Tuesday, July 28, 2020
Saturday, July 25, 2020
Fisking That Infamous White Culture Infographic, III
Continued from here. (Or you can start at the beginning.)
Emphasis on Scientific Method
Once again, I think this was written by someone who's stuck in the 1950's. When I took history twenty-five years ago, I was required to read Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, and Richard Wright's Native Son (among other things). And my brother, who went to an entirely different high school in a different county, was exposed to much of the same material. This, of course, is anecdotal evidence, but I think if you quiz any well-educated member of Generation X (my generation), you'll discover that none of our history classes neglected the black American - or the Native American, for that matter - experience. And kids today? Their curricula are even more diversified! Where I teach, students are expected to learn not only the basics of European history, but also the basics of Asian, African, and Mesoamerican history. Trust me: in American schools, history classes haven't focused exclusively on whites for decades.
Emphasis on Scientific Method
- Objective, rational, linear thinking
- Cause and effect relationships
- Quantitative emphasis
Now this is where this infographic gets really insulting. Do you mean to suggest that people of color are somehow incapable of thinking in an objective, rational, and linear manner? That they are incapable of quantitative analysis? That math and science are basically beyond their ken? Such an assertion would surprise every successful black and brown student I've ever tutored in those subjects! (My student who went to Harvard to study biology was a midnight-black immigrant from Ghana. Is she somehow a traitor to her race?)
Or are you questioning the utility of this epistemological frame for people of color? Because if that's your aim, you're still wrong. Objective, rational, linear thinking and quantitative analysis are what has brought all of us advanced medicine, the internet, refrigerators, fast transportation, air conditioning -- basically everything that makes our lives more comfortable and more safe than they have been in any other time in history. Moreover - and this is key - the scientific method is also what has allowed us to discard the racist pseudoscience that declared people of color somehow inferior to the white race!
Granted, the authority of "science" has sometimes been misused. Granted, the benefits of modern science have not been equally distributed (and we can certainly discuss how to improve that state of affairs). But in the US at least, everyone has gotten at least something from the cornucopia that is Western modernity. And there is absolutely no evidence that any other "way of knowing" has - or could - accomplish the same phenomenal improvements in our overall standard of living. Indigenous mysticism or shamanism or whatever the hell you've decided is a preferable means of engaging with the world has never actually flown a plane or repaired an injured heart.
History
- Based on Northern European immigrants' experience in the United States
- Heavy focus on the British Empire
- The primacy of Western (Greek, Roman) and Judeo-Christian tradition
Once again, I think this was written by someone who's stuck in the 1950's. When I took history twenty-five years ago, I was required to read Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail, and Richard Wright's Native Son (among other things). And my brother, who went to an entirely different high school in a different county, was exposed to much of the same material. This, of course, is anecdotal evidence, but I think if you quiz any well-educated member of Generation X (my generation), you'll discover that none of our history classes neglected the black American - or the Native American, for that matter - experience. And kids today? Their curricula are even more diversified! Where I teach, students are expected to learn not only the basics of European history, but also the basics of Asian, African, and Mesoamerican history. Trust me: in American schools, history classes haven't focused exclusively on whites for decades.
Now, it is true that most schools still spend a great deal of time on Greece, Rome, and Europe. But there's a reason for that: the institutions of our government were based primarily on those streams of thought. I'm sorry, but that's just the fact of the matter. The Founders didn't get liberal constitutionalism from the kingdoms of Africa. They got it primarily from Great Britain. The Founders didn't get their traditional conceptions of small-r republican virtue from the cultures of southern or eastern Asia. They got those from studying histories written in Latin and Greek. Bottom line, to understand what John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, et. al. were thinking when they established the US, you must be well-versed in the history so shat upon above. Period. You can't escape that reality -- and you shouldn't try. Trashing something without fully comprehending it is the pinnacle of folly and arrogance.
And finally, I simply must ask: would you take a Chinese school to task for focusing primarily on Chinese history? Would you take an Indian school to task for focusing primarily on Indian history? Of course not. So why is the US held to a completely different standard?
Tuesday, July 21, 2020
Fisking That Infamous White Culture Infographic, II
Continued from here.
