Prim, racists are not mostly conservative. That's the lie.
If I said all lazy people are from Montana, but then took great pains to say that I'm not saying all Montanians were lazy, would that make it okay?
The nature of the American electoral beast
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
By calling me a liar you are saying I know that my statement is false.
I do not know that. I am not lying; I am speaking what I know as the truth based on my education and experience. Please don't call me a liar again.
If you have access to data proving that most racists are liberals, please point me at it and I will go educate myself.
I do not know that. I am not lying; I am speaking what I know as the truth based on my education and experience. Please don't call me a liar again.
If you have access to data proving that most racists are liberals, please point me at it and I will go educate myself.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
While I believe the same thing you do, Fara's got a point in saying that unless you have some data to back up your claim, perhaps we shouldn't go about saying it as Truth.Prim wrote: If you have access to data proving that most racists are liberals, please point me at it and I will go educate myself.
I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Well, there was a definite schism in Conservative politics in the early 1980's, represented by George Bush Sr.'s candidacy for the nomination and Ronald Reagan's presidency.
Before 1980 I would have called myself Conservative. I was a registered Republican for almost 30 years. But in the early 1980s my party swung so far to the right of me, and adopted an approach toward governance that I consider thinly-disguised fascism. The Reagan Presidency put to death three core beliefs of Jeffersonian Republicanism: states rights, progressive taxation and non-intervention. Thus began the Republican commitment to consolidating power in the federal government, shifting the tax burden to the middle class, and becoming a world interventionist power. That's the point at which I and the Republican party parted ways.
There is no longer a party in America that represents traditional conservatism. Compared to what is going on now, traditional conservatism is one of the most liberal philosophies available because it seeks to form policy based on sound information and sound logic, and that reliance upon reason over emotion and prejudice is the quintessence of liberalism.
I think that if you scratched below the skin in conservative America, you would find in most cases values that have now come to be called liberal. (Or, in the words of one our sleaziest campaigners in PA, "radical, leftist, extreme, and dangerous.) But that kind of conservatism is not represented by the Republicans any longer.
It is not clear to me where the Democrats fall along that spectrum because althought this crop is more conservative than the Clinton crop, Democrats generally do not come from a value background that is identical with that of traditional conservatism.
It is my personal feeling that advances like the end to slavery and the enforcement of civil rights owe as much to traditional conservatism as to liberalism, because conservatism seeks stability, and anything that provokes people to justifiable rioting in the streets is not a stabilizing influence. But when these stabilizing values are supported by traditional conservatives, there is another wing of American politics, also called 'conservative,' unfortunately, that brands them extremist and dangerous. The Ku Klux Klan is certainly a 'conservative' organization according to the usual nomenclature, but the Kennedy clan held and holds more traditional conservative values than do the crazies in white hoods.
What I think it is probably fair to say is that when we look at who populates right-wing extremism, they share more ideas in common with the party currently dubbed 'conservative' than they do with the party currently dubbed 'liberal', hence our tendency to associate the far right wing as conservative. But that identification is far from being symmetric, which is the point I believe that Prim was trying to make.
You know, if any candidate today were running on Richard Nixon's 1972 platform, they would be branded a communist ... oh, excuse me, the new slur is pro-terrorist.
What did Nixon claim to support:
• extraction from a costly foreign war that we were losing, ASAP
• distribution of federal tax money to the states, so that spending decisions would be more dispersed and responsive to local needs
• a cap on executive salaries to protect both labor and stockholders
To this day I think that this last plank was the trigger for the one American conspiracy story that will never be told.
To this day I still believe in those core ideas, too, that can be summarized as the historic Jeffersonian view: non-intervention, disbursed power, a redistributive role for taxation and subsidy that levels the playing field instead of making it more uneven. Those are, in my opinion, the values that typify conservatism.
Obviously racism, as an impediment to productivity, security and the domestic peace, does not fit with that value system. If I want to adopt a more liberal lexicon, then I will say that racism is immoral and unjust, and I do also believe that it is immoral and unjust, but there are economic and security reasons for opposing it as well, which I can support with logical and factual argument, and so I do not need to possess a 'bleeding heart' in order to find myself on the 'liberal' side of civil rights issues. And, as Faramond has pointed out, I've met plenty of 'liberals' who were closet racists, coattailing on liberal trends to get donations, either non-profit or campaign funds, which they then spent in decidedly racist ways.
