There has always been economic, social, and political differences between whites and blacks in this country that still exists to this day. Have we made lots of progress, yes. Does government stand in the way of further progress sometimes, yes. But there is more to race inequality than lazy blacks and race is a lot more than a phony, made up category that people choose to view the world. "Human communities really don't define themselves...according to physical characteristics." History, sociology, and psychology prove that people can and sometimes do define themselves and their communities by race.
Barack Obama is a biracial man whose father was an immigrant from Kenya. President Obama was educated in Ivy League schools and was elected as the first black president of the United States. Am I a fan of healthcare reform or the bailouts, no I am not. But I recognize that Obama's story is not possible in most other countries and wasn't possible in this country until recently. His presidency is a sign of the progress we have made and is something to be proud of. You don't need to vote for him to recognize that.
What does it mean to be a slave? Getting your fingers cut off for learning how to read. Being bought and sold, or having your children or parents bought and sold, thus separating you forever. It means while being transported to the United States from Africa, being thrown overboard while shackled for being insubordinate. What does it mean to live under Jim Crow? Getting Lynched for looking at a white girl or trying to vote. I am no fan of liberalism, but there is a big difference between living in a social democracy and living in slavery or Jim Crow. Its a shame that Alan Keyes is so blinded by ideology that he would equate the two. Does the left mischaracterize the Tea Party movement for a few crazy people. Yes, and it is shameful when they do. But I would hardly call that the worst kind of racism. Racism can and has been a lot worse.
One can still be a libertarian while recognizing problems with race in this country. If you choose to follow Alan Keyes on matters of race, you really are doing a disservice to the libertarian movement.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on August 14, 2010.
I was raised by my parents to never take a person skin color as a feature that truly defines who one is. Yet over and over again I hear race this and race that, all I'm trying to promote is universal natural rights, without special privledges. Basically you have to ask yourself, does anybody deserve something more than others simply because of the color of their skin? If you can answer that with a yes then you are promoting the idea that based solely on skin color individuals are unable to take care of themselves and must have resources taken from others and allocated to them because they are inherently inferior. I would suggest reading Zora Neale Hurstons letter to the editor about Brown v. Board.
While it is true that recognizing racial tension doesn't make anyone less libertarian. It is inherently unlibertarian to think that the state can truly end racial divisions. While Obama might not have been able to win 30 years ago, I hardly see that as the governments doing. No amount of "Black History Months" or "Martin Luther King Jr. Day's" can ever end true racism. If anything it was the work and writings or people like King, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X and the people of CORE and SNCC that actually did things outside of the system and typically against the state that truly has changed society, which allowed Barack Obama to be our president. Alan Keyes ran for president in 96, could you honestly claim it was racism that prevented him from being president? Ralph Nader first ran in 72 and has run consistently since 1990, yet his race hasn't help him back. The people are always out in front of the politicians, a cursory glance at the history of public opinon shows this consistently. Personally, I feel, you could have run a bear on a tricycle on the Democrat ticket and it still would have won, it was and election against Bush, not for Obama.
The point I really like that Keyes brings up is this idea that there is some inherent, "black community" where everyone must look the same, talk the same, and act the same is racist on its face. As Keyes said, how racist is it that he should be expected to vote for someone, not because of his policies but simply because they share skin color. I guess all women then should have voted for hillary. To me this is more racist/sexist/homophobic than most claims of racism in the past 15-20 years. Could you imagine if someone asked Wolf Blizter, "Your voting for John McCain right, he's promises to help the white community?" What I get from this Keyes speech is we need to get past this bickering and start focusing on the loss of all our liberties, instead of blaming "whites" for the elites actions. As Chief Justice Roberts stated: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race"
Finally, as to your point about comparing social democracy to slavery, you have to first ask yourself what is slavery? To me slavery is when someone or some group has complete control over all your property including your body and its labor. In a social democracy, your rights are subject to the vote of a majority. I could be put to work in a gulag or sent to some labor camp should the people vote it. While I might live my entire life in this system without any such event happening, the principle that I do not own my own body and cannot do with it what I want is still very apparent. Collectivism in any form is in itself a form of slavery because it seeks to raise the group over the individual which strips the individual of all rights where the individual can be sacrificed for the "common good." Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner, Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.