Family Structure
Okay, so the person who created this flyer is apparently a rich white person speaking to us from the 1950's -- who, by the way, has no familiarity with any cultures beyond US borders.
Family Structure
- The nuclear family: father, mother, 2.3 children is the ideal social unit
- Husband is breadwinner and head of household
- Wife is homemaker and subordinate to the husband
- Children should have own rooms, be independent
Okay, so the person who created this flyer is apparently a rich white person speaking to us from the 1950's -- who, by the way, has no familiarity with any cultures beyond US borders.
The bullets above are nonsense for the following reasons:
1.) All people - including white people - lived close to their extended families/clans up until industrialization and technological advancement kick-started widespread population mobility. (At least, that's what I learned in college.) To take one typical example with which I'm intimately familiar: President John Adams (a white man, mind you) housed a number of his children and grandchildren at Peacefield all throughout his long retirement and adored the emotional connection such a busy home brought in his extreme old age. Note: Adams was one of the most respected and powerful gentlemen of his generation -- but because 19th century America was still poor by modern standards, it was not always feasible for the Adams progeny to start independent households. The upshot? The nuclear family is not a consequence of "whiteness"; it's a consequence of wealth -- wealth that is definitely not shared across the board. Consequently, no one actually looks down on those who continue to live with extended family to this day. As a matter of fact, I know plenty of white people whose households remain multi-generational due to financial constraints and/or moral convictions that preclude putting elderly relatives in care facilities and/or separate living situations.
2.) It is true that traditionalists put a premium on the married mother and father, but that's because the children of married couples tend to do better, in the aggregate, than peers who are raised in non-traditional families. Leftist radicals will say, of course, that this is because our society discriminates against the latter -- but given that single mothers have been lionized in our popular culture since at least Murphy Brown, that explanation seems quite unlikely. What seems more probable, to me, is that having two committed parents around helps to lighten the load for both mother and father. With two parents in the house, no single adult needs to take on every responsibility -- and that results in parents who are less stressed and children who benefit from some extra attention.
3.) I grew up in the 1980's in a nuclear family that superficially followed the mold described above. My father was a nuke and the sole breadwinner, my mother was a homemaker, and I had one sibling. But even back then, Mom was not "subservient" to my dad! They were equal partners in a loving marriage who discussed major decisions together. This idea that a white mom must suck it up and do whatever the dad says was wildly out of date as of 40 years ago -- let alone today. And now? Only the most extreme fundamentalist Christian families expect submission from the wife. Have these people ever observed real modern white families?
4.) Moreover, have these people ever traveled outside of the US? Because in quite a few present-day nonwhite societies, women have far less liberty with respect to their husbands than they do in the West. At least white Western women are allowed to drive cars, work, and talk to other men without inviting the wrath of their spouses. Subservient women is a "white" thing? Give me a break! It was an incredibly common thing across races historically -- and today, white-dominated societies are probably the least oppressive for the distaff sex. Try again.
5.) Finally, children having their own rooms is also a rich thing, not a white thing. Just as many white people live with extended family members, many white kids did - and do - bunk up with their brothers and sisters. Please, for the love of God, stop assuming that all white families are affluent enough to live in palatial suburban McMansions. And 2.3 kids? Better run that by the Mormons, the traditional Catholics, the Quiverfull fundamentalists, and the ultra-Orthodox Jews!
Saturday, July 18, 2020
Fisking That Infamous White Culture Infographic, I
So I'm certain I'm not the only person who's attempted this, but I absolutely can't resist:
Let's talk about that hideous, bile-inducing infographic the Smithsonian just removed from their website (after a justified public outcry). The critical race theory prattle is italicized; my own responses are written in standard text.
(And yeah, I'm going to break this up over multiple posts because, as there's so much nonsense here to unpack, I suspect it's going to get suuuuper long.)
White dominant culture, or whiteness, refers to the ways in which white people and their traditions have been normalized over time and are now considered standard practices in the United States.
There's a teeny, tiny nugget of truth in this. While the people who created this document don't really know much of anything about white culture (as we will soon see), it is in fact true that white people are, generally speaking, seen as "standard" here while people of color tend to stand out. But there's nothing necessarily nefarious about this reality. White people are seen as "normal" because they are the majority in the US. If we drop a white person in, say, Tokyo, this sense of white average-ness would radically change.
