Email to this Kendi guy who is on twitter and from BU. Donald Trump Jr. just tweeted his views, ridiculing him as ridiculous and from the left.
It IS kind of funny how the University Educated left is doing work where they are being parodies of themselves in a way.
But, then again, that’s what goes viral and that’s what gets attention, which is the lifeblood of one’s career in academia and as a thinker. This guy appears to know and understand it as well as I do. I don’t need to explain to him or educate him. He knows better than me.
Look, Donald Trump Jr. is helping him go viral by retweeting his work and using it to comment on the absurdity of the left. I write a completely different message. I get ignored.
—————————————-
Article in The Atlantic about racism, white supremacy, feminism
Damian Schloming <dmschlom@gmail.com>
Fri, Sep 25, 11:02 PM (18 hours ago)
to adelineG
I was a little bit concerned about this article.
It's from BU, first of all. Boston University. Now here is one problem. Institutions of higher education are a business that sells "education." Very expensively. And once you got it, you are deemed to be "worth way more" as a worker economically, to the tune of how many more potential future earnings than someone without the degree?
Part of that education is window dressing, where you adopt a culture of exclusivity which also shows through in high falluten language which, of course, is designed to be distinctively different from and not accessible to the working class or uneducated, whether they be black or white.
Of course, I note the stereotypes. The language of the college educated is supposed to be fussy. The word wimp could be used. Fussy and "gentle." And perhaps oversensitive.
Jeannie Suk of Harvard Law School has said that carceral feminism has borrowed from the same type of "white fragility" -- or, in particular, white female fragility -- that characterized Victorian England with the now regarded as fake diagnosis of hysteria for women, and the fainting couch.
And, of course, I want to note, carceral feminism sprouted up right around the time the prison population went up ten times in size, and was designed by none other than Catharine MacKinnon whose father, George MacKinnon, was on the Federal Sentencing Commission which imposed mandatory minimums and standardized sentencing, extremely important for making mass incarceration work for a number of mathematical and financial reasons. Namely, once you build a huge prison system, you have to keep the prison population steady and cannot allow disorganization or local variation in sentencing and arrest rates to cause excessively high vacancy rates and disastrous losses of federal funds. You need sentencing guidelines to help with that.
But if you research Victorian England, which also cultivated a culture of female fragility and fear of crude and brutal men, you will notice it was after the invention of the steam engine resulted in far more efficient transportation of food from one place to the other, making bigger prison populations more feasible in the first place, and the moment a larger prison system became economically possible, up sprouts a culture of female fragility that helps gin up political support for crack downs on "violent" men. ("Wimmin are afraid ... so therefore we must ....")
It all seems ridiculous to me perhaps because I am a gay man. Gay men love macho men, and you can tell just by studying much of the gay porn that is out there. Everything you deplore is very popular in gay porn. E.g., "toxic masculinity." Also, the same genres of gay porn that celebrate "toxic masculinity" of the white male version are just as enthusiastic about showcasing black men. Both in black on black porn and inter-racial porn. And it doesn't seem racist in any way that's familiar. Indeed, what mixing of the races as does occur there seems to be limited to those gays on the more masculine and "straight acting" spectrum as regards affect and mannerism, where I think you will see the more femme gays as more often self segregating with "their own kind."
Here's the thing. If gay man obviously very much like "toxic masculinity" and are willing to admit to it, I think women like it too, only they aren't willing to admit to it. If anything, quite the opposite. Therefore who is there to object to certain denunciations of "toxic masculinity" which are attractive stereotypes which many would very much not want society to do away with?
I just want to note, what troubled me about the language of The Atlantic article was how much the word "violence" was attributed to what were ultimately either depictions of blue collar white men (police) but, also, even when the wealthy were referenced, you still had it so all descriptions of "white supremacy" contained all the various crude stereotypes which bring up associations with blue collar white men of not-much-economic means. Aka, the population most likely to be incarcerated at high rates, except for blue collar or lower class blacks.
Which brings up another problem. You paint skin color with a broad brush. Actually, it's lower class black people who get incarcerated at the highest rates. And, this might be interesting to study, but it may well be the case that upper middle class black people are incarcerated at far less the rate of even blue collar whites. (Or lower class whites.)
At which point we must ask whether some of what we deem "white supremacy" and particularly deem "white supremacist" backlash is more tied to class? And, in some ways, perhaps more of a backlash against the implied supremacy of white collar whites?
