I don't understand how your post is intended as a response to mine.

Why do we accept it? Is it because we need it? — frank

People maintain all sorts of delusions. One delusion: I could be rich, too. Another delusion: People get rich by their own efforts; work hard, get rich. Rich people deserve what they have. Yes, Mark, Jeff, and Bill earned every cent!

Do I have a choice about severe inequality? Do you? No. It's deeply, systemically embedded and protected by laws and courts.

Will we, should we, all be equal? Maybe we should be, but there's not much danger of that happening soon.

We could, at least, aim for such modest reforms as trimming the extremes -- reducing the wretchedness of the poor on one end and reducing extravagant wealth on the other end. We could engage in moderate income redistribution through taxation.

I'm not sure we know how to bring about educational performance equalized UP, not down. How well, or poorly, a child performs in school is often rooted in a family's ability and motivation. More, students and families need to see that education pays off. If they can't see a pay-off, what's the point?

Do you think the 4 racial groups will become homogenized? Should they?

Agendas and objectives matter.

Haven't read the thread, just wanted to toss something out that I heard.

The Occupy protests were about class issues. "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out!" was a common refrain. If you look up the frequency of the word "racism" in the news, it was flat for a really long time then started moving up dramatically right around then and it has continued to this day.

The theory being, that the powers that be needed to deflect attention from class issues, so they got everyone worked up about race. You ask the kids on campus what's wrong with society and they sace racism. They never notice the class issues, that the global elite are sucking all of the wealth of the nation and destroying the middle and working classes.

Makes sense to me.

We could, at least, aim for such modest reforms as trimming the extremes -- reducing the wretchedness of the poor on one end and reducing extravagant wealth on the other end. We could engage in moderate income redistribution through taxation. — Bitter Crank

Right now American poor people are being munched up by drugs, disease, and gun violence. There are always more though because they keep coming in from Mexico.

Do you think the 4 racial groups will become homogenized? Should they? — Bitter Crank

There's no more discrimination against the Irish and Italians. Why? I think mostly because they mixed into the pot.

I think one of the purposes of Jim Crow was to keep it from happening with whites and blacks. Now that Jim Crow is gone, it's happening.

Latinos are already mixed with whites and blacks to some extent.

You ask the kids on campus what's wrong with society and they sace racism. They never notice the class issues, that the global elite are sucking all of the wealth of the nation and destroying the middle and working classes. — fishfry

Isn't that the objective here? Class or what was the slogan..."We are the 99%" would be far too unifying.

Wokestan vs Magastan works for the elites very well. Divide et Impera.

The Oregon Broadcasting Station has filled its schedule with shows about how badly all people have been treated, Chinese immigrants, Irish immigrants, Italian immigrants, fleeing Jews, Native Americans, all Asians, as well as people of color. Far too little is said about how badly all poor people have been treated and how bad life was for females who were not part of the privileged class when women had no rights, not even the right to their own clothes and could legally be hit when they displeased their husbands.

However, to the credit of OPB, it has mentioned some former slaves became slave owners. It was like owning a car today. People who could afford it owned a slave, and many of us came from slaves because we came from Europe where feudalism sold people with the property they lived on, and they had no freedom to leave that property. Aristotle said a man should have an ox and wife and a slave, those wives did not have the freedom of women today. Or we could turn to India where girls are married off at 8 years of age, so their parents don't have to feed them, and may even benefit from the marriage. In the US the age for marriage for girls was 14 and the husband was not necessarily the man of her choice and forcing a wife to have sex was not considered a crime.

We need to be fully honest and swallow the fact that humans have not been very nice and we did not have such good lives until after the second world war. No group of humans is better or worse than another. Humans are humans. Our abundance since WWII has given us the best period in human history, but back in the day, no one had indoor plumbing and a supermarket full of food year-round, no matter how wealthy they were. Mental retardation was a result of malnourished children and that reality was not that long ago.

The Occupy protests were about class issues. "Banks got bailed out, we got sold out!" was a common refrain. — fishfry

The Occupy protests may have been initially mistaken by the overly-eager as the revolution. Sadly, not, but it was a good thing. Too bad it didn't endure. One reason it didn't endure is that the powers that be had enough sense (from their POV) not to martyr the children camped on corporate or government plazas. They let them sit there till they got tired of it.

You are absolutely correct about race, racism, and racists being hyped as a distraction. Towards the end of the 20th century, It took a certain amount of bending over backwards to identify fresh, active racism as the #1 problem. There was, and is, active racism, still. But much of what is identified as current racism is actually the long-economic-tail of racially discriminatory policies executed in the 1930s.

In the Talking Union labor song, Pete Seeger in 1941 sings:
"If you don't let race hatred break you up,
You'll win. What I mean, take it easy, but take it!

The ruling class has always recognized working class solidarity as a danger, and has consistently moved to break it up, quite often by breaking heads. Racial conflict has been an excellent tool.

There's no more discrimination against the Irish and Italians. Why? I think mostly because they mixed into the pot.