As a matter of fact, as a white person living in the US, I've actually personally experienced the aforementioned Tokyo effect. I live and work in a community that is majority-minority. In other words, the vast majority of my neighbors are people of color. Consequently, I have often been the only white person in the room -- and have felt that exact sense of dislocation that people of color feel in white-dominated environments.
So what does my own experience indicate? Namely this: if you're not in the majority in a particular context, you're bound to feel a little weird. That's a universal - and unavoidable - human experience. And to automatically attribute fault to the people around you for this discomfort is to engage in the cognitive distortion of mind-reading. In other words, you are assuming people are looking down on you for being different without actually confirming that this is how they really feel.
"Normal" is not necessarily evil, and the majority should not be attacked simply for being the majority. What matters is how people who fall outside the norm are treated, not the fact that there's a norm at all. And compared to other existing societies, we do an excellent job integrating people who are different. There's still room for growth, of course; I'm not denying that. But this idea that the US is somehow uniquely racist because our dominant cultural mores are European is to pretend, stupidly, that Japanese culture is not overwhelmingly Japanese, that Chinese culture is not overwhelmingly Chinese, and so on.
And since white people still hold most of the institutional power in America...
Your definition of "institutional power" is shallow and deeply flawed. It's true that most of our politicians, CEO's, and media moguls are white. But in my observation, there are plenty of other forms of institutional power that people of color definitely possess -- and routinely use to their own advantage. Is it not power that people of color can persuade college administrators and business leaders to completely stop their operations for the sake of cooling nonwhite rage? Is it not power that people of color can agitate to get people fired for crossing certain ideological lines? Is it not power that people of color have, in recent weeks, forced white people to literally bow and scrape before them in abject humiliation because a bad cop in Minnesota murdered a black man?
Focusing on the skin color of those who hold the top positions in our society completely misses how those people actually behave. White guilt is a critical variable -- one that's especially relevant among white elites. (As a matter of fact, I bet you good money that this trash infographic was probably made by some socially privileged, credentialed-but-not-educated white person.)
... we have all internalized some aspects of white culture -- including people of color.
And this is bad because...?
(Whew. See, I told you this was going to be long. We've only just now gotten to the idiotic bullet points!)
Rugged Individualism
Let's talk about that hideous, bile-inducing infographic the Smithsonian just removed from their website (after a justified public outcry). The critical race theory prattle is italicized; my own responses are written in standard text.
(And yeah, I'm going to break this up over multiple posts because, as there's so much nonsense here to unpack, I suspect it's going to get suuuuper long.)
White dominant culture, or whiteness, refers to the ways in which white people and their traditions have been normalized over time and are now considered standard practices in the United States.
There's a teeny, tiny nugget of truth in this. While the people who created this document don't really know much of anything about white culture (as we will soon see), it is in fact true that white people are, generally speaking, seen as "standard" here while people of color tend to stand out. But there's nothing necessarily nefarious about this reality. White people are seen as "normal" because they are the majority in the US. If we drop a white person in, say, Tokyo, this sense of white average-ness would radically change.
As a matter of fact, as a white person living in the US, I've actually personally experienced the aforementioned Tokyo effect. I live and work in a community that is majority-minority. In other words, the vast majority of my neighbors are people of color. Consequently, I have often been the only white person in the room -- and have felt that exact sense of dislocation that people of color feel in white-dominated environments.
So what does my own experience indicate? Namely this: if you're not in the majority in a particular context, you're bound to feel a little weird. That's a universal - and unavoidable - human experience. And to automatically attribute fault to the people around you for this discomfort is to engage in the cognitive distortion of mind-reading. In other words, you are assuming people are looking down on you for being different without actually confirming that this is how they really feel.
"Normal" is not necessarily evil, and the majority should not be attacked simply for being the majority. What matters is how people who fall outside the norm are treated, not the fact that there's a norm at all. And compared to other existing societies, we do an excellent job integrating people who are different. There's still room for growth, of course; I'm not denying that. But this idea that the US is somehow uniquely racist because our dominant cultural mores are European is to pretend, stupidly, that Japanese culture is not overwhelmingly Japanese, that Chinese culture is not overwhelmingly Chinese, and so on.