I am not saying that the government is capable of solving all problems of race in this country. I am saying that there is a difference between calling for a government solution to a problem and denying the problem completely. Alan Keyes could say that there is a problem with race that can't be solved via government, a sentiment I would agree with. Instead he tries to pretend that race issues are made up by liberals and that people could stop looking through the lens of race simply by turning it off in their heads like a light switch. Again, psychology, sociology, and history show us that there is more to how we view race than meets the eye and that a lot of how we feel about race is subconscious.
Also, I agree that social democracy is a bad thing. I don't want my rights put up to a vote. I don't want to pay high taxes for government services when the free market could provide that instead. But there is t0o big a difference between American slavery and Sweden. If you don't like living in Sweden, you can move. If you don't like being a slave, thats too bad. Also, while in theory social democracies can become violent and start sending their citizens to gulags, we have to admit that nothing on that scale has happened in a social democracy and doesn't seem likely in the future. The amount of violence and human suffering that occurred during slavery is something unique and rare in today's world. When is the last time we heard of a social democracy throwing people into the ocean while shackled or cutting people's fingers off for learning how to read? One can draw similarities between the two, as you have. But to equate the two is offensive.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on August 15, 2010.
Then I guess I do not understand what true racial problems are. Last I knew an individual is an individual and capable of making decisions themselves. We don't go arresting the parents of a guy who just held up a convienence store and blame them for his actions. I just don't see what problems could occur by looking at the world with colorblind eyes, nor what solutions to racism that don't involve special government treatment are possible when we promote the idea that we are different and can never be the same (or at least similar enough to get past race).
As to your point on slavery, again though you are pointing to conditions that were not unique to America nor to just whites. Arabs, Africans, etc. all held slaves and in just as bad if not worse than any condition here in America.
While I don't see Sweden (which is actually a constitutional monarchy) decapitating people for reading, we have seen times in recent history of one group, through democratic means using the government to strip the rights of another and use them for chattel labor. Even our own army has a program designed for "civilian inmate labor", as the list of what is illegal continues to grow the realm of possiblity draws closer. To say it will not ever happen again is foolhardy and short sighted.
Studies have shown that black men with the similar qualifications as white men are less likely to get a job both apply for. When a white female disappears (Laci Peterson, Elizabeth Smart), their stories captivate the country. We never hear nationally about missing black girls. There is also a tendency for lighter skinned blacks to become more successful than darker skinned blacks. Although whites and blacks use drugs at the same rate, blacks are more likely to be jailed for it. I am not saying that problem occur when we look through the world with colorblind eyes. I am saying that colorblind eyes don't exist, or are at least very rare. There is a substantial body of evidence that suggest that people subconsciously harbor racial prejudice and that affects their decisions. That is the problem. That problem doesn't go away by pretending that we are colorblind or could be colorblind simply by wanting to be, as Alan Keyes would advocate. That problem goes away by understanding that progress has been made but honest discussions on race are still necessary to continue to progress.
Also, the difference between American slavery and slavery internationally was that American slavery was based on race. Whereas Arabs enslaved other Arabs, and Africans enslaved other Africans, in America only whites held only black slaves.
And I did not say that violence on the scale of American slavery would never happen in a social democratic state. I said that it hasn't happened and doesn't seem likely in the future. Thats why its inaccurate to equate it to American slavery.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on August 16, 2010.
The racial elements of American slavery were and afterthought to the institution. While it was common for whites become indentured servants, as the market became more industrialized, indentured servitude became too expensive. They demanded more, were able to fight better, and could more easily run away and blend into regular society. The market chose the african slave trade because costs were down, and the slave was easier to control, the racial justifications came afterwords. I'm sure if the chinese were able to ship their slaves here at a cheaper price than arab slave hunters, whites would have used them rather than africans.