A huge group of privileged whites out there whose privilege doesn't really get much mention is upper middle class college educated whites. Who are not "crude" in mannerism or hyper masculine, but who are fussy, genteel, elitist and snobby. And sophisticated enough so as not to be tripped up by the demands of political correctness. Which, these days, reminds me of the complicated IRS tax code rich people hire accountants skilled at helping them navigate so they can avoid taxes.
By the way, I happen to be white, but I have a very unusual background which brought me into contact, socially, with a lot of diversity in social class, both among whites and blacks I've been in contact with. So I appreciate the class distinctions. I'm also partly Sicilian and very musical and a good dancer with a sense of rhythm, all of which makes me feel some sort of connection or similarity between me and many black people which I do not feel with many white people. I dance a lot like Michael Jackson, actually. And my expressivity in music is more like what you see with black musicians. This is some sort of characteristic that's never really been officially defined in language but exists. Something about one's body language or something. Recall, many blacks regarded Obama as "black but really white" and also regarded Bill Clinton as, in some ways, "our first black president?" I was even tarnished with same exact stereotypes used as justifications for lynching black men in Jim Crow south ages ago, when being victimized in a way authorities hoped to cover up via false narrative.
As a gay man, my exposure to the online hook up scene also is responsible for me having enough hook ups with both black and white men of all social classes and pursuasions, and I am a curious person so I'd talk to them and ask interesting questions. And people are more open with you after they've slept with you.
I also was a victim of criminal racketeering perpetrated by police and other institutional players, of a nature commonly perpetrated against lower class black people, and it involved using me for unethical research which ultimately benefited corporations who gave money to Harvard. At one point, I moved to the Jones Hill area of Dorchester, a neighborhood close to Savin Hill where many middle class whites live.
I was systematically stalked, threatened, harassed in that neighborhood and by fellow tenants and the landlord until I moved to this other area of Dorchester where lived working class Irish and working class/lower class blacks. I was criminally victimized there in a manner that would be described as racketeering and fraud. But also in a manner that defies all conventional or mainstream stereotypes about "what occurs." It was not a bunch of black hoodlums on the streets. Indeed, black people were completely absent from the streets as perpetrators or intimidators when the criminal racketeering phase was going on. But even the white working class people there did not do much other than to "go along" with and agree to a code of silence regarding the crimes other people were involved in. It was as if blacks there were 100 percent intimidated and subservient, but blue collar whites were 70 percent intimidated. Clearly, these criminal antics could only happen in a lower class neighborhood because poorer people are more easily intimidated into silence or tolerance of such things, which were things no homeowner would voluntarily put up with.
Primary perpetrators were: crooked cops and other city employees. IT professionals who camped out in verizon trucks outside my apartment to assist with the hacking of my computer and cell phone. White middle class gay crystal meth users from hoity toity Cambridge and Boston's South end, who took an unusual trip down to that neighborhood to participate in the intimidation. And medical doctors as well. And perhaps people involved with the national guard or military. A number of the antics performed were performed SOLELY so that the crimes -- which were simply unethical medical experimentation for corporate research -- could be covered up by the false accusation that I "thought something weird was going on" solely because I'd been doing drugs and was "paranoid-delusional."
I was able to prove the computer hacking and other elements of the crime so as to be seen as credible and go to a lawyer. But that's VERY rare. I'd by then already spoken to and been warned by some black residents and my understanding is that these tactics are common and mostly black people get exploited by them, but are also not exclusively the victims by any means.
Notice how the moment someone such as myself goes and discloses being a victim of crimes covered up via the pretext that I was "paranoid delusional," instantly any institution like BU can instantly cop to a "we don't believe you" excuse for dismissing me without incurring any reputational damage or legal damage. Indeed, the whole entire media is saturated with Big Pharma sponsored messages all about "mental illness" and how "there is an epidemic of mental illness" out there and one of the biggest symptoms of mental illness is "lack of insight" into one's own mental illness and denial of one's own condition. As with the Salem Witch trials where denying that you were a witch was considered proof of it so convincing that it justified execution.