And since white people still hold most of the institutional power in America...
Your definition of "institutional power" is shallow and deeply flawed. It's true that most of our politicians, CEO's, and media moguls are white. But in my observation, there are plenty of other forms of institutional power that people of color definitely possess -- and routinely use to their own advantage. Is it not power that people of color can persuade college administrators and business leaders to completely stop their operations for the sake of cooling nonwhite rage? Is it not power that people of color can agitate to get people fired for crossing certain ideological lines? Is it not power that people of color have, in recent weeks, forced white people to literally bow and scrape before them in abject humiliation because a bad cop in Minnesota murdered a black man?
Focusing on the skin color of those who hold the top positions in our society completely misses how those people actually behave. White guilt is a critical variable -- one that's especially relevant among white elites. (As a matter of fact, I bet you good money that this trash infographic was probably made by some socially privileged, credentialed-but-not-educated white person.)
... we have all internalized some aspects of white culture -- including people of color.
And this is bad because...?
(Whew. See, I told you this was going to be long. We've only just now gotten to the idiotic bullet points!)
Rugged Individualism
- The individual is the primary unit
Yes. Yes, he is. And there's a reason why Western society - and US society specifically - has come to that conclusion after many centuries of discussion and wrangling: because respect for the individual allows us to have societies that are comparably tolerant, just, and functionally diverse. If, on the other hand, you make one's collective the primary unit, what results is a loss of freedom and an enforcement of orthodoxy -- which can, in the most extreme cases, lead to mass graves. Please, for the love of God, examine the evidence of history.
Now to address the baseline worry that drives many to embrace this BS collectivist drivel: the fact that dominant Western culture considers the individual the primary unit does not in fact mean that, in said culture, the individual must be left ruthlessly alone to confront the vicissitudes of life. No: no serious student of European thought could possibly come away with that impression. European liberalism as it has been traditionally practiced in the US allows all sorts of intermediary groups to serve as buffers between the individual and the world at large, including one's family, one's church, one's clubs and lodges, etc. No: what centering the individual actually does is ensure that no group can brutally hammer down the nails that stick up without facing censure from the public at large. An individualist orientation needn't abandon you to the wilds.
- Self-reliance
- Independence and autonomy highly valued + rewarded
Please see above. Yes, traditionalist US culture does encourage you to, as one might say, "handle your own business" and not leech off of others, but that doesn't mean you must do so with zero help whatsoever. The hollowing-out of our civil society and the resulting isolation of many is a perversion (caused, incidentally, by leftist policy), not what our forefathers intended.
- Individuals assumed to be in control of their environment, "You get what you deserve."
I don't think any white person believes that we have 100% control over the environment. I think we all understand that outside factors sometimes play a role in differential outcomes. But if we completely discount the possibility that people often do get what they deserve - if we suppose that individual choice has no effect - we will wreak much harm.
If you prepare for a test for several days and ultimately get an A, did you get what you deserve? If you scrimp and save for years until finally - finally - you're able to afford a down payment on a beautiful house, did you get what you deserve? If you immigrate to the US with two cents in your pocket but, after hustling for half a lifetime, you end up making six figures, did you get what you deserve? Most people agree that the answer to all these questions is yes. Why? Because according to natural human intuition, that's what actually fair. Most people balk at the idea that a self-satisfied lay-about who does nothing to better himself should get the same rewards as a person who actually puts in an effort -- and rightly so!
If you prepare for a test for several days and ultimately get an A, did you get what you deserve? If you scrimp and save for years until finally - finally - you're able to afford a down payment on a beautiful house, did you get what you deserve? If you immigrate to the US with two cents in your pocket but, after hustling for half a lifetime, you end up making six figures, did you get what you deserve? Most people agree that the answer to all these questions is yes. Why? Because according to natural human intuition, that's what actually fair. Most people balk at the idea that a self-satisfied lay-about who does nothing to better himself should get the same rewards as a person who actually puts in an effort -- and rightly so!