While I cannot deny that subconcious racial views exist, what can actually be done to solve these problems and why do they exist? Is there existence do to reinforced stereotypes, promotion of false idols, and a demonization of opposite races by teachers, parents, and media figures? Or is it simply the reminence our evolving brain's adherence to tribalism? It is a chicken and egg paradox.
Outside of our modern world, in the primitive areas of south america and africa, missionaries are usually stunned because the idea of race has not manifested. Sociologically race is simply a human made category. You don't see grey hounds beating chihuahua's to make them get their food. It, like many classification schemes, is exploited for control and domination of many for the benifit of the few, outside of the natural tendencies.
Like any human made category it may have been preached for years, but we can change what it is and even destroy the fallicy of it. We can either be bogged down in the ideas of the past and argue for "social justice"(special treatment) or we can all grow up, be humans, and not let ourselves be exploited by those who seek to keep us divided for personal gain.
Indentured servitude was a voluntary experience most of the time. Slavery was never voluntary. The conditions for indentured servants were bad, but not as bad as slaves. And whatever the justification was to get black servants as opposed to whites and treat them like property, the fact of the matter is that those racial justifications for slavery became common knowledge, white felt superior to blacks (at least in the South), and on a large scale blacks we treated inhumanely. The effects of slavery are widespread and on some levels still felt.
I agree that race is a human made category. Our culture and society, and our sociological condition, is different then that of someone in "primitive" africa. I'm not talking about people in "primitive" africa, I am talking about the Unites States.
"We can either be bogged down in the ideas of the past and argue for "social justice"(special treatment) or we can all grow up, be humans, and not let ourselves be exploited by those who seek to keep us divided for personal gain." Thats a false dichotomy. We could acknowledge what is may be subconsciously there and have an honest discussion about it. People don't actively perpetuate racial stereotypes. They often believe themselves to be past race when the actually are not. That process doesn't have to involve anything other than an honest discussion.
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on August 16, 2010.
The truth is a powerful tool in the fight for freedom.
There has always been economic, social, and political differences between whites and blacks in this country that still exists to this day. Have we made lots of progress, yes. Does government stand in the way of further progress sometimes, yes. But there is more to race inequality than lazy blacks and race is a lot more than a phony, made up category that people choose to view the world. "Human communities really don't define themselves...according to physical characteristics." History, sociology, and psychology prove that people can and sometimes do define themselves and their communities by race.
Barack Obama is a biracial man whose father was an immigrant from Kenya. President Obama was educated in Ivy League schools and was elected as the first black president of the United States. Am I a fan of healthcare reform or the bailouts, no I am not. But I recognize that Obama's story is not possible in most other countries and wasn't possible in this country until recently. His presidency is a sign of the progress we have made and is something to be proud of. You don't need to vote for him to recognize that.
What does it mean to be a slave? Getting your fingers cut off for learning how to read. Being bought and sold, or having your children or parents bought and sold, thus separating you forever. It means while being transported to the United States from Africa, being thrown overboard while shackled for being insubordinate. What does it mean to live under Jim Crow? Getting Lynched for looking at a white girl or trying to vote. I am no fan of liberalism, but there is a big difference between living in a social democracy and living in slavery or Jim Crow. Its a shame that Alan Keyes is so blinded by ideology that he would equate the two. Does the left mischaracterize the Tea Party movement for a few crazy people. Yes, and it is shameful when they do. But I would hardly call that the worst kind of racism. Racism can and has been a lot worse.
One can still be a libertarian while recognizing problems with race in this country. If you choose to follow Alan Keyes on matters of race, you really are doing a disservice to the libertarian movement.
I was raised by my parents to never take a person skin color as a feature that truly defines who one is. Yet over and over again I hear race this and race that, all I'm trying to promote is universal natural rights, without special privledges. Basically you have to ask yourself, does anybody deserve something more than others simply because of the color of their skin? If you can answer that with a yes then you are promoting the idea that based solely on skin color individuals are unable to take care of themselves and must have resources taken from others and allocated to them because they are inherently inferior. I would suggest reading Zora Neale Hurstons letter to the editor about Brown v. Board.
