Should "patriotism" look the same to blacks as it does to whites?

[Antiaris Toxicaria]

Many white Americans have been in this country an even shorter period than African Americans. I believe that they have a different perspective as well, having not participated in slavery.

 

[Socrtease]

Many white Americans have been in this country an even shorter period than African Americans. I believe that they have a different perspective as well, having not participated in slavery.

This is true. And in this shorter period of time the "new white people" got to vote on a wholesale level much faster than blacks did. They got to go to colleges and public schools before Blacks. They got to hold good paying jobs and marry who they wanted BEFORE blacks. Long and short they were white and it was easier, in the long term, to become American that it was for generations of black who were born here. The Irish in Boston weren't forbidden from going to school with the WASP's, the Italians were not made to ride at the back of the bus or subway while the WASP's rode up front. Not participating in slavery is only a part of it. They still became AMERICAN before blacks regardless of the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments.

 

[blackascoal]

This is true. And in this shorter period of time the "new white people" got to vote on a wholesale level much faster than blacks did. They got to go to colleges and public schools before Blacks. They got to hold good paying jobs and marry who they wanted BEFORE blacks. Long and short they were white and it was easier, in the long term, to become American that it was for generations of black who were born here. The Irish in Boston weren't forbidden from going to school with the WASP's, the Italians were not made to ride at the back of the bus or subway while the WASP's rode up front. Not participating in slavery is only a part of it. They still became AMERICAN before blacks regardless of the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments.

Well said.

 

[Timshel]

Well, I agree that is an individual thing. But I can also see how it might be quite different for most blacks.

For me patriotism is about commitment to founding principles. Certainly not pro war. And I believe those founding principles eventually led to equality for blacks and women as well. But I can see how it might not be easy to accept respect for men who tolerated and sometimes even promoted slavery to form a nation. It's a bitter pill for me as a white guy.

 

[Good Luck]

I disagree.

History not only chronicles the events of the past, but shapes the course of the future. What is "current" did not start yesterday, a year ago, nor 10 years ago.

The so-called "war on drugs" is racist in its intent and outcomes and the disparities of the criminal justice system are proven, documented, and apparent. That injustice has always been apparent to blacks who have been the victims of this system, but less apparent to whites who did not have the critical eye borne of hundreds of years of like discrimination.

Today, America has become the biggest prison nation the world has ever known and the injustice of the American prison/crime syndicate is glaringly apparent to all fair-minded people.

"Patriotism" is based on how one views not only the current state of America, but also its history. If America was to be judged on its current state of affairs it would be seen as an evil nation of mass-murderers who attack small nations for profit.

Whether you believe blacks have a right to a more critical view of America or not, doesn't change the fact that we do, nor that we should.

The good news is that we are an evolving nation .. almost forced into this evolution by the horrors of George Bush and the right-wing. Now, many Americans of all races have come to the same critical view of our society and politics that blacks have.

Introspective and a crtitical view of our society .. that is what makes us better and that is the good news.

If history shaped the course of the future we'd still be practicing slavery. The fact that we have been able to make changes shows that history is not an insurmountable influence.

But history retains its influence on the future more when groups of people are unable to let go of past wrongs, and project those past wrongs onto current events.

The idea that the so-called war on drugs is racist by intent is absolutely ludicrous. There is no great white conspiracy deliberately hooking blacks (or other minorities) on drugs. Drug use and trafficking is the choice of the individual. I do not agree with the majority of drug laws, but simultaneously understand that when one chooses to break the law they are simultaneously choosing to risk the legal and social consequences of breaking the law.

I remember as a youngster being told all about how drug use was associated with the black culture. As a young teen I seriously doubted that stereotype and I still disbelieve it today. Unless you want to claim that the drug culture of the 50s and early 60s was, indeed, a "black thing", then there is no way you can claim that the ridiculous move to squelch drug use was aimed at blacks.

I have never understood the drug scene on a gut level, but per capita drug use is a socio-economic phenomena, not limited to race. I never understood how drug use is more prevalent among the poor either. I grew up poorer than most and the last thing I wanted was to diminish my chances of making something of myself by soaking my brain in strange chemicals.

There is, indeed, and inequality in our criminal justice system, but it, too, is socio-economic as opposed to racial. The days where a black accused of a crime was as good as convicted the moment an arrest was made are gone, in the past. Today, it does not matter the color of the skin. But if you are poor and dependent on overworked public defenders, plan on copping to a plea bargain whether you are guilty or not. Holding to one's innocence only works if you have the personal capital to fight the charge with big name lawyers demanding big fees. (And if your defense budget is big enough, you can hold on to innocence even when guilty.)