I think one of the purposes of Jim Crow was to keep it from happening with whites and blacks. Now that Jim Crow is gone, it's happening.

Latinos are already mixed with whites and blacks to some extent. — frank

According to Pew Research, slightly less than 7% of children have racial mixed parents. I assume that figure does not include the children of Irish/Italians (shudder). Advertising agencies like to people product ads with mixed-rave couples and their children. Maybe this is just a cheaper way to advertise to white and black audiences at the same time.

My experience of Occupy is it got taken over by the homeless and the message of Occupy was lost. It was too many young people who were clueless and not enough mature and experienced people. At least the meetings I attended spun out of control and accomplished nothing. Everyone wanted to be a leader and no one wanted to follow nor were they fighting the homeowners' fight with the banks and politics.

We need to be fully honest and swallow the fact that humans have not been very nice and we did not have such good lives until after the second world war — Athena

Lives were much better after WWII for those who happened to survive it. But it is extremely true: Humans are just not very nice. Seriously. It always seems to surprise us when fresh evidence of our deep-down-awfulness is revealed.

It's safe to say the if Occupy had been really effective, the powers that be would not have stayed the hands of the police. It was very much amateur hour at the OK Corral.

I don't know what precisely should be done, anymore. — Bitter Crank

Exactly. Nobody else does either. This is why you allow people to do what is in their interests. Revoke all corporate charters, cut the government back by 90% and allow freedom to do its thing!

According to Pew Research, slightly less than 7% of children have racial mixed parents. I assume that figure does not include the children of Irish/Italians. Advertising agencies like to people product ads with mixed-rave couples and their children. Maybe this is just a cheaper way to advertise to white and black audiences at the same time. — Bitter Crank

I would say those mixed racial commercials are just jumping on the bandwagon. It is the politically correct thing to do, unless a person is a racist bigot. I am waiting for the couple to be gay.

They've been mixing for a long time. The average African American is around 75% African. Here.

African genes for appearance are dominant. If that wasn't true, the distinction between the two groups would have disappeared a long time ago.

If it's not race or religion or income, people will find something else to fight over. Those are the most popular however, mind, soul, and body, respectively. It's a primal urge to find peace in war and fleeting security in perpetual conflict.

See everybody thinks they're right and has the best philosophy per se, and anyone who doesn't agree with their view is at best confused or at worse deficient, anyone who adamantly opposes their view is at best wrong or at worse a living cancer and plague on humanity that if not neutralized will spell doom for the human race. Lol. Once you realize that, you're able to debate with anyone and things begin to start making a whole lot more sense.

Race war? Since Columbus' 1492 "conquest" of the "Americas". Since 1619 through to the establishment of colonial Slave Patrols in 1701. Since 19th century pseudo-scientific "eugenics" & "social darwinism". Since King Leopold's genocide in central Africa, US Jim Crow and SA Apartheid. Since August 6th & 9th, 1945 and the following thirty year French-US colonial aggression throughout Indochina. Since Nixon's "law & order" "southern strategy" culminating in a 50 year "war on drugs" against urban working classes and the poor. Since ... when in the last half millennium have Whites not waged race war against Non-Whites at home & abroad?

And now with a looming "demographic crisis of 2040s" wherein Whites in America are projected to be a majority-minority for the first time since the colonial era (Francoist arch-rightwingnut Pat Buchanan had sounded the alarm during his first presidential run in 1992), decades of "cold race war" is now apparently on the verge of going HOT! Instead of working to make the US as equitable and socially just for individuals & families who belong to minority communities as possible (which, btw, will include themselves soon), some Whites fuel hatred with fears of being overrun – out-bred, out-migrated, out-(illegally?!) voted, out-protected by civil rights & out-politically corrected – by black brown yellow red & "miscegenated" urban and migrant hordes, locking-n-loading up via the ballot & the bullet to "build a wall" "send them back to their shithole countries" "take our country back" "stop the steal" & Make America White Again ... in order to avoid what terrifies them most: "they will not replace us" by melting us [Whites] down into the gumbo pot of a Republic of Minorities governed by the will of multi-color/ethnic people (i.e. majority rule of coalitions of minority communities).

IIRC, in 1980 Ronald Reagan gave his "States Rights Speech" (i.e. code for pro-segregation) in Philadelphia, MS ('home of the KKK' and site of the 1964 murders of Schwerner, Goodman & Chaney) during the GOP primaries, which he then followed up in his first Inaugural Address with a statement which has, more than any other, framed the last four decades of US political partisanship:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem, government IS the problem.

 
And what's "our problem, the problem"? Government is less and less for and by Whites Only and more and more (though only in painfully tiny, often only symbolic, increments) Also for and by Non-Whites. Because the "present crisis" – 40+ years hence – is the approaching "demographic crisis" of the majority-minority status of White Americans. The throughline from Reagan (GOP) to Tr45h (MAGA/QAnon) is unmistakable.


(brb gotta reload ...)