It's true that some people get dealt a crappier hand than others. Nobody disputes that. But that doesn't mean they're absolved from the obligation to improve themselves and reach for high goals -- or that they shouldn't be expected to play their hands as effectively as they possibly can. Speaking as a teacher, I would never, ever tell a student - no matter his skin color - that he's a mere pawn of systemic forces and therefore doesn't have any agency of his own. What a way to disempower a kid! It is important for us adults to remain conscious of the unique challenges certain children face due to the circumstances into which they were born, but cultivating external loci of control in these children and teaching them to be dependent on the largess of more fortunate folks is no way to help them rise up.
It is healthier, in the long run, to teach people to do their best -- not to lie down in surrender.
Tuesday, July 14, 2020
You shall know them by their fruits...
These videos are all from last year, but they reveal in lurid detail what Critical Theory actually does when it's allowed to fully infiltrate an institution. The Evergreen State College incident was an asphyxiated canary in our cultural coal mine.
Saturday, July 11, 2020
Book Recommendation, 7/11/20
Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, Abigail Shrier
On the topic of transgender activism, I still stand by what I wrote back in 2017: "The primary beef I - and other [right-leaning people] - have with trans activism and its demand that we 1) open up bathrooms, locker rooms, sports leagues, etc. to people who 'identify' as a particular gender and 2) use everyone's 'proper pronouns' or else be subject to legal penalties is that absolutely no objective standards of accommodation have been offered beyond a person's say-so. And yes, it is entirely reasonable to worry that these new licences will be abused -- not by actual trans individuals, but by other skeezy - or power-hungry - folks who find it convenient to take advantage.
"Regarding the above, I have a sneaking suspicion that no objective standards have been offered because no objective standards exist. Seriously, think about this: How do you know you are a particular gender? In reply to this question, what trans activists have offered me is a contradictory muddle. On the one hand, 'Clothes have no gender, and I can wear whatever I want!' On the other, 'Johnny likes dolls and dresses, so Johnny must want to be Joanne.'
"[...] I definitely remember wishing I could be a boy. Mind you, I did have some girly interests. I did like caring for my baby dolls, and I loved Strawberry Shortcake. But while other girls were often inscrutable to me, boys were perfectly sensible, and I often preferred their company. Back in my childhood, this was called being a tomboy; today, I'd probably be encouraged by activists to identify as 'gender fluid' or 'neuter' or something else in their Baskin-Robbins-style menu of gender flavors.
"Personally, I think many trans activists confuse gender identity with gender expression a whole hell of a lot. Why can't a little boy who likes Barbies just be considered a boy who likes Barbies? Why do we have to slap new labels on everybody when we can just accept that kids are individuals and are going to express their genders in different ways?
"But I digress. The second big issue I have with trans activism is the same issue I have with all other forms of hard-left activism: its embrace of cognitive distortions that are elsewhere found among the mentally ill. Mind-reading? Yep: If someone uses the wrong pronoun, they are automatically assumed to be transphobic instead of sincerely mistaken. Catastrophizing and fortune telling? Yep: Trans activists obviously believe that allowing a thoughtful dissenter like Jordan Peterson to speak on campus will result in - oh, I don't know - a massacre of the gender nonconforming? Whatever they think is going to happen, it must be terrible; nothing less than the threat of death would justify their behavior. Blaming? Yep: If a trans activist doesn't feel good about herself/himself/themselves, it must be the fault of Others. There is no recognition whatsoever that you can in fact control your own emotional state and not allow every asshole in the world to get you down.
"I myself am a fairly liberal person (in the classical sense). As such, while I have doubts about sex-reassignment, I have sympathy for those who genuinely feel they've been born in the wrong gender, and I'm willing to accommodate quite a bit. But the best way to sort this out, I feel, is through two-way dialogue, not categorical demands. We have to be allowed to be skeptical and to ask questions. We have to be allowed to demand proof. And we have to be allowed to say no sometimes when a person who's very clearly a dude wants to enter the ladies room. Otherwise, suspicion and resentment will only grow -- making the lives of trans individuals who just want to pass and be left alone even more difficult."
And Abigail Shrier? In the book above - whose advertising, by the way, has been muzzled by Amazon - Shrier expresses a lot of the same views. She too has doubts about the very stereotypical, rigid, cultish way in which many young folks engage with the concept of gender. She too notes that girls very frequently feel discomfort in their own skins and that this is developmentally normal. And she too observes that biological girls have their own rights to protection and privacy -- rights that radical transgender activists dismiss far too often.