That goes double when involved in civil cases.

As to blacks holding a more critical view, how do you make that claim when over the past few years you could turn on the news and see masses of people of all races protesting anything from the war in Iraq to the price of gasoline? Are you claiming that the demographics of an average protest crowd would show a higher per-capita involvement of blacks over whites in the area? (I'll bet you it does not.) If you call up news photos of protests around the country there are lots of white faces in those crowds. Usually people involved in a protests are there because they are critical of government.

Sorry, but I simply do not hold to the "poor victims" view of modern blacks in America. There are still racists out there, without a doubt. I know more than one personally. But by your own statement, we are no longer a racist nation, but rather a nation with racists. And from what I see, a great deal of that racism which still exists comes from minority groups as much if not more than from the whites. (In large part due to holding a grudge for past wrongs that I keep mentioning.)

And if you think my POV is coming from a sheltered white life, guess again. My mother was half black, half Lakota. My father was half Irish, a quarter German and a quarter Lakota. Try that combo on for size growing in the 50s and 60s. Thank God for the U.S Marine Corps.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I say no it does not nor should anyone expect that it should.

Like most African-Americans I love my country, but I maintain a more critical perspective of America and its history than most whites. I think this is a critical component in the discussion of race in America.

I believe that all discussions of race in America should begin with the factual knowledge that African-Americans have been in this country since 1619, almost 400 years, yet have been only relatively free for a mere 42 years.

I believe that most white Americans clearly understand why the chasms in what is "patriotic" exists and it explains why the concocted "controversy" about Rev. Wright and the teachings of black liberation theology have not led to the end of Obama's bid for the presidency.

Martin Luther King would have been, and in many cases, has been called "unpatriotic" for his stance on the Vietnam war .. a stance that became the sentiment of most Americans.

Americans have just come out of nearly 8 years of so-called super-patriotism and having republicans call anyone "unamerican" and "unpatriotic" who dared question American "authority" to do whatever it wants throughout the world .. and America is fed up with the super-patriots who also usually happen to also be super-chickenhawks who have never served in the military.

McCain in on a tour of America demonstrating how much of a patriot he and his family have been, but the truth is that a patriot should be defined by their work and aspirations for a better America for all of its people, not by association to war and excusing America for its ills.

Agreeing with Bush on the attack on Iraq was decidely not in the best interest of this nation or its people.

What is patriotic is defined by perspective and validated or invalidated by results.

Everything means the same everywhere to every human and there's no other possible meaning.

 

[Timshel]

If history shaped the course of the future we'd still be practicing slavery. The fact that we have been able to make changes shows that history is not an insurmountable influence.

But history retains its influence on the future more when groups of people are unable to let go of past wrongs, and project those past wrongs onto current events.

The idea that the so-called war on drugs is racist by intent is absolutely ludicrous. There is no great white conspiracy deliberately hooking blacks (or other minorities) on drugs. Drug use and trafficking is the choice of the individual. I do not agree with the majority of drug laws, but simultaneously understand that when one chooses to break the law they are simultaneously choosing to risk the legal and social consequences of breaking the law.

I remember as a youngster being told all about how drug use was associated with the black culture. As a young teen I seriously doubted that stereotype and I still disbelieve it today. Unless you want to claim that the drug culture of the 50s and early 60s was, indeed, a "black thing", then there is no way you can claim that the ridiculous move to squelch drug use was aimed at blacks.

I have never understood the drug scene on a gut level, but per capita drug use is a socio-economic phenomena, not limited to race. I never understood how drug use is more prevalent among the poor either. I grew up poorer than most and the last thing I wanted was to diminish my chances of making something of myself by soaking my brain in strange chemicals.

There is, indeed, and inequality in our criminal justice system, but it, too, is socio-economic as opposed to racial. The days where a black accused of a crime was as good as convicted the moment an arrest was made are gone, in the past. Today, it does not matter the color of the skin. But if you are poor and dependent on overworked public defenders, plan on copping to a plea bargain whether you are guilty or not. Holding to one's innocence only works if you have the personal capital to fight the charge with big name lawyers demanding big fees. (And if your defense budget is big enough, you can hold on to innocence even when guilty.)

That goes double when involved in civil cases.

