Cobb

I like this point. It's not often brought up, but I've thought about it. I tend to disagree with you on that topic though. I think, if America were more homogenous, people would be much more likely so support a Euro-style welfare state. In America, welfare is linked to blackness, for better or worse. (always worse). But I do recognize that Americans are inherently more individualistic.

Please check out my blog, www.thestateof.com It is a black moderate blog, but I am anti-war.

I disagree. I'm starting to think that America is more like China. (Then again, I would). There are 300 million of them who are prospering big time as the government loosens up. But there are another 900 million in the backwoods who still live on a dime a day.

Just because they are all 'the same' doesn't mean they get a welfare state, not even in a country that was communist.

It's all about class. And America has a class of superrich and very powerful corporations that need the kind of economy Bush is championing - and that will (yes, will) create a better environment for the not so rich and not so large corporations of the sort more and more African Americans are likely to be.

That doesn't make the real pimp not criminal because the studio pimp isn't.

I say once you get bigger than 30 million people, the myth of homogeneity is nothing but a myth. I mean, when's the last time you ever saw a Finn or a Dane?

this is a bad citation, but check out stephenson's series when you get the chance...or any history of the enlightenment. it isn't quite correct to call the enlightenment a christian legacy.

One has to look at this phenomenon in the context of white supremacy. Most white people reject redistribution because they see it as being futile. They see trillions being spent on social programs, yet they still see the problems. Of course it is contrary to their interest to assume that not enough money is being spent, which would therefore increase their tax burdens. Therefore, the situation plays into the hands of white supremacy and the belief in racial inferiority preventing the monies spent having the intended effects.

There are many whites who believe no matter how much money is spent; blacks will always be unequal because we are genetically predisposition to be inferior to whites. One can simply read “The Bell Curve” to understand the prevalence of this belief between the educated and uneducated white populous. Thus, whites see redistribution as a never ending program that amounts to a subsidy to compensate for black intellectual, emotional and behavioral inferiority to whites.

I think the difference between general attitudes concerning redistribution when comparing Europe and America is largely due to socio-political history. Europe is still, if not in form then in attitude, politically feudalistic. The political tradition on the continent for thousands of years has been the big authority base that, because of its superior position, owes the lower class a minimum level of subsistance (i.e. noblesse oblige). The relatively short political history of the US, however, is based upon doing for yourself. I reject the premise that our unwillingness to redistribute wealth is primarily racial in basis, as this was never the common idea or practice on a govnmental level with any other economically disadvantaged group (for example: Irish immigrants, Appalachia).

As for Noah's conspiracy of white supremacy, I, too, reject its premise. While I agree that many people, white and non-white both, do reject redistribution as being futile, the problem is not generally perceived to be in the recipients of the redistribution but, rather, in the practice itself. Like many others, I do not feel that redistribution is an effective means to empower or uplift anyone. This has been shown around the world with people of all races and ethnicities.

Finally, I hope I'm not the only one to note the irony of Noah citing what I've understood to be a largely dismissed racist tract with equally unfounded and prejudiced attribution of adherence among "many whites", documenting a well the deepest secret thoughts of these "whites" as part of their idea of supremacy. That there, undeniably, are such fools that believe what Noah says is no more an indictment of "whites" in general than is the fact that there are black prostitutes a general indicator of virtue among African-American women.

Well I think individualism goes hand in hand with the idea of the eternal soul, and I think Christianity alone among the major monotheisms allows the individual so much control over the destiny of his own soul.

It is the synergy between that concept of the soul that allowed, in my perception, the natural philosophers of 'Quicksilver' to pursue their arts in spite of the church. I perceive Jews to be most 'uptight' about the centrality of clergy. Muslims seem to be a bit more loose with their sects, but Christians in the post-Reformation are the most loose of all.

So it's no surprise that Christians could get kicked out of the country (England) and still be christians, whereas Jews and Muslims still find reasons to get back to holy sites anchored in their faiths to particular clergy and churches.

So what I'm saying is that Protestants in particular have a unique claim on individualism which can be religious.

There is plenty of empirical evidence to back up what I say concerning the belief in white supremacy. We have 400 years of demonstrative evidence of white belief in black inferiority to make my case. If this is not the case any longer, then when and why did the thinking change? A nation cannot legislate to control what people think, only how they behave and act. Thus, many people are confusing the changes that have taken place in law, which altered people’s behavior as changes that have taken place in regards to how white people think. Given the increase longevity of human life in America, all those once overt racist of the 60’s have not died out or had epiphanies. Rather, they have simply gone in the closet because society has placed a taboo on over displays of racism as being seen as a white racist is to be seen a parasite. Thus, they have gone in the closet, taking the place of homosexuals who have now come out the closet, due to increased tolerance. The decreased tolerance and acceptance of white racist is a good thing…but just like the homosexuals of the past…they are on the down low hiding their true identities.

You might be one of those who want to be or have a vested interest in being a fool…but I am not.