I have been thinking a lot recently about the role of Old Money in the United States. This issue became salient for me because a couple incidents that coincided in time brought it to the forefront of my attentiion. It is not something I have personally researched in the past, though through various connections I have been aware for a long time that this is an invisible factor in a lot of our national politics. Old Money is generally thought to be conservative, but this misses the mark. It is above all pro-stability. That means adopting a liberal stance and funding liberal causes if the country swings too far to the right on issues likely to destabilize business and/or the domestic peace. I think that Old Money spoke in the 2004 election, and convinced John Kerry not to contest the results precisely because there was election fraud on a scale that would have seriously jeopardized the government ... (what do you think the American people would have done if it had come out that Dybold really did rig the voting machines in all the states to which they were provided?) And I think that Old Money spoke in this election too. They handed the white rose to Dubya for putting their own fortunes at risk to preserve his own. And they rewarded the Democrats for playing it smart, not taking advantage of the tsunami of discontent to push candidates at the other end of the spectrum who would demand a destabilizing about-face.
I don't know if this is good or bad, actually. It's probably a bit of both. It is very good to have an illusion of total democracy. People are more willing to compromise and remain reasonable when they believe their voice is behind heard. But real democracy, where every fad in opinion can shift the landscape, where every loudspeaker can provoke a persecution or a riot, and every lazy, uninformed voter has an equal voice - not so hot when you think hard about it.
Jn
eta: it took me awhile to write this so I've probably cross posted with ten other people by now.
Before 1980 I would have called myself Conservative. I was a registered Republican for almost 30 years. But in the early 1980s my party swung so far to the right of me, and adopted an approach toward governance that I consider thinly-disguised fascism. The Reagan Presidency put to death three core beliefs of Jeffersonian Republicanism: states rights, progressive taxation and non-intervention. Thus began the Republican commitment to consolidating power in the federal government, shifting the tax burden to the middle class, and becoming a world interventionist power. That's the point at which I and the Republican party parted ways.
There is no longer a party in America that represents traditional conservatism. Compared to what is going on now, traditional conservatism is one of the most liberal philosophies available because it seeks to form policy based on sound information and sound logic, and that reliance upon reason over emotion and prejudice is the quintessence of liberalism.
I think that if you scratched below the skin in conservative America, you would find in most cases values that have now come to be called liberal. (Or, in the words of one our sleaziest campaigners in PA, "radical, leftist, extreme, and dangerous.) But that kind of conservatism is not represented by the Republicans any longer.
It is not clear to me where the Democrats fall along that spectrum because althought this crop is more conservative than the Clinton crop, Democrats generally do not come from a value background that is identical with that of traditional conservatism.
It is my personal feeling that advances like the end to slavery and the enforcement of civil rights owe as much to traditional conservatism as to liberalism, because conservatism seeks stability, and anything that provokes people to justifiable rioting in the streets is not a stabilizing influence. But when these stabilizing values are supported by traditional conservatives, there is another wing of American politics, also called 'conservative,' unfortunately, that brands them extremist and dangerous. The Ku Klux Klan is certainly a 'conservative' organization according to the usual nomenclature, but the Kennedy clan held and holds more traditional conservative values than do the crazies in white hoods.
What I think it is probably fair to say is that when we look at who populates right-wing extremism, they share more ideas in common with the party currently dubbed 'conservative' than they do with the party currently dubbed 'liberal', hence our tendency to associate the far right wing as conservative. But that identification is far from being symmetric, which is the point I believe that Prim was trying to make.
You know, if any candidate today were running on Richard Nixon's 1972 platform, they would be branded a communist ... oh, excuse me, the new slur is pro-terrorist.
What did Nixon claim to support:
• extraction from a costly foreign war that we were losing, ASAP
• distribution of federal tax money to the states, so that spending decisions would be more dispersed and responsive to local needs
• a cap on executive salaries to protect both labor and stockholders
To this day I think that this last plank was the trigger for the one American conspiracy story that will never be told.
To this day I still believe in those core ideas, too, that can be summarized as the historic Jeffersonian view: non-intervention, disbursed power, a redistributive role for taxation and subsidy that levels the playing field instead of making it more uneven. Those are, in my opinion, the values that typify conservatism.