As to blacks holding a more critical view, how do you make that claim when over the past few years you could turn on the news and see masses of people of all races protesting anything from the war in Iraq to the price of gasoline? Are you claiming that the demographics of an average protest crowd would show a higher per-capita involvement of blacks over whites in the area? (I'll bet you it does not.) If you call up news photos of protests around the country there are lots of white faces in those crowds. Usually people involved in a protests are there because they are critical of government.

Sorry, but I simply do not hold to the "poor victims" view of modern blacks in America. There are still racists out there, without a doubt. I know more than one personally. But by your own statement, we are no longer a racist nation, but rather a nation with racists. And from what I see, a great deal of that racism which still exists comes from minority groups as much if not more than from the whites. (In large part due to holding a grudge for past wrongs that I keep mentioning.)

And if you think my POV is coming from a sheltered white life, guess again. My mother was half black, half Lakota. My father was half Irish, a quarter German and a quarter Lakota. Try that combo on for size growing in the 50s and 60s. Thank God for the U.S Marine Corps.

You make some points, of course history is not insurmountable. But the effects linger. When the geriatric CEOs of the world entered the job market racism and sexism were still quite prevalent. We can't hope to see income margins truly decline until that is no longer true and maybe even a generation or two from there because of what you say about caste effects.

The drug war is aimed at minorities. If only it's a tyrannical law that was intended to make criminals out of the lower classes, who were largely black and other minorities at the time, it furthers the divide. It's obvious that the laws are pressed against minorities to a greater degree than whites. It's not that those groups use more, so explain the disparity in arrests?

 

[Good Luck]

The drug war is aimed at minorities. If only it's a tyrannical law that was intended to make criminals out of the lower classes, who were largely black and other minorities at the time, it furthers the divide. It's obvious that the laws are pressed against minorities to a greater degree than whites. It's not that those groups use more, so explain the disparity in arrests?

The war on drugs is a typical government over-reaction to the (created) fear that drug use would find it way into the comfortable suburbs (which it did anyway, proving the idiocy of the war on drugs). A bunch of well intentioned but brainless twits got laws passed via a series of fear mongering claims. Yes, it ended up targeting lower class Americans, but that is a result of the demographics of drug use, not of racial or even socio-economic profiling. It is not the fault of society that drug use is more prevalent among lower classes. (a fact I still cannot fathom why, even while acknowledging as true. A poor person has enough going to just survive - why compound the situation with drug use?)

But the idea that the drug war was started as a way to get at miniorities is plain, unadulterated paranoid hogwash.

As to the disparity in arrests, I already addressed the disparity in the justice system. You think a poor black person is more likely to be arrested and convicted on drug charges than an equally poor white person? They'll toss BOTH in the pokey and throw away the key so Miss Polly Middle Class doesn't have to see them on the street. The when Miss Polly Middle Class is found with some of the same stuff, they'll send HER to a treatment center. It is socio-economic, not racial. The sad fact that the poor are predominately from minorities is a coincidence in this particular issue. If the poor were predominately white, and drug use accordingly predominately white, you'd see jails full of predominately white inmates facing unreasonably long sentences.

If the war on drugs were to continue as economic disparity between races slowly diminishes, I am willing to bet you will find that the disparity between races in drug crimes will also diminish, at about the same rate as the economic disparity.

 

[Timshel]

The war on drugs is a typical government over-reaction to the (created) fear that drug use would find it way into the comfortable suburbs (which it did anyway, proving the idiocy of the war on drugs). A bunch of well intentioned but brainless twits got laws passed via a series of fear mongering claims. Yes, it ended up targeting lower class Americans, but that is a result of the demographics of drug use, not of racial or even socio-economic profiling. It is not the fault of society that drug use is more prevalent among lower classes. (a fact I still cannot fathom why, even while acknowledging as true. A poor person has enough going to just survive - why compound the situation with drug use?)

But the idea that the drug war was started as a way to get at miniorities is plain, unadulterated paranoid hogwash.

As to the disparity in arrests, I already addressed the disparity in the justice system. You think a poor black person is more likely to be arrested and convicted on drug charges than an equally poor white person? They'll toss BOTH in the pokey and throw away the key so Miss Polly Middle Class doesn't have to see them on the street. The when Miss Polly Middle Class is found with some of the same stuff, they'll send HER to a treatment center. It is socio-economic, not racial. The sad fact that the poor are predominately from minorities is a coincidence in this particular issue. If the poor were predominately white, and drug use accordingly predominately white, you'd see jails full of predominately white inmates facing unreasonably long sentences.