Now I do have a lot of evidence backing me up. Even despite that evidence, anyone reading my email and perhaps browsing over some of that evidence could STILL -- perhaps absurdly -- argue they STILL didn't believe me. Common sense might argue a different explanation. However, from the point of view of the modern legal system, criminal complicity must be proved "beyond a reasonable doubt" so the moment the "mental health" excuse is used to justify cover up of a crime, an official you are complaining to can cop to stupidity, and it becomes uniquely impossible to indict them for alleged complicity, so long as the perpetrators used THAT tactic. Isn't that clever? So many people can say "I don't want to be involved" and escape accountability that way. Too clever. This becomes a very reliable loophole which, please, it isn't crazy to argue that this might happen, it's crazy to argue that the mafia would never have thought of exploiting such a loophole in the first place.
Note the sneakiness and slipperiness -- but note, also, how systematic and clever it is, from a strategic point of view, when viewed in light of how our legal system operates. Something you won't necessarily appreciate unless you HAVE the right kind of "legal" background, and then you'll see it. But lawyers and professionals who CAN see it systematically derive money from this system and collude with it to protect their careers.
Also, the crooked cops who were involved seemed not to be individual cops who were bribed, but the whole entire department, or a subsection of it. They weren't doing it for money but more because it seemed as if they had to. It was obviously politicians and charitable institutions who were the recipients of the actual bribes, and you could tell by their enthusiasm and by how much they "owned" their participation in the crimes.
In contrast, with crooked cops, and other lower class whites or ethnics involved, they didn't "own" their involvement and witnessing their participation was like watching the adults put on a school play where you see five year olds reciting their lines in a cute way but otherwise without the "oomph" a professional actor has. Here is where I just feel that denunciations of "toxic masculinity" and even of "white supremacy" that adheres to all those stereotypes of toxic "blue collar male" - ness somehow is actually responsible for systematically subordinating and intimidating the population of blue collar males (white, I guess, though perhaps not exclusively white) who I witnessed "going along" with the crimes I was victimized by, but not in that particularly enthusiastic way characteristic of bribery. Though, again, if this is criminal racketeering, it's important to understand that maybe blue collar males are capable of being very charming in a way that amounts to witness tampering via mollifying a potentially complaining victim.
Also, please notice, I am describing a kind of racial oppression which is a SMART racial oppression. Where money and greed are the primary motives. And where perpetrators employ super complicated tactics and super sophisticated and extremely clever cover ups, which even allow them to maintain a facade of political correctness even while they brazenly go and do these things. And black people "get it worse" in terms of being statistically discriminated against, or statistically most likely to be chosen as "easy targets" for exploitation. But not necessarily because perpetrators ARE especially racist, as opposed to being indifferent and opportunistic.
Your article in The Atlantic doesn't really capture how, today, racial oppression has advanced compared to what went on in the past. It's not simple and crude. Vast majority of racial (and other oppression) is not, today, done in a way so that stupid or uninformed people can understand very easily. It's not done in a way that can be easily explained in a short soundbite or even medium sized article.
It's more like how the tax code is incomprehensibly complex, deliberately so in order to fool the common people and allow a whole cottage industry of accountants to benefit the rich, with the complicity of politicians.
I have read the Wall Street Journal editorial page regularly for over 20 years. After my more recent experiences, I do not agree with them on a lot of things, or I should more accurately say that I can see through them now. However, I think you should do so, if only for the education.
They regularly discuss business regulation and the complexity of the tax code. And the complexity of banking regulation and other stuff. And they discuss the stifling impact of oodles and oodles of red tape, bureaucracies with stifling stultifying rules and stuff. And how hard this sometimes is for smaller businesses. And also how it systematically will tilt the playing field from one business to another. Goldman Sachs once, for instance, endorsed a certain kind of banking regulation, after having given money to the Democrats and gotten all sorts of nice loopholes carved out for their own company, so that the regulation actually benefited them, comparatively, given the relative harm it did their competition.
And also you learn about how the government keeps having to update regulations to plug in loopholes. Because society and the business world adapt and "outgrow" current regulatory frameworks.
Above all, they do not denounce the bad regulations in place pre-1850's, or post-1850's in Jim Crow America, as if they still apply. They engage in detailed discussions which sound mundane and specialized, of all sorts of regulations which are present today. Why is racism spoken about differently? As if it's not complex and sophisticated like every other money making endeavor by business is?
When they discuss business regulation, they do sound like they are making sense. In which case, if something is "a little bit off" with them, it's obviously "a little bit off" in a way designed to hoodwink most people who are not experts on the matter. Even well educated people. It is actually true, I think, that the WSJ and NYT get advertising dollars from corporations, so maybe their economic theories have complicated nuances or discrepancies in them which let them plug an idea as "doing the right thing" when the right expertise in economics might show otherwise. Where do most academic economics departments get their money, other than from corporations?
