In my own experience in recent months, the reactions that the Tea Partier evokes among academics fall into three categories: laughter, contempt, and fear. People who like Sarah Palin and watch Glenn Beck appear to campus dwellers as if they were a backward clan best approached through the eyes of a social scientist, not a fellow citizen. What is missing (at least in my own experience, including newspapers and news broadcasts excluding Fox) is an attempt to understand why so many people are willing to rise up and head to a town hall meeting or travel to the Mall to join the crowd a few weeks back.
An alternative approach is laid out by Amitai Etzioni at CNN a while back. He begins with the standard response:
“Several observers on the left side of the opinion spectrum write dismissively of the followers of the Tea Party.
“About the kindest labels appended to them are ‘rednecks,’ ‘highly volatile’ and ‘laughable.’ Young research assistants at George Washington University see them as ‘psychopaths,’ ‘racists,’ ‘anti-Semites,’ and ‘homophobes’ and hold that, in the political arena, ‘one cannot talk to them; one must defeat them.’” (Etzioni teaches at GW.)
But this is the reaction of the cultural elitist, he observes.
“As I see it, it is never a good idea to dismiss out of hand a major social movement. One poll in December found the tea party movement was then viewed favorably by more Americans (41 percent) than either the Democrats (35 percent) or the Republicans (28 percent).”
Not only that, but Etzioni finds the concerns of the Tea Partiers to be altogether “valid.” Etzioni focuses on all of the double-dealing that went into recent legislation purportedly designed to assist the U.S. economy but in truth filled with back-door shenanigans.
“You may not wonder why the auto dealers won exemptions in Congress from the new financial regulations. But the behind-the-scene deals the White House has made are enough to make you sick.
“These include deals with private hospitals to drop the public option in exchange for their support of the health care bill and with the pharmaceutical industry to block Americans from purchasing low-cost drugs from other countries.
“Some of us have learned to live with these maneuvers as long as something comes out at the other end.
“However, many Americans are busy working or looking for a job, taking care of their families and trying to find some spare time to follow their favorite sports team and have a beer. But when they are made aware of these shenanigans, they are nauseated. As they should be.”
But Etzioni has a disagreement. While Tea Partiers want to gut the government, he wants only to “straighten it out.” They may have a case for reform, but they don’t have a case for “decimation.”
Still, that isn’t a cause for condescension: “We first need to validate their feelings, rather than dismiss them.”
(Etzioni portrait at his GWU page; Bismarck Tea Party shot by Flickr user bisongirl)
26 Responses to Etzioni on the Tea Party
goxewu - September 15, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Could Prof. Bauerlein man up on his posts and do something more than synopsize what somebody else has said, repeat what some study is supposed to have proven, or essentially parrot a Wall Street Journal article that was nothing more than a poll to begin with? C’mon, a little original opinion, a little analysis, a little elbow grease.
marktropolis - September 16, 2010 at 10:35 am
While I actually agree with goxewu, I’ll bite:I’m fresh off commenting on Ghilarducci latest posting (http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Right-Wing-Madness-or/26921), so this notion of engaging Tea Party types in conversation is on my mind. In that case, it was discussing the legitimacy of Dinesh D’Souza’s latest volley (and something about Kenyan anti-colonialists). But Etzioni is talking about something similar.But the last line from Bauerline’s post is the one that’s telling for me: “We first need to validate their feelings, rather than dismiss them.” Is Etzioni saying we need some group psychotherapy for the Tea Party? Is this really that we’re dealing with some hurt feelings? Oh, boo hoo, you’ve got a Black president. And you don’t like taxes, and think the health care bill is socialism. Oh, and you think Obama is a Keynan socialist. Those aren’t feelings, those are opinions and accusations.But the larger issue for me has been that anytime I even attempt to discuss these issues with Tea Party sympathizers, if we ever touch the topic of race (which is hard NOT to do with a Black president) than we start dealing with “oh, you’re accusing me of being racist, so you must just be a Nazi.” Or some such nonsense.I don’t have a problem discussing some of these thorny issues. But it’s really hard to validate someone’s feelings when they’re too busy accusing you of racism, hurling invectives, etc. So for me, while intellectually Etzioni might be right, in the real world, a lot of these folks don’t have the foggiest idea of what they’re really talking about. For example, carrying signs that say “End the Federal Reserve” and they don’t even know what the Fed does. Or screaming about all the taxes they pay, but they don’t understand that the only reason they have a street to protest on, or a police force to protect them is because of… taxes. The list goes on.Not to mention the fact that most of what’s being pushed by the Tea Party is not too far removed from the same platform that the John Birch Society has been talking about for as long as they’ve been around. And when you start sounding like a Bircher, I do get a little snippy.
