July 30, 2005
A House Divided
I know, there are probably hundreds of articles written throughout the blogosphere with this title, but I wanted to take a look at the one thing that I think the current group of terrorists are right about. When Al Qaeda decides to attack an American, they don’t care if that American is white, black, yellow, rich, poor, southern, etc. All they see is an American joined together by more common goals than separate us from each other. So why can’t we see that same thing?
Fear, Hatred and Class and Racial Division are fodder for political campaigns and used to retain power by those that desire or have already acquired it. 'They' want to keep us all at our throats so that we will continue to feel that we need 'their' help in combating perceived injustices and inequalities. But it's all smoke and mirrors, a trick better than anything Houdini ever tried to accomplish.
For example, decades ago the Democratic Party ratcheted up their fight against poverty and racial inequality. At the time it was a needed fight, laws were in place that allowed and even fostered these situations. But as time passed and most of these were taken care of the party saw that the power they gained from taking on these fights was potentially slipping away. They hammered at smaller and smaller perceived injustices, blowing them out of proportion in order to keep the emotional states of the populace charged with anger and bitterness towards each other in order to remain needed and in power.
For the most part, poverty is a thing of the past. What we call poverty would have been considered luxury 40 years ago. The large number of people considered in poverty with televisions, cars, cell phones, playstations, Nike wear, etc is unbelievable. The poverty rate has dropped over this time, through 6 recessions, from 22 to 12 percent, one of the largest drops being in blacks between 18 and 64. Yet we still spend time targeting the class inequalities as a Mount Everest to climb. (source)
Racism, as well, is no where near as institutionalized as it was several decades ago. Recent statistics show that math and reading skills in nine year old children is at a 30 year high. Black children posted a 30-point increase in reading since 1971 and almost half of that increase was in the last 5 years. Scores for everyone are increasing but those for Black and Hispanics are increasing at a much higher rate, narrowing the gap between the races. (source)
And to be honest, most people are starting to realize that racism itself is a parlor trick, considering that recent discoveries show that we all have descended from the same individual thousands of years ago and that the differences in our skin color is nothing more than pigmentation changes from localized environmental factors over time. That makes the thought that 'those people are different' when we know that they really aren't completely discredited. (source)
Yet the division continues.
But the Democratic Party is not the only one to employ these tactics. The Republican Party has done a very good job of perpetuating fear on the American political landscape as well. From the rise of the evil communistic threat of the 20th century to terrorism being used as a political tool, the division keeps going on. If you don't support the Republican Party, well you must be a traitor! You're 'un-American', a phrase that I was sure had died out with Joe McCarthy, has recently resurfaced. Now people who speak out against the United States are hated and reviled, simply because of a differing political viewpoint.
It of course, does not stop there. The use of religion in our political environment is nothing new, and it is actually used much less now that in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. But both sides still continue to target the fears and concerns of those who have embraced religious doctrine over another. By using something that requires faith with no proof, a perfect tool is employed to drive people towards opinions and feelings against others that they would normally not allow themselves to have; that are even opposed to the very teachings being used to drive them.
And just as there are those that are racist and those that look to feed of the poverty stricken, there are also those that do exist who are actively, although perhaps unknowingly, working to weaken the United States against her enemies. But those instances are small compared to the people who are targeted as doing that who aren't. Racist, Homophobe, Un-American, etc. It becomes increasingly easier to label someone and attack the label these days than to actually combat the political differences between us in a cogent and respectful way, acknowledging that we can actually disagree on something without us being enemies.
We see 'the enemy' around us, part of us, our neighbors, our relatives. Instead of banding together as Americans, focusing on the issues that we share common ground, our current crop of politicians spend their efforts dividing us for their own political gain.
We only have ourselves to blame for falling into the trap.
Posted by Rhinehold at July 30, 2005 11:30 AMIt is my opinion that people want to live this way. To view the world in stereotype is patently American. This has never changed. A couple hundred years ago, it was standard to call Native Americans “Savages” and the lesser ethnic groups are treated as lesser beings. Now we do the same to everyone.
Posted by: Aldous at July 30, 2005 12:04 PMWho is ‘we’?
We have people who want to be known for their race or religion.
African American
Black American
Muslim American
Mexican American
American Atheist …
When is the last time you heard ‘White American’? Can’t do that because you are considered racist immediately.
It is not the white American who is defining these groups. They are doing it on their own and then complaining when someone points out that they ARE of the Negro Race or they ARE a Muslim or they ARE an Atheist.
