busyHolder: US a "Nation of Cowards" on Race Discussions
Terry Frieden, CNN: "In a blunt assessment of race relations in the United States, Attorney General Eric Holder Wednesday called the American people 'essentially a nation of cowards' in failing to openly discuss the issue of race. In his first major speech since being confirmed, the nation's first black attorney general told an overflow crowd celebrating Black History Month at the Justice Department the nation remains 'voluntarily socially segregated.'"
I think that: 1) Americans do not discuss racial issues enough, 2) there are some serious racial problems that need discussion and solution, 3) SOME Americans are cowardly about discussions of race while others are not, 4) and calling people "cowards" unfairly denies credit to courageous debators and activists while merely offending people who don't generally discuss racism. Just because one has a point doesn't necessarily mean that one has expressed it in an efficient and effective manner. If you want people to do something, calling them names is unlikely to make them do it.
Furthermore, just because someone is not an activist on a given issue doesn't necessarily mean they're cowardly about it; they may have their hands full with some other worthy cause(s) and/or they may not have encountered a situation in which that particular issue brought itself to their attention vividly. "Coward" implies a decision to flee from a discussion due to moral failing; not everyone has necessarily confronted such a decision point or had the resources to devote to pursuing it vigorously.
So I found the article interesting, and it had some valid points, but they could have been presented in a more constructive and effective way. When it comes to discussing racism, I've been consistently impressed with Teaching Tolerance.
If you want to start a discussion, there are two pretty reliable ways: 1) Make it attractive to people, usually by attaching it to an interest or benefit of theirs; frex, illuminate how racism relates to other problems America is facing. 2) Put it somewhere they can't simply weasel around it easily, as the civil rights movement did.
Since I am interested in promoting the kind of harmonious heterogenous society that racism undermines, I'll just pick up the ball and see where it goes. Given that we've got a President of mixed ethnic background (commonly identified as "America's first black President") who is building a governing team that includes people of widely assorted ethnic backgrounds, for the purpose of leading a country many of whose citizens prefer to self-segregate ... what do you think is going to happen? Will that delightfully mixed leadership come up with great ideas only to be stonewalled by a citizenship that stubbornly behaves like oil and water? Or will the good example at high levels inspire people farther down to mix more? What are some things we could be doing to facilitate healthy and productive discussions of race issues? Does the current government expand our options in that regard, compared to previous governments, and if so how can we take advantage of new opportunities?
Re: Activate America
February 20 2009, 17:07:21 UTC 12 years ago
The immediate "necessary evil" and expence of Welfare would virtualy be abolished.
The immediate "necessary evil" of Unemployment Checks would virtually be abolished.
First of all, you're 'demonizing' the a system that has kept people alive during hard times for decades. Yes, there are problems with it, but it should be overhauld, not elimiated. Do you have any idea how many people would have died since the Great Depression, had this not been created? Ever seen the movie "Grapes OF Wrath"? Gives you a good idea of what life was like back then.
Americans would purchase homes, pay of mortages, and restimulate building & housing economy.
Then what? What happens when everyone in America has a nice home. What about the poor people that you've stated would be brought in to do 'menial work'? Do they get to buy a house too? Or is that just a privelge for "Naturalized U.S. Citizens"?
I'm merely trying to illustrate that no matter how many trillions & zillions of dollars we indebt our nation to shore up, prop up, and hold up the exterior fasade, or outside walls of these industries that our collapsing upon us. The internal ills that initially caused them to collapse will still exist.
This is a good example of what I'm trying to say as well. If you don't fix the problem, it keeps coming back. Doesn't matter if you throw money at big industy, banks or the average 'Joe', you're not fixing anything, just postponing the enevitable. Greenway's proposal is no different than the Econmic Stimulus package that you're attacking. If anything it's worse because of it's short-sightedness.
Again, what happens after the four years and there's no more money to be given out?
The propsal doesn't make that clear, all it says to me is throw money at everyone and people wil be happy. You're leaving it up to the individual to chart out his/her own life, and I think that's great, but we both know there are people in this world who expect something for nothing. What about them? Do we let them starve to death on the street? Abandoned by the government? The welfare system was put in place after the great Depression so that every person could affort a place to live and food on the table, as megar as it may be. If you take away that safty-net, more people will be harmed.
As for whether or not I would vote for this as a Congressperson, my answer is 'no', simply because of what I've stated above.
As a resonsible representative of the people, I CANNOT let anyone fall through the cracks. Yes, it happens, more times than not, but it would be my job to make sure that those in need got the help they desperatly need.
I've also read all your other statements in this thread, and it left me even more confused than before.
Why leave out healthcare? Lack of healthcare is a major issue for those who live in poverty. Something like 50 million Americans don't have proper healthcare, and I'm sure if you did a poll, you would find that the majority of them live below the poverty line. Free healthcare and free education are the only means to eradicate poverty. Give people a good education, and a healthy lifestyle and you not only improve their standard of living, but that of the whole country. :)
Deleted comment
Above Statement was in Answer to the following Question
Anonymous
February 21 2009, 18:34:49 UTC 12 years ago
"Then what? What happens when everyone in America has a nice home. What about the poor people that you've stated would be brought in to do 'menial work'? Do they get to buy a house too? Or is that just a privelge for "Naturalized U.S. Citizens"?"