Indeed, if you contrast the Wall Street Journal editorial page with the New York Times editorial page, and I've read both for over 20 years, often the NYT will just not address the complex issues the WSJ touches upon. But sometimes they will and you can see the contrast. One senses a very complicated system where the corruption hides behind the complexity. In a democracy, that is the only way. Special interests systematically deceive other people, and pay others to do so on their behalf.
Racial oppression is like that too. The media trumpets a certain narrative on race. But it's a narrative that is designed to fit into a small article. A short article. Or a short television piece. The conservative and liberal narratives both strike me as wrong in different ways, but also where they feed into one another in a way that maintains the oppressive system just like it is. And I'm not being arrogant when I say this. I WAS a victim, saw the system myself, and CAN talk about it because I emerged from my experiences with enough legalistically sound evidence so I can't be discredited the way most victims can, as the system is designed to do.
http://damian-schloming.squarespace.com/
Just like how rich people pay politicians to carve out exceptions to the tax code that benefit them, with a tax code so long and complex as to be like a needle in a haystack and tucked away into some thousand page bill that is so long nobody will notice, racial oppression has adapted and learned how to fly under the radar of what the mainstream media is used to reporting, and how they are used to reporting.
And, to be honest, it is bad enough so as to deservedly be called a form of modern day slavery, implemented via the mafia -- another institution mainstream culture has failed to fully explain. Why do we admit the mafia exists and prosecute them, even while on the other hand academic institutions fail to acknowledge their existence in any other context, all the while feminists, ironically enough, talk about such a thing as "The Patriarchy," but with no explanation regarding whether "The Patriarchy" and "The Mafia" are even supposed to be related in any way. Huh?
Are they talking about one and the same thing? And is the opacity of the language intended to limit their observations and discussions to a small group? Except, if so, that very policy IS racist classist and exclusionary. Even if they don't say they are and even go further and give some kind of hollow lip service to "inclusion."
Meanwhile, you have the mainstream media and the publishing world, and they are BUSINESSES. They need to make money. Academics are hamstrung based on "what can get published" and their careers boxed in and limited by all of that.
Meanwhile, in the mainstream media, they need to make money. And certain things sell. And certain things don't sell. If it's too boring and convoluted, you can't write a good article about it and have it sell. Wouldn't it be interesting to see racial oppression as smart enough in just the right ways, so one cannot expose it in any other way other than to try writing a few mind numbing convoluted boring articles that are so complicated, people's brains freeze up trying to read them?
Indeed, sex sells. Notice how most corporate funded carceral feminists are unattractive in just the right way so that some of what they do -- which can be implicated as somehow being complicit in mass incarceration, but only in uber technical ways most people would find really boring to read about -- is not going to gain a "second life" in the media, simply on account of the sexiness and charismatic personalities of those pushing it?
This might be un-p.c. to mention, but it's the same as how bureaucracies have learned to be super complex in order to encourage people to go away. It is impolite to mention this. Then again, perhaps those designing our modern day oppressive system realized that. Realized that, to overcome their designs, one would HAVE to say a bunch of unattractive and ungentlemanly and insulting things about some of the women in positions of complicity, and that all would better protect their projects from disruption?
I have a plant which forms these huge beautiful flowers that happen to smell exactly like rotting meat, all in order to attract flies and encourage them to pollinate it. Human beings are smarter than that, are they not? In which case, is it not absurd to argue that human beings would not have developed the most clever and sophisticated systems of subterfuge and deception to cover up various "white supremacist" or other oppressive designs? So long as money was involved?
Can we not consider how our culture of political correctness as well as our culture of "being polite" hasn't perhaps somehow been like -- well, like a IRS tax loophole which a bunch of rich people eventually start hiding behind years after it was first crafted? Even if not at first?
Anyway, regarding Trump and various statements he makes allegedly to appeal to white males, or I should say white blue collar males, I just wonder why cannot the social class of the men be explored? And why do blue collar men seem to get ALL of the credit for being allegedly racist or white supremacist and white collar men do not? Except I think this speaks to our very definitions of racism, which are perhaps overly influenced by the legal industry which formed around anti-discrimination laws. And it just so works out that practitioners of political correctness in large institutions with in-house legal counsel would, in our culture, end up being given a racism "free pass." As would those (expensively) educated by them.
