open minded, logical thinking to be easly accepted (like gay marriage or pro-choice) that I believe must be included in an over-all strategy design for winning an election. Just as Rove and Reed have managed to quiet the religious fanatics (of which they are very much a part), I believe we should have talks with the gays and with women's rights advocates, and others in order to Public Relations ourselves into a winning election.

0 Replies

Since we are discussing our last get together, you never did respond to this:

Quote:

Lola wrote:
To emphasize the important part of my post.........I don't want anyone teaching my children (during and through their lower and middle school years) about their idea of God other than myself or my husband. It's a family matter, clearly.

I'll respond to that as well then. One might find it hard to teach for example history without touching on religion, and as long as only known facts are being taught, and in neutral terms, I don't see a problem. (The Aztecs believed that... sacrifices such and such. The jesuits, jadda jadda, reformation, counterreformation ... Secular humanism arose in the ????s and focuses ... and so on and so forth. As long as no statements are made pertaining to the accuracy of articles of faith, only statements pertaining to the articles of faith themselves, as they actually are/were in certain religions and or denominations I don't see the problem. I see no problem with teaching the verifiable truth.

0 Replies

george,

Did you see this post of mine? I was interested in your response to it. I thought you might not have seen it........I was hoping for a thoughtful response and not a simple brush off. What do you think?

Quote:

Quote:

Our laws forbid murder. That for many religious people is an article of faith. That fact does not invalidate their support for laws prohibiting murder.

You don't have to have any religious faith at all to believe that murder is not to be allowed. It only follows. However, the idea that abortion is murder is entirely dependent on a certain religious teaching.

Abortion is not murder. Murder implies malice and I think there are very few abortions performed for the purpose of malice. Abortion is killing, I agree. However there are many cases in which killing is deemed necessary in any society. Abortion is only one such case. Self defense comes to mind. Freedom fighting is another endorsed by many Christians on this board and in many fundamentalist churches. The rational for murder in the form of capital punishment is often a belief based on a verse from the Bible. An eye for an eye.

I don't endorse capital punishment as a legitimate form of murder, but most states do it anyway. George Bush smirks when he talks about murdering criminals. I don't use a verse from the Bible to back me up. I just think it follows logically that murdering criminals only makes the crime problem worse. Further, in the case of capital punishment, the motive is almost always malice. We could talk about this subject for a long time, but I think I'll stop at that. If we are to discuss abortion, we'll need a new thread.

0 Replies

Einherjar asked:

Quote:

I'll respond to that as well then. One might find it hard to teach for example history without touching on religion, and as long as only known facts are being taught, and in neutral terms, I don't see a problem. (The Aztecs believed that... sacrifices such and such. The jesuits, jadda jadda, reformation, counterreformation ... Secular humanism arose in the ????s and focuses ... and so on and so forth. As long as no statements are made pertaining to the accuracy of articles of faith, only statements pertaining to the articles of faith themselves, as they actually are/were in certain religions and or denominations I don't see the problem. I see no problem with teaching the verifiable truth.

I couldn't agree with you more, Einherjar. I did encourage my children to take high school courses that were reviews of all religions, their commonalities and their differences and their historical relevance. As long as religion is approached as a subject that can be studied using facts, as factual as facts can ever get, as they are best understood today, without any pressure to decide if one is true and the others false, I believe it can only contribute to knowledge necessary to live a profitable and enjoyable life. The verifiable truth, as far as we can know it, is exactly what I would like my children and myself to study.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

I couldn't agree with you more, Einherjar. I did encourage my children to take high school courses that were reviews of all religions, their commonalities and their differences and their historical relevance. As long as religion is approached as a subject that can be studied using facts, as factual as facts can ever get, as they are best understood today, without any pressure to decide if one is true and the others false, I believe it can only contribute to knowledge necessary to live a profitable and enjoyable life. The verifiable truth, as far as we can know it, is exactly what I would like my children and myself to study.

In agreement we are then.

0 Replies

Quote:

In agreement we are then.

Good..........it's so nice when it happens.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Quote:

Lola wrote:

Quote:
What I'm saying is that the stats above are not enough to conclude, as you have, that there's more racial discrimination or racism in the Southern States vs. the Northern ones.

What I actually said was "Surprisingly, the South is less segregated, not more segregated than the North these days."

As long as I'm obsessing myself to sleep here in the middle of the night, I'll just say that I did understand that's what you said. I just got my sentence all turned around. Sometimes I know my point, but in all my efforts to make myself clear......I don't. Sorry I got it backwards. Smile

0 Replies

Hello Lola you incredible succubus....up late tonight?

0 Replies

Okay, Dems, What Went Wrong? And How Can We Fix It?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know