I would've liked to have seen more discussion of the actual science of human sexual dimorphism -- but in fairness, Irreversible Damage is meant to present a laywoman's view, not a full-on factual deconstruction of radical gender ideology. Parents in particular should find it an incredibly useful read.
"Regarding the above, I have a sneaking suspicion that no objective standards have been offered because no objective standards exist. Seriously, think about this: How do you know you are a particular gender? In reply to this question, what trans activists have offered me is a contradictory muddle. On the one hand, 'Clothes have no gender, and I can wear whatever I want!' On the other, 'Johnny likes dolls and dresses, so Johnny must want to be Joanne.'
"[...] I definitely remember wishing I could be a boy. Mind you, I did have some girly interests. I did like caring for my baby dolls, and I loved Strawberry Shortcake. But while other girls were often inscrutable to me, boys were perfectly sensible, and I often preferred their company. Back in my childhood, this was called being a tomboy; today, I'd probably be encouraged by activists to identify as 'gender fluid' or 'neuter' or something else in their Baskin-Robbins-style menu of gender flavors.
"Personally, I think many trans activists confuse gender identity with gender expression a whole hell of a lot. Why can't a little boy who likes Barbies just be considered a boy who likes Barbies? Why do we have to slap new labels on everybody when we can just accept that kids are individuals and are going to express their genders in different ways?
"But I digress. The second big issue I have with trans activism is the same issue I have with all other forms of hard-left activism: its embrace of cognitive distortions that are elsewhere found among the mentally ill. Mind-reading? Yep: If someone uses the wrong pronoun, they are automatically assumed to be transphobic instead of sincerely mistaken. Catastrophizing and fortune telling? Yep: Trans activists obviously believe that allowing a thoughtful dissenter like Jordan Peterson to speak on campus will result in - oh, I don't know - a massacre of the gender nonconforming? Whatever they think is going to happen, it must be terrible; nothing less than the threat of death would justify their behavior. Blaming? Yep: If a trans activist doesn't feel good about herself/himself/themselves, it must be the fault of Others. There is no recognition whatsoever that you can in fact control your own emotional state and not allow every asshole in the world to get you down.
"I myself am a fairly liberal person (in the classical sense). As such, while I have doubts about sex-reassignment, I have sympathy for those who genuinely feel they've been born in the wrong gender, and I'm willing to accommodate quite a bit. But the best way to sort this out, I feel, is through two-way dialogue, not categorical demands. We have to be allowed to be skeptical and to ask questions. We have to be allowed to demand proof. And we have to be allowed to say no sometimes when a person who's very clearly a dude wants to enter the ladies room. Otherwise, suspicion and resentment will only grow -- making the lives of trans individuals who just want to pass and be left alone even more difficult."
And Abigail Shrier? In the book above - whose advertising, by the way, has been muzzled by Amazon - Shrier expresses a lot of the same views. She too has doubts about the very stereotypical, rigid, cultish way in which many young folks engage with the concept of gender. She too notes that girls very frequently feel discomfort in their own skins and that this is developmentally normal. And she too observes that biological girls have their own rights to protection and privacy -- rights that radical transgender activists dismiss far too often.
I would've liked to have seen more discussion of the actual science of human sexual dimorphism -- but in fairness, Irreversible Damage is meant to present a laywoman's view, not a full-on factual deconstruction of radical gender ideology. Parents in particular should find it an incredibly useful read.
Tuesday, July 7, 2020
The Alternative to Black Lives Matter
Happy more people are seeing the truth about the multimillion dollar Black Lives Matter organization— Jamil Jivani (@jamiljivani) July 2, 2020
BUT
Will those who see the truth go on to present an alternative vision for addressing the needs of black communities & achieving equality of opportunity?
That's what's needed
Sure, I'll bite. Here's my alternative vision:
As I noted in a previous post, what the black community needs, fundamentally, is dignity. That can't come from unending dependence on the government and/or the largess of white people. That can only come from ordered liberty and a solid record of tangible achievements. How do I know this? Because that's how other minority groups in the U.S. - including African immigrants - have risen from poverty to relative prosperity.