Rather than racism being defined according to what REALLY happens, it starts being defined according to what would be most convenient for those special interests who benefit from things being a certain way in light of anti-discrimination laws. Which amounts to white collar whites adopting a "woke progressive" form of "anti-racism" that ends up being kind of hollow and without substance, but which does privilege and protect the reputations and legal liabilities of places like BU, and other mainstream corporations, in contrast to those small businesses run by blue collar people without vast educations and not marinated in political correctness and legalese. No different from Goldman Sachs agreeing to support banking regulation after having made a deal with Democrats involving them being exempted from having to follow it. Who doesn't want harsh regulation out there to trip up your competition, so long as you know how to deal with it better?
Also, many of Trump's statements are soundbites and I am not sure if Trump is really all that bad behind the superficial facade. He is making many superficial statements that surely would sound bad, yet is and was proposing criminal justice reform which is revolutionary for a Republican, completely ceasing the "tough on crime" mentality and emphasizing rehabilitation, leniency, false prosecutions, etc.
I should also note, I know for a fact that many other presidents went out of their way to sound "good" in ways exactly the opposite of what Trump is doing were, yet behind the scenes and in sneaky ways, they were doing all sorts of bad things, and it was stuff so bad and so much against all they claimed to be in favor of politically that I simply cannot listen to Trump's rhetoric and be swayed too negatively against him in comparison. At worst, Trump might be only "just as bad as" other presidents like George W. Bush and Obama, and if so then it's refreshing to see him being honest about it rather than sneaky about it like they were. But I feel like something else might be going on here.
I've been involved in grassroots politics in the past and seen leaders go and engage in extra bellicose rhetoric superficially to help mollify certain special interest groups who needed to lose in order for things to get better, and do this while in the process of backing down and actually doing the right thing behind the scenes. SOUNDING a bit white supremacist in a superficial way actually makes it easier for Trump to back the Republican Party down from its formerly horrendous "tough on crime" positions as well as pro corporate pro rich economic austerity.
Though, of course, for activists to seize upon such bellicose rhetoric from Trump and bash him as White Supremacist perhaps is part of that whole trend. If Trump wants to do criminal justice reform, it's best for the opposition to put him on the defensive on that matter. At least to some extent.
Well, that is the question. No Republican has been more inclined than Trump to reform the criminal justice system in the right way, and also to agree with family leave -- even if Trump's proposed version of it is pitifully stingy.
I think those proposals are valuable, ESPECIALLY for a Republican to be proposing them. It's revolutionary. A precedent that should be seized upon. You can have all sorts of problems with Trump, but I do think at least some credit should be given him for that.
It would be especially bad for Trump to do such proposals, and have it not matter, and what example does that set for other Republicans in the future? Meanwhile, the Democrats can get nothing done, if they are too liberal in ways so as to provoke a backlash.
I remember Patrisse Cullors saying in some video: "we need to get Joe Biden in, and THEN change can happen." That's going to scare a bunch of people, and then the Republicans will take over congress. What can Joe Biden do in a window of two years? It is not good enough to say "well we tried, and then the Republicans took over congress."
Also, I genuinely do feel that the media narrative portraying blue collar white men as racist and/or white supremacist is baloney. If anything, and in my real life experience too, I feel as if blue collar men are the one group MOST LIKELY to sympathize with working class/lower class blacks oppressed the most by the same system as they are. Especially inasmuch as it's a system that is complex and sophisticated and designed to trip up those who are less educated and less "sophisticated" and less likely to have a college degree.
Sometimes "divide and conquer" is most likely to happen to those very groups which are MOST LIKELY to be capable of allying and becoming a threat to the establishment. As if the establishment knows what threatens it and wishes to work extra hard to keep those groups divided rather than united.
Partly because of that, I just feel like the reactions of some whites should not be pounced on too harshly. In particular, a blue collar white male is not going to be inclined to overtly object to there being "prejudice against lower status white males viewed as ignorant and stupid" because they will have a sense of pride. I've heard remarks by some blue collar whites that "there really is anti-white racism out there."
And I am upper middle class super smart white, and I instantly say "oh no, that's not what it is, it's class prejudice against blue collar whites -- and it's very similar to prejudice blue collar/lower class blacks also endure." Actually, black people would have the same issue. It's just easier for a member of such a disadvantaged group to go say it's their skin color they are denigrated for, rather than their mind/affect/uneducated "lower class" status. And, I would agree, if you are upper middle class elite black, your skin color will be a certain kind of burden, much different from that of working class blacks.