Obviously racism, as an impediment to productivity, security and the domestic peace, does not fit with that value system. If I want to adopt a more liberal lexicon, then I will say that racism is immoral and unjust, and I do also believe that it is immoral and unjust, but there are economic and security reasons for opposing it as well, which I can support with logical and factual argument, and so I do not need to possess a 'bleeding heart' in order to find myself on the 'liberal' side of civil rights issues. And, as Faramond has pointed out, I've met plenty of 'liberals' who were closet racists, coattailing on liberal trends to get donations, either non-profit or campaign funds, which they then spent in decidedly racist ways.
I have been thinking a lot recently about the role of Old Money in the United States. This issue became salient for me because a couple incidents that coincided in time brought it to the forefront of my attentiion. It is not something I have personally researched in the past, though through various connections I have been aware for a long time that this is an invisible factor in a lot of our national politics. Old Money is generally thought to be conservative, but this misses the mark. It is above all pro-stability. That means adopting a liberal stance and funding liberal causes if the country swings too far to the right on issues likely to destabilize business and/or the domestic peace. I think that Old Money spoke in the 2004 election, and convinced John Kerry not to contest the results precisely because there was election fraud on a scale that would have seriously jeopardized the government ... (what do you think the American people would have done if it had come out that Dybold really did rig the voting machines in all the states to which they were provided?) And I think that Old Money spoke in this election too. They handed the white rose to Dubya for putting their own fortunes at risk to preserve his own. And they rewarded the Democrats for playing it smart, not taking advantage of the tsunami of discontent to push candidates at the other end of the spectrum who would demand a destabilizing about-face.
I don't know if this is good or bad, actually. It's probably a bit of both. It is very good to have an illusion of total democracy. People are more willing to compromise and remain reasonable when they believe their voice is behind heard. But real democracy, where every fad in opinion can shift the landscape, where every loudspeaker can provoke a persecution or a riot, and every lazy, uninformed voter has an equal voice - not so hot when you think hard about it.
Jn
eta: it took me awhile to write this so I've probably cross posted with ten other people by now.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Faramond, thank you. I'm sorry that I upset you.
If we cannot say anything based on our own knowledge and experience, or challenge someone else's statement that contradicts our own knowledge and experience, then how can we talk except in hyperlinks? Are we not allowed to interpret the world, or relay anything we've learned except by linking to sources?
yov, we all speak from what we know. I spoke from what I know. I have known a number of racists over the years, and they were all politically conservative. That's just a fact. I have known many liberals, and none of them were remotely racist. Neither were the vast majoriity of the conservatives I have known. That's another fact. If you have reason to believe that I generally tell the truth, and that I'm reasonably well able to observe reality, then grant me the right to speak based on what I have observed.yovargas wrote:While I believe the same thing you do, Fara's got a point in saying that unless you have some data to back up your claim, perhaps we shouldn't go about saying it as Truth.Prim wrote: If you have access to data proving that most racists are liberals, please point me at it and I will go educate myself.
If we cannot say anything based on our own knowledge and experience, or challenge someone else's statement that contradicts our own knowledge and experience, then how can we talk except in hyperlinks? Are we not allowed to interpret the world, or relay anything we've learned except by linking to sources?
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
Oil money is new money, Frelga - 20th century.
There's also manufacturing-based money, like that of the Rockefellers and Carnegies, earned in the late 19th and early 20th ce. Their influence remains pretty visible in American politics.
The Old Money I'm thinking of comes from the 17th century charters granted by the King of England. It's property based and, by now, invisible politically. It's also tied to the religious factions that arrived as groups and founded the country. The tie between religious affiliation and regional property is more transparent in Pennsylvania because the Quakers remain a distinct religious minority and, at the local level at least, they are socially and politically active. Their numbers are not so large in the rest of the country, so we don't usually think of the Quakers as a political force,
nevertheless they are influential at the national level as well in less visible ways.
These are family, religious, and business ties that go back three centuries, and if you think about the value of property on the East Coast of the United States and know how much of it remains in 'original' hands, you get an idea of the force of wealth that can be brought to bear on politics when judicious intervention is deemed necessary. Bill Gates is just one guy. We're talking here about extended family groups and associations involving many people who are ALL among the wealthiest in the county even though none of them individually might be touted in business magazine as THE wealthiest guy in America. That's a totally different dynamic from these guys trying to make a quick buck in the stock market. It's wealth that ... cannot be made to go away, there's so much of it and it has been titled so judiciously.