It's safe to say the if Occupy had been really effective, the powers that be would not have stayed the hands of the police. It was very much amateur hour at the OK Corral. — Bitter Crank

That is a nice way to put it. I got on board before it all fell about, and rode through to end following someone being killed in our camp. As I have learned more about the 1% taking advantage of the housing crisis, and what has happened to property values since then, I strongly regret what happened to Occupy. Which is a story that really could add to this thread.

If we don't end the race wars we will all loose. Ignorance and stupidity are our worst enemies. Most of us were fighting too hard to just survive to tackle the social problems we think are important today. WWII was a big game changer. And throwing stones at people as though we always had the abundance we have today might be a reflection of a lack of information?

Lives were much better after WWII for those who happened to survive it. But it is extremely true: Humans are just not very nice. Seriously. It always seems to surprise us when fresh evidence of our deep-down-awfulness is revealed. — Bitter Crank

:lol: That is not exactly how I would word things. I do not think of myself as a bad person, and doubt that many people think of themselves as bad people. Most of us are too busy with our own lives to know much about anyone else's. We are not exploiting people or taking advantage of them. We are just hanging in there doing the best we can to keep our heads above water.

I am not saying that wrongs were not done, but we are not the ones who did them, and in many cases we had no idea that injustice was happening, and if we did know of injustices, how many of us knew what to do to correct them? Do we vote on banking policy and industrial decisions? We might have more power, but we have done almost nothing to change the fact that we don't. Can we fall back on the example of Occupy? If there ever was a time of terrible injustice, the housing crisis and Occupy was one of those times, and Occupy was a huge failure. White folk could do nothing to say their own asses, so how many stones should throw at them for failing to resolve other social problems? Who knows how to make a real change? It is easy to blame others and to hate them, but it is not so easy to resolve problems.

The theory being, that the powers that be needed to deflect attention from class issues, so they got everyone worked up about race. You ask the kids on campus what's wrong with society and they sace racism. They never notice the class issues, that the global elite are sucking all of the wealth of the nation and destroying the middle and working classes. — fishfry

Until we replace autocratic industry with democratic industry, I don't think any of us will have much meaningful power. When we gain power by being united by industry, perhaps then we can take on banking and politics.

I do not think of myself as a bad person, and doubt that many people think of themselves as bad people. — Athena

Individually, people are usually quite nice. We can be, sometimes, quite nice in large groups, too. Think of a church picnic. But it is when we get into large groups and are not nice, like the Republic Party or Nazi Party, that we become really awful.

Until we replace autocratic industry with democratic industry ... — Athena

A dictatorship of the proletariat? Am I reading you right?

I get what you're saying.

Individually, people are usually quite nice. We can be, sometimes, quite nice in large groups, too. Think of a church picnic. But it is when we get into large groups and are not nice, like the Republic Party or Nazi Party, that we become really awful. — Bitter Crank

That is interesting and it makes culture very important. Jefferson devoted himself to public education because he saw it as the way to make our republic in the US united and strong. That was the focus of our education until 1958. The National Defense Education Act ended the transmission of that culture and liberal education from the first grade on that lead to good moral judgment and left moral training to the church. A big mistake. Now we are not united and don't know morals have to do with liberty.

Things were not perfect back then, especially when it comes to racism. We should have stayed on task after the civil war to prevent the racist problem that is also a cultural problem. I think we still have important changes to make. No child should grow up in a neighborhood where people are killed on a regular basis and schools in those neighborhoods need to as well funded as all schools. This means doing something about poverty. People didn't move into cities for a welfare check. They moved to the city for industrial jobs and a better standard of living. The industry left and poverty is an economic problem that needs to be resolved. When we feel safe I think we behave better.

A dictatorship of the proletariat? Am I reading you right? — fishfry

I am not sure but I think a dictatorship is rule by one person? At best, it might be a rule by one party. A democracy is rule by reason, and everyone has a part in the reasoning. Totally different from a dictatorship.

Nobody felt threatened by the marchers. — frank

No one is threatened by marchers, per say, but there are others that misconstrue what the marchers are marching for in order to make people that aren't threatened by marchers, threatened by them. Not to the mention the criminals that join the march as cover for doing illegal things like destroying property and looting.

It is very difficult to start a grassroots movement without having it hijacked and miscontrued by the elitists in power. After all, there can only be Democrat and Republican movements. Any other movement is "adopted" by one of the two parties, which is then demonized by the party that didn't "adopt" it, or procrastinated by the party that did "adopt" it to hold it over the heads of their constituents as an issue that is never resolved to keep them voting for that party.

Trump played to white supremacists. He played to QAnon. When the president is egging on armed wackos, it's a little more than that Democrats are demonizing somebody.

C'mon, you're so sane in some areas, be sane about that.

Trump played to white supremacists. He played to QAnon. When the president is egging on armed wackos, it's a little more than that Democrats are demonizing somebody. — frank

In what way? What specifically did he say to egg on armed wackos? How is that any different than the Dems egging on the looters during the Floyd protests?

Democrats egged on looters?

Trump egged on armed wackos?