And here is where you do have to consider the "Guild Interest" of academia, which is to perpetuate a discourse that punishes and badmouths those who did not get college degrees. And here is where, while of course blacks without college degrees are not badmouthed by elites the way blue collar whites are, I feel like that is almost because they are SO economically marginalized in so many other ways that "it doesn't matter" and there is no need to. The stronger a group is, the harder you have to push to keep them down. And you can afford seem nice to those who are marginalized badly enough.
Ultimately, though, to reform mass incarceration, you need those two groups most likely to hate Mass Incarceration to be more united and less divided. I'm talking about blue collar/lower class blacks and blue collar whites. And I suppose there are some lower class whites too. Here is where my depiction of blacks as "lower class" in tandem with "blue collar" whites is tied to the fact that such a high percentage of blacks in that class are incarcerated, compared to whites, that it may be more accurate to call them "lower class" as most of their "blue collar" work is carried out as prison labor.
And, again, I go back to my vast experience in the gay and bisexual hook up scene. There simply is no special "racism" that blue collar whites uphold that is "more" than anyone else. If anything, they are not burdened down by the kind of snobbery that might get white collar white males to feel they must be "exclusive" and avoid certain social classes. And which inevitably AT LEAST causes them to "statistically discriminate" against blacks, simply because the percentage of and population of "upper middle class" blacks is so tiny.
I do remember, for the first time, hooking up with black men who were more working class or "ghetto" and loving it. Especially loving talking to them because I could have different types of conversations with them than I could have with white people. As if they had some sort of intelligence perhaps sometimes described as "a kind of smoothness" by me and kind of sharpness in communication of subtle nuance that many white men just don't have.
When younger, I had heard all sorts of myths regarding Dorchester being "dangerous" and stuff. Cambridge used to have rent control, and the rent controlled tenant population was especially distinguished as overwhelmingly white and upper middle class, so I heard constant outcries by tenants claiming they "needed rent control" so they could afford to live in Cambridge, and I remember my father saying what sounded then like the most tone deaf thing he could possibly ever say, namely: "well why can't you move to Dorchester," and to hear the exclamations of horror from those tenants. It is interesting to be exposed to that kind of stereotyping and fear/prejudice, and then later on see everything for yourself. You really do get a vastly different perspective or snapshot of a whole entire community when you hook up with men in it, as compared to any other kind of survey or study.
Indeed, when I was a victim of the mafia, which sometimes involved either involuntary or semi-voluntary "massive social pressure" drug use, only for me to suffer various mafia arranged "dangerous situations" afterwards, the poor black ghetto neighborhoods turned out to be the safest neighborhoods I could walk in, in that condition. I could tell they all knew "something" was happening to me, they all knew it was something "the system" was doing to me, and they had this tolerant attitude about it, like they were NOT going to get involved with the perpetrators and the way they showed their defiance of such stuff was to simply play dumb, pretend not to notice it, and be kind and supportive. It was a defiant "kind and supportive," though, sort of like they were not going to let that system tell them what to do.
I sweat super profusely on certain drugs so as to lose electrolytes so badly that I need to rehydrate AND intake salt and, ideally, something with potassium as well. I was EASILY in one instance able to ask a black guy sitting on the porch for some salt water, and have him very nicely agree to give me some, without him asking me "oh what are you doing" and "I think I need to call the police on you." Later on, I was able to go to a black owned barber shop, and they could tell -- sweat pouring so profusely down my face and all -- but they super tolerantly played along and I was able to use one customer's cell phone in order to call my parents to ask for a ride so I could get home safely.
Interesting. I wonder if this type of defiance might be behind the high murder rates for "ghetto" blacks in some areas, almost as if, with that attitude, THE ONLY WAY for the mafia to control them would be through systematic murders. Interesting, also, how I just "knew" I'd be safe among the "ghetto black" types, when in those situations. Whenever I was in any more upscale neighborhood than that, I never ONCE just went up to people and dared to ask for help like that. I knew better. By then, I suppose I'd had a few hook ups with those types of black people, enough so as to be able to get a good "read" of the culture maybe? Whatever ... I am alive today because of those razor sharp social instincts. Reading people.