If the war on drugs were to continue as economic disparity between races slowly diminishes, I am willing to bet you will find that the disparity between races in drug crimes will also diminish, at about the same rate as the economic disparity.

Yes I think a poor black person is more likely to be arrested and convicted than a poor white person. Reason being that the white cops, prosecutors and judges can often times more empathize with the poor white person. Poor black person, he's just a ni....

I don't think it is paranoid hogwash. It is clear that Nixon faced strong opposition from blacks and other groups that were the stereotypical users of drugs (i.e. hippies). And so he attacked them. Maybe you think Nixon was some saint above political games. I see him for what he was, a thorough statist.

 

[Timshel]

The whole question makes one wonder why bac is a thorough statist, when the state he lives in has sought to oppress him over and over again???

 

[Don Quixote]

while blacks have 'only been relatively free' for the last 42 years, most blacks were born here and born free

is it not time to let go if country/continent - american and call yourselves us citizens

my grandparents were native american, scot and dutch but they were all born here as was i

if you think that blacks have something to complain about, consider what africans and europeans did to the native americans

my father was born on a reservation and changed his name to pass for 'white'


and consider that black MEN got the vote decades before any women were allowed to vote

and if you want to complain about a bigger problem than anglo anti-black sentiment, try watching the growing number of latinos and their attitude about blacks

 

[Cancel7]

how can you love a country that from your perspective has screwed you over so many times? If I were black I probably wouldn't like america at all.

It's pretty amazing how shocked white people get when they find out that they're might be some hard feelings left over. Are they still pissed about that?! Well fool, you're still pissed about the damned pizza that Dominoes sent you two weeks ago with skimpy cheese, so what do you think? You should see the shit white people on Long Island hold grudges over, anyway. And they don't see any contradiction there.

I think it's that white people tend to (in general, I certainly don't and many others don't either), romantacize America and especially its history. And black people, generally, do not. I view it less as a matter of liking vs disliking america, and more as a matter of viewing america realistically, or through the clouded haze of a new lover.

 

[blackascoal]

while blacks have 'only been relatively free' for the last 42 years, most blacks were born here and born free

is it not time to let go if country/continent - american and call yourselves us citizens

my grandparents were native american, scot and dutch but they were all born here as was i

if you think that blacks have something to complain about, consider what africans and europeans did to the native americans

my father was born on a reservation and changed his name to pass for 'white'


and consider that black MEN got the vote decades before any women were allowed to vote

and if you want to complain about a bigger problem than anglo anti-black sentiment, try watching the growing number of latinos and their attitude about blacks

A distorted view of America to say the least.

My parents were born here and they were not born "free" as you suggest. Jim Crow laws were in full effect, segregation and open overt discrimination was the rule of law, lynchings were commonplace, and they were not allowed to vote.

Don't know your definition of "free" but what my parents and the families of many just like them faced was a long ass way from freedom.

Africans did nothing to native Americans and native Americans were instrumental in the freedom from slavery for a great many African-Americans. You need a real understanding of American history and the history of the relationship between native Americans and slaves. You can start with the "Trail of Tears" .. then try to understand why so many African-Americans, like me, have the blood of native Americans coursing through of veins.

Are Black Cherokees and Sioux not known to you?

Haven't you ever attended a Pow-Wow?

Are you unaware that blacks and natives fought wars together?

Are you unaware that they inter-married and built towns and forts together?

If your father was native American, it doesn't appear that he passed any native history or culture to you.

It appears you could also use a history lesson on hispanics and blacks. You can start with the real reason for the battle of the Alamo. There is little real conflict between hispanics and African-Americans. Hispanics gobble up black culture and perhaps you can post any wholesale violence or riots between blacks and hispanics outside of prison. Without question, there will be FAR more hispanics voting for Obama than there will be those voting for McCain.

AND .. the fact that black men were allowed to vote before women is no testament to American society because both were being discriminated against.

Finally, feel free to identify yourself as anything you choose .. I choose to identify myself as an African-American and will continue to do so until the struggle is complete.

 

[Cancel7]

A distorted view of America to say the least.

My parents were born here and they were not born "free" as you suggest. Jim Crow laws were in full effect, segregation and open overt discrimination was the rule of law, lynchings were commonplace, and they were not allowed to vote.

Don't know your definition of "free" but what my parents and the families of many just like them faced was a long ass way from freedom.

Africans did nothing to native Americans and native Americans were instrumental in the freedom from slavery for a great many African-Americans. You need a real understanding of American history and the history of the relationship between native Americans and slaves. You can start with the "Trail of Tears" .. then try to understand why so many African-Americans, like me, have the blood of native Americans coursing through of veins.