While it is true that recognizing racial tension doesn't make anyone less libertarian. It is inherently unlibertarian to think that the state can truly end racial divisions. While Obama might not have been able to win 30 years ago, I hardly see that as the governments doing. No amount of "Black History Months" or "Martin Luther King Jr. Day's" can ever end true racism. If anything it was the work and writings or people like King, Rosa Parks, Malcolm X and the people of CORE and SNCC that actually did things outside of the system and typically against the state that truly has changed society, which allowed Barack Obama to be our president. Alan Keyes ran for president in 96, could you honestly claim it was racism that prevented him from being president? Ralph Nader first ran in 72 and has run consistently since 1990, yet his race hasn't help him back. The people are always out in front of the politicians, a cursory glance at the history of public opinon shows this consistently. Personally, I feel, you could have run a bear on a tricycle on the Democrat ticket and it still would have won, it was and election against Bush, not for Obama.
The point I really like that Keyes brings up is this idea that there is some inherent, "black community" where everyone must look the same, talk the same, and act the same is racist on its face. As Keyes said, how racist is it that he should be expected to vote for someone, not because of his policies but simply because they share skin color. I guess all women then should have voted for hillary. To me this is more racist/sexist/homophobic than most claims of racism in the past 15-20 years. Could you imagine if someone asked Wolf Blizter, "Your voting for John McCain right, he's promises to help the white community?" What I get from this Keyes speech is we need to get past this bickering and start focusing on the loss of all our liberties, instead of blaming "whites" for the elites actions. As Chief Justice Roberts stated: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race"
Finally, as to your point about comparing social democracy to slavery, you have to first ask yourself what is slavery? To me slavery is when someone or some group has complete control over all your property including your body and its labor. In a social democracy, your rights are subject to the vote of a majority. I could be put to work in a gulag or sent to some labor camp should the people vote it. While I might live my entire life in this system without any such event happening, the principle that I do not own my own body and cannot do with it what I want is still very apparent. Collectivism in any form is in itself a form of slavery because it seeks to raise the group over the individual which strips the individual of all rights where the individual can be sacrificed for the "common good." Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner, Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.
I am not saying that the government is capable of solving all problems of race in this country. I am saying that there is a difference between calling for a government solution to a problem and denying the problem completely. Alan Keyes could say that there is a problem with race that can't be solved via government, a sentiment I would agree with. Instead he tries to pretend that race issues are made up by liberals and that people could stop looking through the lens of race simply by turning it off in their heads like a light switch. Again, psychology, sociology, and history show us that there is more to how we view race than meets the eye and that a lot of how we feel about race is subconscious.
Also, I agree that social democracy is a bad thing. I don't want my rights put up to a vote. I don't want to pay high taxes for government services when the free market could provide that instead. But there is t0o big a difference between American slavery and Sweden. If you don't like living in Sweden, you can move. If you don't like being a slave, thats too bad. Also, while in theory social democracies can become violent and start sending their citizens to gulags, we have to admit that nothing on that scale has happened in a social democracy and doesn't seem likely in the future. The amount of violence and human suffering that occurred during slavery is something unique and rare in today's world. When is the last time we heard of a social democracy throwing people into the ocean while shackled or cutting people's fingers off for learning how to read? One can draw similarities between the two, as you have. But to equate the two is offensive.
Then I guess I do not understand what true racial problems are. Last I knew an individual is an individual and capable of making decisions themselves. We don't go arresting the parents of a guy who just held up a convienence store and blame them for his actions. I just don't see what problems could occur by looking at the world with colorblind eyes, nor what solutions to racism that don't involve special government treatment are possible when we promote the idea that we are different and can never be the same (or at least similar enough to get past race).
As to your point on slavery, again though you are pointing to conditions that were not unique to America nor to just whites. Arabs, Africans, etc. all held slaves and in just as bad if not worse than any condition here in America.
These circumstances still have not ceased to exist today. Over and over agian we see, in first world nations, slave labor, either through physical work or prositution, is just as gritty today as it has ever been. Official numbers have slavery today actually higher per capita globally than was ever sold in the golden triangle. And like the slave trade of long ago, most are kidnapped youths, who are controlled by violence and drug use. The difference is that state doesn't not officially protect the slave owner anymore.