In the past, black Americans accomplished much despite the many obstacles that were placed in their path. So the first thing I propose? Teach that history. Talk about the black people who became doctors and lawyers and successful business owners despite open racism and legal segregation -- and frankly describe precisely how that happened. Said black folk didn't feel sorry for themselves. They didn't wait for someone else to pull them up. Instead, they studied hard. They worked hard. They confronted the unfairness of the world with their mettle and their skill.
Be honest about America's flawed history -- but whatever you do, don't tell black people that they will never succeed because the system is still stacked against them. All that does is engender feelings of resentment and helplessness. Plus, such an assertion is demonstrably false. Black Americans did and do succeed all the time regardless of their disadvantages.
Second, don't lower the bar. Raise it. Black students should be expected to meet the exact same standards other students are asked to meet. Keep standardized tests and minimum academic requirements. Get rid of quotas. And then ensure that every motivated, talented K-12 student in the black community has access to the same educational opportunities as everyone else. I believe this will involve a radical embrace of school choice, but I'm willing to discuss other serious proposals that don't involve simply throwing money at an institution - i.e., the public school system - with a documented record of failure.
Third, tear down all barriers to economic opportunity. Get rid of minimum wages for minors so teens can more easily gain work experience. (FYI: The minimum wage was originally established to protect white union members from competition from black workers. It was racist at its foundation.) Scrap out-of-control business regulations and licensing requirements so black women who want to make money braiding hair can do so without jumping through a zillion hoops.
Fourth, we must, must, must promote bourgeois values -- not just for black people, but for everyone! We should be absolutely clear that marriage is the best context in which to raise children according to every social science indicator. We must encourage saving and other financially responsible lifestyle choices. We should do whatever we can to restore social capital in our neighborhoods so that each person - white or black - will have a reliable community to lean on whenever he or she runs into trouble. And overall, we should value the ability to delay gratification and practice the traditional virtues.
Lastly, while we certainly do need to reform our urban police departments and our justice system, we also need to challenge the elements of the black subculture that encourage criminality, violence, and anti-intellectualism. My best friend in high school - who was black - was constantly accused of "acting white" because she took AP classes and edited the literary magazine. That crap is wrong. That crap must stop. The black community, internally, must ensure that their members can reach for the highest rungs without worrying that they'll be pulled back into the crab bucket by the disapproval of their fellows.
So there you have it. That's my program for black equality. Make of it what you will.
Bonus:
Saturday, July 4, 2020
Celebrate America. And Be Loud About It.
The United States of America is a good country.
The philosophy that animates our institutions is fundamentally sound -- and profoundly moral. Because our Founders declared at the very start that "all men are created equal" and are endowed by God with rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," we have abolished slavery, broadened the franchise, and successfully torn down many unfair barriers to success. This didn't happen all at once, it is true; it took some time for the implications of Jefferson's words to manifest in the way our laws were enforced. But if you elide the men of 1776 from our national story because, like all human beings, they were sinners and hypocrites, you will destroy that foundation that allows us to see the various -isms as evils.
And in all honesty, I suspect that's what our disloyal, ignorant radicals want to do. Why? Because despite their high-flying rhetoric about "justice" and "reparation," they don't really want to rid the world of bigotry and establish a maximally fair system. No -- they simply want to replace one sort of bigotry for another. They want to destroy our professional police forces because it's those forces that stand between them and their ability to victimize the people they perceive to be their enemies. They want to destroy the traditions of our liberal republic and our free marketplace because they hate, hate, hate that said structures (when functioning appropriately) reward industry and merit and not necessarily their bestest friends.
We should resist this insurrection with as much force as we can muster. And we can start by celebrating America's birthday as proudly and as obnoxiously as we can. Sing patriotic ditties at the top of your lungs. Launch fireworks. Feast on your favorite summer fare. And most importantly, tell the iconoclasts and terrorists in your midst to pound sand when they start whining. You are not a "white supremacist" because you're patriotic. You are, in fact, a normal, decent person.
ETA: Trump's Mount Rushmore Speech // Silent Cal's Speech on the Sesquicentennial
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)