Jn
eta: Bush, Sr. has his ties, though, I've heard tell. Haven't really investigated his connections myself. George, Jr. is just a mess-up. I don't think he'll be trusted with anything ever again.
There's also manufacturing-based money, like that of the Rockefellers and Carnegies, earned in the late 19th and early 20th ce. Their influence remains pretty visible in American politics.
The Old Money I'm thinking of comes from the 17th century charters granted by the King of England. It's property based and, by now, invisible politically. It's also tied to the religious factions that arrived as groups and founded the country. The tie between religious affiliation and regional property is more transparent in Pennsylvania because the Quakers remain a distinct religious minority and, at the local level at least, they are socially and politically active. Their numbers are not so large in the rest of the country, so we don't usually think of the Quakers as a political force,
nevertheless they are influential at the national level as well in less visible ways. These are family, religious, and business ties that go back three centuries, and if you think about the value of property on the East Coast of the United States and know how much of it remains in 'original' hands, you get an idea of the force of wealth that can be brought to bear on politics when judicious intervention is deemed necessary. Bill Gates is just one guy. We're talking here about extended family groups and associations involving many people who are ALL among the wealthiest in the county even though none of them individually might be touted in business magazine as THE wealthiest guy in America. That's a totally different dynamic from these guys trying to make a quick buck in the stock market. It's wealth that ... cannot be made to go away, there's so much of it and it has been titled so judiciously.
Jn
eta: Bush, Sr. has his ties, though, I've heard tell. Haven't really investigated his connections myself. George, Jr. is just a mess-up. I don't think he'll be trusted with anything ever again.
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
Some things have changed since the time of Jefferson, though. It is no longer so easy to just ignore the rest of the world. No, we don't have to fight stupid wars, but....we can't be isolationist ever again. We have to be involved. And we can't say "that's their problem" and turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in other countries. Well, we can. I mean, we're all just standing around watching Darfur. No one lifted a finger in Rwanda in 1994. But...that isn't a good thing. If we bring all the troops home, I don't think we can sit around congratulating ourselves for a job well done.
As for Bush Jr - he got himself re-elected, which was more than his father could do. (And yes, running with Nader as a third party rather than Perot did make it easier....)
At a guess, the Old Money you're talking about Jny - would that be people like the DuPonts?
As for Bush Jr - he got himself re-elected, which was more than his father could do. (And yes, running with Nader as a third party rather than Perot did make it easier....)
At a guess, the Old Money you're talking about Jny - would that be people like the DuPonts?
An emphasis on the dignity of all people. But then, I guess that does depend which conservative you speak to....nerdanel wrote:Faramond - serious question - what techniques to fight racism, sexism, etc. would you attribute to conservatism, or would you say are espoused by a significant number of conservatives?
I agree. Isolationism is not a viable policy for us since WWI, though it took us until the end of WWII to realize it.Mith wrote: ... we can't be isolationist ever again.
But ... you see, we have military actions going on in more than 100 countries right now. The new terminology for this is "low intensity conflict."
Yet we were not in Rwanda. We are not in Sudan. We had to be dragged kicking and screaming into Bosnia. We fought for 14 years in Vietnam - the longest war ever engaged in US history - but when Cambodia became the Killing Fields, where were we?
What kind of interventionism is this, that employs spies to fabricate cause for war in places like Vietnam and Iraq but ignores genocides? This has nothing to do with the principles of world leadership. It has to do with corruption and greed.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
There is a family in New York named Goedet. (Not sure of the spelling.) They own huge tracts of New York and have since it was New Amsterdam. That's old money.
The Livingstons in Virginia, that's old money. Pre-revolutionary money.
The DuPonts are pretty old, but not that old.
The Bushes are parvenues, compared to that.
Well, the Bushes ARE parvenues, but that's a separate issue!
The Livingstons in Virginia, that's old money. Pre-revolutionary money.
The DuPonts are pretty old, but not that old.
The Bushes are parvenues, compared to that.
Well, the Bushes ARE parvenues, but that's a separate issue!