While I don't see Sweden (which is actually a constitutional monarchy) decapitating people for reading, we have seen times in recent history of one group, through democratic means using the government to strip the rights of another and use them for chattel labor. Even our own army has a program designed for "civilian inmate labor", as the list of what is illegal continues to grow the realm of possiblity draws closer. To say it will not ever happen again is foolhardy and short sighted.
Studies have shown that black men with the similar qualifications as white men are less likely to get a job both apply for. When a white female disappears (Laci Peterson, Elizabeth Smart), their stories captivate the country. We never hear nationally about missing black girls. There is also a tendency for lighter skinned blacks to become more successful than darker skinned blacks. Although whites and blacks use drugs at the same rate, blacks are more likely to be jailed for it. I am not saying that problem occur when we look through the world with colorblind eyes. I am saying that colorblind eyes don't exist, or are at least very rare. There is a substantial body of evidence that suggest that people subconsciously harbor racial prejudice and that affects their decisions. That is the problem. That problem doesn't go away by pretending that we are colorblind or could be colorblind simply by wanting to be, as Alan Keyes would advocate. That problem goes away by understanding that progress has been made but honest discussions on race are still necessary to continue to progress.
Also, the difference between American slavery and slavery internationally was that American slavery was based on race. Whereas Arabs enslaved other Arabs, and Africans enslaved other Africans, in America only whites held only black slaves.
And I did not say that violence on the scale of American slavery would never happen in a social democratic state. I said that it hasn't happened and doesn't seem likely in the future. Thats why its inaccurate to equate it to American slavery.
The racial elements of American slavery were and afterthought to the institution. While it was common for whites become indentured servants, as the market became more industrialized, indentured servitude became too expensive. They demanded more, were able to fight better, and could more easily run away and blend into regular society. The market chose the african slave trade because costs were down, and the slave was easier to control, the racial justifications came afterwords. I'm sure if the chinese were able to ship their slaves here at a cheaper price than arab slave hunters, whites would have used them rather than africans.
While I cannot deny that subconcious racial views exist, what can actually be done to solve these problems and why do they exist? Is there existence do to reinforced stereotypes, promotion of false idols, and a demonization of opposite races by teachers, parents, and media figures? Or is it simply the reminence our evolving brain's adherence to tribalism? It is a chicken and egg paradox.
Outside of our modern world, in the primitive areas of south america and africa, missionaries are usually stunned because the idea of race has not manifested. Sociologically race is simply a human made category. You don't see grey hounds beating chihuahua's to make them get their food. It, like many classification schemes, is exploited for control and domination of many for the benifit of the few, outside of the natural tendencies.
Like any human made category it may have been preached for years, but we can change what it is and even destroy the fallicy of it. We can either be bogged down in the ideas of the past and argue for "social justice"(special treatment) or we can all grow up, be humans, and not let ourselves be exploited by those who seek to keep us divided for personal gain.
Indentured servitude was a voluntary experience most of the time. Slavery was never voluntary. The conditions for indentured servants were bad, but not as bad as slaves. And whatever the justification was to get black servants as opposed to whites and treat them like property, the fact of the matter is that those racial justifications for slavery became common knowledge, white felt superior to blacks (at least in the South), and on a large scale blacks we treated inhumanely. The effects of slavery are widespread and on some levels still felt.
I agree that race is a human made category. Our culture and society, and our sociological condition, is different then that of someone in "primitive" africa. I'm not talking about people in "primitive" africa, I am talking about the Unites States.
"We can either be bogged down in the ideas of the past and argue for "social justice"(special treatment) or we can all grow up, be humans, and not let ourselves be exploited by those who seek to keep us divided for personal gain." Thats a false dichotomy. We could acknowledge what is may be subconsciously there and have an honest discussion about it. People don't actively perpetuate racial stereotypes. They often believe themselves to be past race when the actually are not. That process doesn't have to involve anything other than an honest discussion.
Good call, Shaun.
Well said Mr Bowen.
He would be a great advocate for Liberty.
Post new comment