People cannot continue to point out that they are ‘different’ and want to be recognized for it and at the same time claim society should be colorblind or accepting.
Irish Americans hang together and conduct parades, Italian Americans do the same, German Americans here in Texas sponsor the Oktoberfests, etc. etc. White people identify with their ethnic cultures just as non whites do. Whites are statistically demonstrated to not be discriminated against in areas of housing, jobs, falling under police suspicion etc., whereas people of color are. And that is the issue, discrimination on the basis of color. When and if whites can’t seem to get jobs in all black shops, or are refused housing in all black neighborhoods, then the laws regarding discrimination should kick in to insure whites are not being discriminated against on the basis of their skin color.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 30, 2005 03:19 PMWell said Rhinehold.
I would only add that it’s nothing new. Since ancient Greece, demagoguery has been a natural by-product of democracy.
I think H. L. Mencken said it best.
“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”Posted by: Chuck Hanrahan at July 30, 2005 06:26 PM
Aldous,
“To view the world in stereotype is patently American.”
Actually I think that the Christians, who thought of anyone that didn’t belive as they did pagans, started all of this.
It makes me wonder which of these “Christian” sects could possibly be correct they when all belive that they are the only true religion?
Posted by: Rocky at July 30, 2005 09:42 PMPlease don’t try and fault a specific religion/ethnicity/system of government as the source of discrimination. Discrimination is part of human nature and cannot be attributed to any one group or party.
Example: Rocky says Christians started stereotypes. Last time I checked, Christians were discriminated against in Muslim cultures and LABELLED as Dhimmis along with Jews. It’s just plain silly to blame the advent of stereotypes on Christians.
Rhinehold said - our current crop of politicians spend their efforts dividing us for their own political gain.
Yep, and the sad part is it works. Who is to blame, Americans for being too stupid to stand united or politicians for exploiting the weakness?
Posted by: Brian at July 31, 2005 03:37 AMBrian,
“Last time I checked, Christians were discriminated against in Muslim cultures and LABELLED as Dhimmis along with Jews.”
You’re right. Christians didn’t start stereotypes, they just refined it to a fine art.
There was that little thing called the Spannish Inquistion.
Dhimmis were anyone that was conquered and had little to do with being a Christian or a Jew, but had everything to do with not being a Muslim.
From;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi
“The root of “dhimmi” is the Arabic “dh-m-m”, “dhimma” meaning: “being in the care of”. The term initially applied to “People of the Book” living in lands under Muslim rule, namely Jews and Christians. Over time Muslims extended this category to Zoroastrians, Mandeans, and Sikhs. Many, but not all, extend this to Hindus.
Its origin is traced to the Pact of Umar (text): a treaty supposedly drawn up by Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second Caliph, to deal with non-Muslims living on land conquered by Muslims, and therefore has no basis in the Qur’an.
In the Middle Ages, the dhimmi concept was tolerant by the standards of other monotheistic religions. Christians and Jews were allowed to live in peace within Muslim societies, on the condition (also required of Muslim subjects) of submission to their rulers. There were many Christian and Jewish scientists that prospered under Muslim rule. An example is the Muslim state of Cordoba in Southern Spain where Christians and Jews prospered. Maimonides, by some considered the greatest Jewish philosopher and Talmudic sage, lived in Muslim Spain, North Africa and Egypt. However, he and his family fled Spain to escape religious persecution after Cordoba was conquered by the less tolerant Muslim Almohads from the Muslim Almoravids, and then fled from North Africa as well, before eventually finding refuge in Egypt. As well, some of his more famous works were his Iggereth Teiman, a letter written to raise the spirits of the severely oppressed Jews of Yemen, and Iggereth HaShmad, an essay on the legal implications of forced conversion to Islam.
As late as the 16th century, religious tolerance in Europe was greatest within the Ottoman Empire.”
Gee Brian, I think that you would agree that the Ottomans were Muslims.
Posted by: Rocky at July 31, 2005 05:27 AM
Rhinehold,
Perhaps I read a different meaning into your article than your intent, or what others took from it, but..
I take it that people should vote on issues in a platform, and political platforms should exclude descriptions of issues in a way that divides based on race, skin tone, social econ. class ect.?
I agree with that!
People would still divide based on their feelings about the issue, but it wouldn’t be based on something meaningless to the basic issue.