Dig deeper.
vison, I was wondering myself how far back the DuPont's go and was meaning to check on that. Not as far back as the Revolution, I don't think; I do associate their money with the industrial era. Will google that right now!
Jn
eta: vison and Mith, Pierre DuPont emigrated here with his family in 1800, after his property was confiscated in France. He headed for America because of his friendship with Thomas Jefferson ... DuPont had been Minister of Commerce in France so he had a lot of contact with England and the fledgling US ... so it's probably a safe bet that his friends in America took care of him. The town I now live in was owned in its entirety by the DuPonts, and the last large tract was sold off just a few years ago, after John DuPont was convicted of murder and put in a mental institution. He was the last of the family actually living in the Philly area, I believe. The core is now in Delaware. I'm thinking that this area where I live might have been what was originally ceded to them, because back then it would have been a morning's ride on horseback from Philadelphia, and the original luncheon tavern for those travelling west out of Philly is still preserved here as an historical site. It would not have been prime real estate in those days, halfway from Philadelphia to nowhere, but it is now of course.
I would consider them Old Money in such a case, but not like the guys who founded Philadelphia. Out in the burbs we still price land by the quarter acre. In the city they price it by the square foot. That's appreciation for you.
Jn
Jn
eta: vison and Mith, Pierre DuPont emigrated here with his family in 1800, after his property was confiscated in France. He headed for America because of his friendship with Thomas Jefferson ... DuPont had been Minister of Commerce in France so he had a lot of contact with England and the fledgling US ... so it's probably a safe bet that his friends in America took care of him. The town I now live in was owned in its entirety by the DuPonts, and the last large tract was sold off just a few years ago, after John DuPont was convicted of murder and put in a mental institution. He was the last of the family actually living in the Philly area, I believe. The core is now in Delaware. I'm thinking that this area where I live might have been what was originally ceded to them, because back then it would have been a morning's ride on horseback from Philadelphia, and the original luncheon tavern for those travelling west out of Philly is still preserved here as an historical site. It would not have been prime real estate in those days, halfway from Philadelphia to nowhere, but it is now of course.
I would consider them Old Money in such a case, but not like the guys who founded Philadelphia. Out in the burbs we still price land by the quarter acre. In the city they price it by the square foot. That's appreciation for you.
Jn
A fool's paradise is a wise man's hell.
E. I. DuPont was the one I was thinking of - he started a gunpowder mill in DE in 1802. (Hagley on the Brandywine)
The DuPont Co. made its money on nylon, though, so that is obviously much more recent....but the family owned most of the land in DE, so I figured that was good enough.
They have been in decline (as a family and as a company) for quite some time now. I don't know how much land they still own, but it isn't anything ridiculous. (All their old estates are museums, AFAIK).
The DuPont Co. made its money on nylon, though, so that is obviously much more recent....but the family owned most of the land in DE, so I figured that was good enough
. They have been in decline (as a family and as a company) for quite some time now. I don't know how much land they still own, but it isn't anything ridiculous. (All their old estates are museums, AFAIK).
I think one of the problems here is saying "liberal" or "conservative" as if there is some homogeneity in those particular labels.
People who vote "party line", always, are actually quite of a concern to me. It seems odd that there could be someone who is actually thinking through their own moral and ethical choices and would sort of accidentally come up with the same "package" as one of the major party's platforms.
I think I tend to be fiscally more conservative, and socially more liberal. This can make voting difficult.
A close family member, who is a RABID Democrat, absolutely rah-rah team Democrat, believes strongly that gay marriage is bad. Shockingly(at least to me), she has publicly stated that she will never rent one of the homes that she is a caretaker of to a black person.
She was not raised in the South, btw. She was raised in California.
I would, sadly, label her thoughts as racist, although she would probably disagree. Does that make her a closet Republican conservative? Absolutely not. She'd rip anyone's head off for suggesting such a thing. She's a liberal Democrat, boy howdy, and has sent out several crowing emails lately to everyone about the midterm wins for Democrats. Her team won! Life is good! Go team!
But she still belongs to clubs and organizations where only people like her feel invited or comfortable. White people. Straight people. The right people.
Being a Democrat does not make you immune from racism, unfortunately. It's an issue we all need to face, daily, regardless of whatever labels we hold dear.