I ought to note, among the white gay community that was most involved in the mafia crimes against me, one of the most major forms of social policing was to punish any gay man who, like those black people, simply agreed to be nice or kind to me in any way. That was SO forbidden, more forbidden than anything else. Just to show me kindness and hospitality. Gays who showed such inclination were instantly and swiftly and harshly punished or threatened. And later forced to "apologize" for such niceness they had previously shown me by burning their bridges with me even worse than some of the others. Like it was regarded as so important that such inclinations be stamped out of the gay population.
However, the kinds of sneaky "covered up" mafia crimes that happen are so carefully carried out that, if the wrong person shows kindness to a victim at the wrong time, it really can go throw a wrench in something that might be a "murder made to look like a drug overdose." A wrench bad enough so criminal perpetrators, cops, or even medical doctors look like they engaged in deliberate murder. Or, at minimum, "gross negligence."
Here is where I note, while perhaps the black population succumbs to police shootings as well as mob hits perpetrated by mob hitmen, more well educated whites are controlled instead by the threat of those more sneaky covered up murders like death by "drug overdose" (alleged), most of which would fail if the whole community of whites in which that happens develops too many good habits regarding kindness and hospitality.
It is interesting how there is a long term psychic cost to this form of ... I don't know what you want to call it. This type of "cultural whiteness," perhaps. Which, in some ways, hurts the very beneficiaries of it more than it hurts the victims of it. You suffer when you give up all habits of common decency and common courtesy, as well as pride, in order to protect yourself and have security and privilege. And "status." And "recognition" as someone who has done all the right things, in order to "realize their dreams."
Anyway, bottom line, I just don't see the working class white male population as inherently more racist than others. Largely because I have associated with many of them, associated with many such blacks, and witnessed them going about some of their daily lives to get a feel for it. If anything, I see them as possibly less so. Among academia, you have competition that involves pleasing authority figures, who judge one person better than the other based on subjective judgments which are far more easily swayed by favoritism and bias. Whereas working class men do physical things with their hands, and either you are good at what you do or you aren't. The objectivity regarding the quality of your work minimizes the kind of ruthless competition and "lifting yourself up by pushing others down and back stabbing" that's more characteristic of the white collar professional world.
Blue collar men ARE less sophisticated, so when they are racist, it shows more. You can pounce on it and play "gotcha." But, I think we need to look beyond that and look to some of the more subtle ways racism shows itself. Subtle ways which, again, would find a perfect home in large bureaucratic institutions and corporations with in-house legal counsel who are capable of understanding and navigating a legal structure which now includes anti-discrimination laws.
See here is where anti-discrimination laws have really changed things. You have a ton of sneaky, slippery, weasel wording and lawyerly-like stuff in place of the open and overt racism of before. But, do please note, such a regime that might sneakily perpetuate racism THAT WAY also would be very much not-to-the-liking of non-college educated whites.
Also, I want to point out that, as an activist, you should regard your job as something more than objectively trying to "declare" - officially and definitively - "what Trump is." IS Trump a racist or is he not. And your job is to opine on it.
It is actually not fixed, what Trump is. As activists and journalists, you have the power to influence what Trump is or ends up being. And, at the very least, in terms of his platform, it does look as if he is capable of being someone who does help out with race while appealing to blue collar whites at the same time. But if you go and stubbornly say "Trump is racist and is going to do nothing for black people" and say "all his proposals, they are all lies, all a hoax, just a smokescreen for underlying white supremacist agenda," you will MAKE IT SO.
I just think you can and should criticize him where he deserves criticism. But also note and have a discussion on some of the areas where he is pushing reform that contradicts that "white supremacist racist" stereotype. Some of his proposals deserve to be debated and those issues deserve to be discussed. Any and all visibility for THOSE ISSUES should be welcome and encouraged -- and let the chips fall where they may, politically in the two party system. Progress in the long term means focusing intently and without distraction on THE ISSUES THAT MATTER and not letting temporary politics distract or subordinate the issues of importance.
Those are my thoughts. I have not read much other than skimmed over most of The Atlantic article. I do have ADHD and head trauma from some of the crimes that makes concentration and attention span a bit difficult at times.
I do notice, I am saying "Trump (perhaps) isn't so bad" in the same way the New York Times insisted Hitler wasn't so bad, when he first came into power. And so sometimes I worry, is he or is he not? He does embody the type of man who is macho and is all talk and bluster, all bark and no bite perhaps.
But he is also our first Reality Show President, where being super colorful is done as a strategic move in our new media environment with the internet. Propaganda is not the same as it was decades ago in a much different media environment.