Posted by: Beagle at July 31, 2005 08:58 AMRocky and Aldous
Once again, it depends on your frame of reference.
Stereotypes and racism? Look around the world or look in history. I know you guys have been to E. Asia. Can you honestly say that an African immigrant would have more opportunity and fewer obstacles to success anywhere else but the U.S.? Some people like to examine the U.S. closely. If you look at it, you will find a lot not to like. But compared to what? In the 19th Century the U.S. was expanding at the expense of native people. At the same time the Europeans were conquering native people all over the world. The Chinese managed the record number of domestic kills with during the Tiaping rebellion. Shaka Zulu was annihilating neighboring tribes in southern Africa. Native American tribes were annihilating each other. The Japanese were wiping out the Ainu. Muslim traders were buying and selling most of the slaves taken in Africa. The list continues.
The 20th Century, a time of unrest all over the place. Once again, China holds to domestic record with kills during the Great Leap Forward, but that is not really fair because the population is so high. Various types of communist and fascist totalitarians annihilated million of their citizens. Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs practiced a particularly deadly form of ethnic cleansing. Imperial Japan gave horrors not seen on a grand scale. The list is just too long.
In America we had problems too. There were lynching. These were all terrible. But consider the comparisons. Scores of MILLIONS of civilians were killed as a result of the Third Reich. During the same period the Tuskegee institute figures indicate 101 blacks were lynched. During the time of the great leap forward when tens of millions of Chinese were murdered, the number of lynching had fallen to four for the entire period.
We just don’t play in the same carnage league. I don’t know why you always have to try to confess U.S. sins. I know, we hold the U.S. to a higher standard. But you are making comparisons. Ideally, we are lacking but by comparison, we do very well indeed.
The U.S. has always drawn large numbers of immigrants from all parts of the world. Obviously, these guys think life will be better here than wherever they come from. People can say all they want about how unwelcoming the U.S. can be, but their actions tell us much more.
Jack, that trend is diminishing of course with the rise of freedom and relative prosperity in so many other nations, and of course with technology which less and less requires immigration to serve American corporations, as discussed in “The World is Flat”.
America over the next 10 years is going to find it damn difficult or damned expensive to lure brain power from overseas. Why emigrate when one can telecommunicate?
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 1, 2005 07:19 PMDavid
What you say may be true about the future. It is always difficult to make predictions – especially about the future. I was talking about the past and so were Rocky and Aldous. My only point is that millions of people in the past obviously thought the U.S. was a better deal for them and their families than wherever they were living before. Their reasons were no doubt complex, but the bottom line is that they the alleged prejudice, xenophobia, oppressive capitalism etc. as a package was better than their Arcadia they came from.
My ancestors left Poland and by all accounts were not treated well when they arrived. However, compared to life in Poland (actually the Russian Empire in those days) it was pure heaven. The same is true for today’s immigrants. If not, maybe they made a poor choice. It would be very easy to correct their mistake by returning to their wonderful home countries. That is their business, not mine. I give people credit for being rational. Those that stay must think it is the best alternative for them.
Jack, David presented an interesting point. It’s a dirty little secret that most research in America is done by foreigners. If we can’t entice them to study and work in the US, we lose our edge.
AP,
“It’s a dirty little secret that most research in America is done by foreigners.”
That wouldn’t be because we don’t really teach science anymore would it?
Posted by: Rocky at August 2, 2005 05:39 AMJack, people immigrated to this country, not because America is democratic, or a republic, or any of that. They immigrated to America because America since its inception has been the brightest shining beacon of freedom in its time.
As evidenced by the myriad posts here on WatchBlog for a couple years, there is a lot about America that is not great. America has had a plethora of problems as we both agree. But, America is a free society offering the freedom to pursue one’s dreams. Compared to most nations in the world over the last few hundred years, America lit the world’s darkness of suppression and oppression with its light. Freedom is what draws most to our shores.
To the extent that America moves to restrict and constrain the exercise of freedom, America’s beacon will dim. This is why I have problems with some of the provisions of the Patriot Act, and some conservative attempts to constrain choice and individual freedom where national interests are not threatened.
It is also why I have a huge problem with both Democrats and Republican fiscal policies, for there are few greater constraints on freedom than recessions, depressions, and economic constriction. And our lack of fiscal discipline today limits our options in effectively countering recessions, depressions and economic constriction, tomorrow.
Posted by: David R. Remer at August 2, 2005 08:30 AM