People who vote "party line", always, are actually quite of a concern to me. It seems odd that there could be someone who is actually thinking through their own moral and ethical choices and would sort of accidentally come up with the same "package" as one of the major party's platforms.
I think I tend to be fiscally more conservative, and socially more liberal. This can make voting difficult.
A close family member, who is a RABID Democrat, absolutely rah-rah team Democrat, believes strongly that gay marriage is bad. Shockingly(at least to me), she has publicly stated that she will never rent one of the homes that she is a caretaker of to a black person.
She was not raised in the South, btw. She was raised in California.
I would, sadly, label her thoughts as racist, although she would probably disagree. Does that make her a closet Republican conservative? Absolutely not. She'd rip anyone's head off for suggesting such a thing. She's a liberal Democrat, boy howdy, and has sent out several crowing emails lately to everyone about the midterm wins for Democrats. Her team won! Life is good! Go team!
But she still belongs to clubs and organizations where only people like her feel invited or comfortable. White people. Straight people. The right people.
Being a Democrat does not make you immune from racism, unfortunately. It's an issue we all need to face, daily, regardless of whatever labels we hold dear.
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
Xenophobia is an innate human trait. Psychological studies have only confirmed what any student of history could tell you--we are at best distrustful of and at worst hostile towards people who aren't the same as us.
However, it is not an immutable human trait. History also demonstrates (and studies again confirm) that xenophobia is reduced when people are in more frequent nonviolent, nonabusive contact with individuals and groups different from themselves. That's because we are also curious by nature, and capable of empathy. If someone is around you long enough, they stop being so different. Eventually their differences can become practically irrelevant.
In the US, xenophobic reactions have been visible throughout the history of the republic, from relations with the aboriginal inhabitants to nativist movements throughout the 19th century to the legacy of slavery. In this respect we are no different than any other geographically expansive nation. But we did one thing very right: we provided oppurtunities for a lot of the xenophobia to get worn off through positive contact with others. That's the ONLY thing that works on a cultural level. And it works faster in areas with more diversity of national origin, religion, et al...that is, urban areas.
Almost my entire family came from southern and border state rural stock. That strain is deeply xenophobic. My parents, who are otherwise decent folks, have been what I would term passively bigoted all their lives. They would never seek to directly hurt someone who was black, or Jewish, or gay; but neither was it hard to hear the inflection in their voices when they spoke of "those people."
Now, they grew up in a small town, but moved to St. Louis about 1940, where they raised their kids. And some things happened. My first wife was Jewish, for one thing. That meant some topics no longer came up in casual convesation...which was an improvement. Then, a couple of years ago, my widowed sister met, fell for, and married an extremely personable and intelligent man, who happened to be black. That took a little longer to absorb...but they couldn't argue with the results. He's been a superb stepdad, and a breath of fresh air in an increasingly stale family dynamic. Everybody likes him. And another range of topics is no longer discussed...which was again, an improvement...because when you no longer feel comfortable saying something, because you know it will hurt someone you care about, you're engaging in self-imposed cognitive therapy to treate yourself for the underlying problem.
I do find myself wondering what would happen if one of their grandkids or great-grandkids came out. It is perhaps best that they are in their 80s...but maybe I underestimate them. Nevertheless, I'm not going to advertise that I'm on the pagan side of Unitarianism until they're gone. For me it's not worth the possible conflict, and I would like my son's memory of them to be positive.
Anyway, the ponit of this that it is not only possible to be xenophobic and decent, it is the normal state of things. I really believe that. The only question is which you let guide your behavior, and a lot of that is the product of circumstance. In the absence of heterogenous contact, it is much harder for decency to become ascendent..but not impossible. In places where frequent heterogenous contact take place, it's harder for xenophobia to hang on...but not impossible.
This is borne out in the political landscape in the rural/suburban/urban divides, and thus in the way both major parties attempt to take advantage of those divides. I say both because, in different ways, both parties do in fact build strategies around the xenophobia of their constituencies, and an urban ghetto can be just as unaccepting of difference as the whitest of white-bread small towns.
As to my earlier observation that conservatives are not all that concerned about fighting xenophobia (the most inclusive term I can think of, and better than racism, really), I stand by them...with a cavaet. I think liberals are concerned about SAYING they are more concerned, but in practice, it again comes down to personal exposure...and liberals, as a group living predominately in non-rural settings, have more opportunities to put their money where their mouths are, so to speak.