There is plenty of empirical evidence to back up what I say concerning the belief in white supremacy. We have 400 years of demonstrative evidence of white belief in black inferiority to make my case. If this is not the case any longer, then when and why did the thinking change? A nation cannot legislate to control what people think, only how they behave and act. Thus, many people are confusing the changes that have taken place in law, which altered people’s behavior as changes that have taken place in regards to how white people think. Given the increase longevity of human life in America, all those once overt racist of the 60’s have not died out or had epiphanies. Rather, they have simply gone in the closet because society has placed a taboo on over displays of racism as being seen as a white racist is to be seen a parasite. Thus, they have gone in the closet, taking the place of homosexuals who have now come out the closet, due to increased tolerance. The decreased tolerance and acceptance of white racist is a good thing…but just like the homosexuals of the past…they are on the down low hiding their true identities.

You might be one of those who want to be or have a vested interest in being a fool…but I am not.

The influence of white supremacy is what it is, but it is truly no match for indifference, black power and multiculturalism.

While white supremacy replicates its belief system generation after generation, rather like the Quaker Faith, its premises have less and less influence over the powerful and the common man. You'll find traces of it just about everywhere you look, but you'll rarely find it organized and funded.

What people beleive and what people are motivated to act on are two different things. My mother in law says 'Thank you Jesus' when her car starts on a cold day, but when it doesn't start she takes her car to Firestone, not church. So what I'm saying is that the *instrumentality* of white supremacy has been essentially debilitated. It's a billion dollar industry at best. The influence is significant but waning.

Here's an example.

The biggest baddest 'racist' that anyone can point to over the past couple years is none other than Trent Lott. I challenge you to find his name even mentioned as any part of any political strategy in this years lengthy presidential campaign. No matter where you look, Lott wasn't a factor, and nobody anywhere has even tried to make the point.

He ain't dead, but he ain't changing the world either.

No. Now one way to make the argument is to say that the Enlightenment could have only occurred in a Christian nation. I don't agree with this, but it is true that what we think of as the Enlightenment DID develop in Christian nations.

But the core principles of the Enlightenment--that you can use reason to ferret out the answer to human problems, that mankind develops progressively over time, that one can know truth through science? Those things are reactions to predetermination if anything. Markets and the enslavement are more responsible for the Enlightenment than Christianity.

Now Christianity had to adapt itself in order to account for the Enlightenment--an adaptation process that still hasn't fully occurred.
...

It is important to recognize that white supremacy is not all powerful. But to say that it is only a 1 billion enterprise is a misnomer. It is still the only fully-functioning model of racism that exists.

1. The root of slavery and black oppression was purely economics.

2. The test of true charecter only manifest under stress.

3. America (white America) is not currently under economic stresses.

In light of these three facts, it stands to reason that there is less need for white racism as a tool of securing the allocation of opportunity and resources to white benefit. Thus, white supremacy is in remission without the trigger of economic stress.

That having been said, being cured and being in remission is not the same thing. Economic stress will return to the USA as sure as life brings death. It will be during these times the white supremacy wil again become a spreading cancer to black people and the econonomic stress is right around the corner...before 2010 for sure.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Actually, according to Higgenbotham, the ideas of white supremacy evolved independently from the practice of American chattel slavery. His authoritative series 'Shades of Freedom' contradict your analysis. I agree with Higgenbotham. White supremacy exists independent of economic incentives. I think contemporary blacks recognize the difference in instrumentality simply by observing regional differences in whitefolks. The old saw has true meaning: In the North, you can get as high as you want, just not too close. In the South you can get as close as you want, just not too high.

The very fact that white 'limousine' liberals have done much to sabotage black empowerment strategies (like the Rainbow Coalition), I think makes my point very clearly.

Who is Higgenbotham and why should I care what he thinks when I have a mind of my own? Your point is actually irrelevant. My point was never about the roots of white supremacy, but rather, the roots of black oppression that founds rationalization through the doctrine of white supremacy. The prime directive of life is survival. Survival is essentially the product of the allocation and management of scarce resources, which is essentially the definition of economics. All things of life are rooted in the prime directives, which are economic, regardless of how people rationalize them.

The fact is that blacks were oppressed for economic motives in America. It was essentially what I call “seesaw economics” where one group of people lifts itself up by placing the extra weight and burden of oppression on another group of people. They found rationalization of this based upon this belief in white superiority. When the economic stress returns, one can be sure that white supremacy beliefs will allow for the rationalization of black oppression again, in order limiting the competition with whites for scarce resources of opportunity. As an example, show me the states with the most economic stresses and I will show you states with lots of racism.

Economies and markets are designed to operation within the framework of the law. Much of black progress in the 20th century is due to changes in the law which allow more unfettered access to the American economy.

It has been the law, more than the economy which has suppressed white supremacy, and enabled black progress.

The late Leon Higgenbotham was, in my opinion, one of the great legal scholars of his day. Ask any black attorney.

The roots of black oppression originated in the precolonial courts of America before the invention of chattel slavery. Africans were given different standing in the American courts. Higgenbotham traces that precise history. What generally comes out in Black History Month is talk of American racism originating in the Virginia House of Burgesses. Higgenbotham is the historian of record.

I contend that racism exists independent of economic stress. It's more of a scholarly debate than I really feel like dealing with - I might later. So I'm happy to disagree with you on that point and let it go.