Harvey Weinsten was exposed and prosecuted in the Trump years, part of a trend where society goes in the exact opposite of what Trump would appear to embody, at least based on certain superficial appearances. And there is often a light heartedness in the tone of many of Trump's statements that can be seized upon and quoted as "yet more proof" that he is "bad." Like Reagan who was viewed as Teflon.
This does seem to provoke a dynamic discussion about race and all that goes on. And, well ... see, when I was an activist over 25 years ago when I was young, I would get super attached to and all tied up in knots over temporary losses or insults or backsliding that would appear to be happening in the short term. But then, after years of observing events and observing the media's reporting of events, and seeing how things inevitably progress, I feel like now I pay less attention to what now look like "little things" and be more confident that the overall trends are still going in the right direction.
For instance, many of Trump's denunciations of Black Lives Matters and the protests, which of course are not fair or accurate and, I guess, if you are too involved in those organizations, they will piss you off. Because, when you are an activist, you get really attached to stuff like that. Especially at first. But, really, that's nothing. Trump's recent proposals and his emphasis on leniency, drug rehab rather than criminalization, and wrongful prosecutions and rehabilitation rather than incarceration. THAT is what really matters.
SOME progress is going to happen regardless of who gets elected. Especially if activists keep pressing the issues as aggressively as possible and don't stop. And also see past what might look like temporary setbacks and realize that continued persistence will make things happen but you have to stay active and keep it going. And, also, try to engage even those people you might view as your opposition. Engage and try to persuade rather than denounce. Don't insist blue collar whites ONLY want leniency and presumption of innocence for themselves. Consider that they may want it for themselves first and foremost, but also are genuinely not invested in denying it to others of a different race.
But I almost think that Trump could push for or agree to change that has more staying power. If Biden tries to do it, you may well end up with a backlash that ends up with him accomplishing nothing and having a good excuse "the Republicans won't let me." And Biden does come across like someone with an aura of weakness, a wimp who will "bend over backwards" in apology to dangerous activists who stir things up in a manner as to scare some of "the masses." E.g., blue collar whites. Which might make him less capable of implementing, politically, what he says he favors. Especially after Biden's complicity in Mass Incarceration himself. Thus he must "apologize" for being wrong, and agree to certain changes from a position that looks like weakness. Which could stir up backlash. Trump's outward appearance of "toughness" on the issues - even if that opens him up to accusations of being a racist - politically could play in a certain way in our media environment, which could actually cause significant reform to be implemented in a way that does not stir up that backlash.
Which is -- well, I don't know that I'd call it a racist backlash per se. I'd call it more a fear based backlash. Except the mainstream media does engage in way too much bellicose rhetoric aimed at cultivating that fear among lower class whites. Which is something that I am going to have to say implicates the Guild Interests of Academia. Too much bashing of certain types of blue collar whites because they aren't spending an arm and a leg getting college degrees.
See, you can denounce it all you want. But, in the end, you do want to have some amount of respect or understanding of it, if you want to get something done. What ARE blue collar whites who vote Republican REALLY scared of now? Long ago in the Jim Crow era - yes, blacks could potentially undercut their jobs as cheaper labor if they joined the same trade they were in. Racism then involved the asserting of a group economic interest -- that economic interest which "drove" the racist attitudes of people who, otherwise, would have had far less prejudice "inside" them inherently.
Now, the narrative holds racism to be almost like some kind of subjective thing, a series of "unclean thoughts" one harbors in one's heart and mind, and for which one needs some kind of religious purification to rid oneself of -- ideally in the context of political correctness at a liberal academic institution you are paying $50,000 a year to be educated at. I am reminded of the Catholic Church selling forgiveness and absolution for various sins, and the promise of a spot in Heaven, for donations.
But what economic interest do blue collar whites have? Compared to white collar whites and blacks of either social class? I think it really is not the same as it was in the Jim Crow era. The enormous economic change that has since taken place requires that we rethink how racism manifests itself today. There always was an economic and greed component to it, in tandem with the ordinary prejudice or potential for prejudice that could occur because of difference. But you can't get rid of that personal prejudice. Everyone is guilty of it in some way or other. Where the really bad suffering occurs is where group economic interests collide with race, and one group inflicts suffering on another, because of rigged economic motive. And, even, ends up in a position so as to be incapable of ceasing inflicting that suffering, especially if they now have careers that depend upon it.
Damian Schloming