But as I noted with my parents, it's not exclusive to ideology, only circumstance and inherent decency.
However, it is not an immutable human trait. History also demonstrates (and studies again confirm) that xenophobia is reduced when people are in more frequent nonviolent, nonabusive contact with individuals and groups different from themselves. That's because we are also curious by nature, and capable of empathy. If someone is around you long enough, they stop being so different. Eventually their differences can become practically irrelevant.
In the US, xenophobic reactions have been visible throughout the history of the republic, from relations with the aboriginal inhabitants to nativist movements throughout the 19th century to the legacy of slavery. In this respect we are no different than any other geographically expansive nation. But we did one thing very right: we provided oppurtunities for a lot of the xenophobia to get worn off through positive contact with others. That's the ONLY thing that works on a cultural level. And it works faster in areas with more diversity of national origin, religion, et al...that is, urban areas.
Almost my entire family came from southern and border state rural stock. That strain is deeply xenophobic. My parents, who are otherwise decent folks, have been what I would term passively bigoted all their lives. They would never seek to directly hurt someone who was black, or Jewish, or gay; but neither was it hard to hear the inflection in their voices when they spoke of "those people."
Now, they grew up in a small town, but moved to St. Louis about 1940, where they raised their kids. And some things happened. My first wife was Jewish, for one thing. That meant some topics no longer came up in casual convesation...which was an improvement. Then, a couple of years ago, my widowed sister met, fell for, and married an extremely personable and intelligent man, who happened to be black. That took a little longer to absorb...but they couldn't argue with the results. He's been a superb stepdad, and a breath of fresh air in an increasingly stale family dynamic. Everybody likes him. And another range of topics is no longer discussed...which was again, an improvement...because when you no longer feel comfortable saying something, because you know it will hurt someone you care about, you're engaging in self-imposed cognitive therapy to treate yourself for the underlying problem.
I do find myself wondering what would happen if one of their grandkids or great-grandkids came out. It is perhaps best that they are in their 80s...but maybe I underestimate them. Nevertheless, I'm not going to advertise that I'm on the pagan side of Unitarianism until they're gone. For me it's not worth the possible conflict, and I would like my son's memory of them to be positive.
Anyway, the ponit of this that it is not only possible to be xenophobic and decent, it is the normal state of things. I really believe that. The only question is which you let guide your behavior, and a lot of that is the product of circumstance. In the absence of heterogenous contact, it is much harder for decency to become ascendent..but not impossible. In places where frequent heterogenous contact take place, it's harder for xenophobia to hang on...but not impossible.
This is borne out in the political landscape in the rural/suburban/urban divides, and thus in the way both major parties attempt to take advantage of those divides. I say both because, in different ways, both parties do in fact build strategies around the xenophobia of their constituencies, and an urban ghetto can be just as unaccepting of difference as the whitest of white-bread small towns.
As to my earlier observation that conservatives are not all that concerned about fighting xenophobia (the most inclusive term I can think of, and better than racism, really), I stand by them...with a cavaet. I think liberals are concerned about SAYING they are more concerned, but in practice, it again comes down to personal exposure...and liberals, as a group living predominately in non-rural settings, have more opportunities to put their money where their mouths are, so to speak.
But as I noted with my parents, it's not exclusive to ideology, only circumstance and inherent decency.
This would put you closer to libertarians. The "Leave me the hell alone!!!Anthriel wrote:I think I tend to be fiscally more conservative, and socially more liberal. This can make voting difficult.
" philosophy. I wanna love somebody but I don't know how
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
I wanna throw my body in the river and drown
-The Decemberists
Oh, the DuPonts made a fortune in gunpowder, too. They were rich before Nylon. Wars use a lot of gunpowder and various other chemical concoctions.
They married cousins a lot. An Irene DuPont married his cousin Irenee DuPont, which I think is interesting.
And might help to explain John, I guess.
It's an interesting history. All those old families are interesting, as studies in human nature.
They married cousins a lot. An Irene DuPont married his cousin Irenee DuPont, which I think is interesting.
And might help to explain John, I guess.
It's an interesting history. All those old families are interesting, as studies in human nature.
Dig deeper.