Are Black Cherokees and Sioux not known to you?

Haven't you ever attended a Pow-Wow?

Are you unaware that blacks and natives fought wars together?

Are you unaware that they inter-married and built towns and forts together?

If your father was native American, it doesn't appear that he passed any native history or culture to you.

It appears you could also use a history lesson on hispanics and blacks. You can start with the real reason for the battle of the Alamo. There is little real conflict between hispanics and African-Americans. Hispanics gobble up black culture and perhaps you can post any wholesale violence or riots between blacks and hispanics outside of prison. Without question, there will be FAR more hispanics voting for Obama than there will be those voting for McCain.

AND .. the fact that black men were allowed to vote before women is no testament to American society because both were being discriminated against.

Finally, feel free to identify yourself as anything you choose .. I choose to identify myself as an African-American and will continue to do so until the struggle is complete.

Great post bac.

 

[blackascoal]

Great post bac.

This speaks to the importance of having real discourse about race in America.

It speaks to the truth that all it takes for evil to flourish is to have good people do nothing.

It is also important to note and teach that in every step of the struggle, there have been white people who have shared that pain and work. On this day of remeberance of Dr. King, the work of conservative Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen should also be remembered. He was indeed a civil rights hero. His voice, power, and influence brought republicans into the Civil Rights movement, and without whom the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would not have passed.

When we all clear away the misconceptions, lies, myths, and bigotry, we find power in the truth. We find power in our togetherness. It's why I have so much hope for Obama and the movement he represents.

We are Americans .. all of us.

 

[Battleborne]

Hummm..............

while blacks have 'only been relatively free' for the last 42 years, most blacks were born here and born free

is it not time to let go if country/continent - american and call yourselves us citizens

my grandparents were native american, scot and dutch but they were all born here as was i

if you think that blacks have something to complain about, consider what africans and europeans did to the native americans

my father was born on a reservation and changed his name to pass for 'white'


and consider that black MEN got the vote decades before any women were allowed to vote

and if you want to complain about a bigger problem than anglo anti-black sentiment, try watching the growing number of latinos and their attitude about blacks

Indeed...African Americans have their hands dirty as well as the Anglos...'Buffalo Soldiers' anyone!

 

[Little-Acorn]

while blacks have 'only been relatively free' for the last 42 years, most blacks were born here and born free

...which is the entire adult lifetime of most of them.

None of them were ever slaves, nor were they particularly oppressed in this country, especially compared to nearly every other modern country on earth.

Some of my ancestors DIED fighting to free the slaves in the Civil War... but I didn't. I don't consider that black people owe me anything for my ancestors' supreme sacrifice.

Some of black people's ancestors were held in slavery before the Civil War, a horrible condition... but none of the people alive today ever were. Why do some of them consider I owe them something for their ancestor's dreadful lives, which my ancestors died to emancipate?

Slavery is over. Bigotry and oppression is nearly over, despite the hysterical rantings of Barack's mentor. It is miniscule, compared to the bad old days. And what little is left, is steadily diminishing... except in the halls of Congress and "advocates" such as Jackson, Sharpton, and Wright, who continue to treat blacks as second-class citizens who can't make it without help.

Get over it. Get a life instead.

 

[PresidentialScholar]

History does shape the future. The idea that this notion is bogus as we'd still be practicing slavery, is simply a misunderstanding. History shapes our future by progressing the society by recognizing past wrongs--and not repeating them. They help us to draw correlations to similar issues and understand perhaps why certain policies have failed in the past, and why new policies would be more effective.

I am not black, and I can't pretend to understand the historical viewpoint of someone who is. It was said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. There is nothing wrong with having pride or appreciation for your country, but when its used as the pretext to stifle discussion and reasoning, it becomes a political power tool--and that is wholly unpatriotic. The Bushites and the partisan republicans HAVE used this as a tool--as do many Presidents during a controversial war.

That is, in and of itself, reprehensible. Teddy Roosevelt himself said that suggesting that a President, regardless of war or peace, should be exempt from criticism is a treasonous suggestion.

Our history has left much to be desired of this country.



Bill

 

[evince]

You dont Get Over history. You remember it and pass it on.

Why cant you understand passing on the history of the country to the next generation?

When you pass on only a cleaned up pretty version of what happened then you lose the lessons history can teach.

I just dont understand why people like you acorn dont want the lessons passed on?

 

[evince]

Welcome Presidential scholar,


Great post!