mavprof - September 16, 2010 at 12:25 pm
It’s refreshing to read an account of the populist Tea Party movement by an another academic like Etzioni, who suggests understanding of and civil engagement with mainstream Tea Party supporters and leaders, rather than the routine denunciations and dismissals so common among the intransigent left (always well represented in academia) and mainstream media (sans FoxNews). However, I’ll admit that Etzioni’s last quoted statement sounds exactly like an example of what the lead-in to the quotation (about validating their feelings) purports to avoid: condescension. And as a veteran observer of several Tea Party rallies, I can’t agree with him that most attendees and speakers advocate gutting or decimating government, merely reducing its expenditures, taxes, regulations, and coercive power as well as increasing its effectiveness and transparency. Well-prepped by the left and major media sources, Tea Party denouncers often can’t resist the itch to resort to discussion-stopping accusations of racism, but this old tactic is getting pretty threadbare–though routine use of it better reveals the accuser’s want of ideas. Truth is, Tea Partiers are supporting a number of candidates of color in this coming election, and I’ve seen or heard no evidence of racist expressions at the rallies. While that’s not to say that none among the millions of supporters or ostensible supporters one couldn’t root out or spin out such evidence, but I think it rare and quite uncharacteristic of the movement.
gplm2000 - September 16, 2010 at 12:30 pm
Academia will never like conservative values, standards or programs. Elitist people always think that their ideas are better than the serfs who must work. To them an average American is too white, too religious, too selfish, and full of family values. They are someone who needs the guidance (dominance) of the cultural elite.Elitists such as marktropolis see only ignorant, redneck, racist bigots in the Tea Pary/GOP. He is right that there is no discussion of “thorny issues”, since he is not open to new ideas. A closed mind, especially one that has an ego of superiority, is just that.
marktropolis - September 16, 2010 at 1:27 pm
mavprof and gplm2000, I think you just proved my point.
markbauerlein - September 16, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Why do you begin, marktropolis, with “boo hoo you’ve got a Black president”? From what I’ve seen of Tea Partiers, they don’t care about the race or gender of our leaders, only the burden leaders place upon them in the way of taxes and regulations and political correctness.
mavprof - September 16, 2010 at 2:20 pm
Not sure one can discern marktropolis’s central “point,” unless in the farrago of hyperbole and guilt by association m-s offers above, m-s means to express disappointment in Tea Partiers’ lack interest in the irrelevant “issue” of the President’s race rather than his and his party’s policies. While m-s accuses Tea Partiers of “accusing,” “hurling invectives,” and “screaming,” I’ll leave it to the disinterested to judge from where the hyperventilating may come. (Psst! m-s, I’ll repeat–ditch the hyperbole!)
duchess_of_malfi - September 16, 2010 at 4:20 pm
In columns in which Bauerlein simply gives a list of numbers, I’d like some analysis. But in this case, the column as it is contributes to the discussion of the Tea Party movement. Etzioni is right. The left’s strategy of mocking the people in the movement and accusing them of all sorts of nasty motives is a mistake. That strategy undercuts attempts to understand this movement, ignores the many reasons people who don’t define themselves as rightist or conservative can become anti-government, and feeds anti-Democratic-Party and anti-mainstream media sentiment. I took “validate” to mean “take seriously” or “recognize the legitimacy of” rather than “comfort them about their hurt feelings,” but maybe I am an unimaginative reader.Thank you for drawing attention to Etzioni’s comments. I hadn’t seen them before.
marktropolis - September 16, 2010 at 4:26 pm
MarkB, I know we’ve had this debate before. And I realize you’re an English prof, not political science or history, but there’s a thread going throughout American political history of using race as a wedge issue. Often using code words around race. Willie Horton, Reagan’s welfare queens, and the oh-so-famous Southern Strategy. What’s been convenient for the right of late is that now they can use the same codes, wedge issues, images, etc. against a sitting president. They’re bringing all the old anti-communist tools out of the chest since they’ve now pinned Obama as a socialist. But let’s ignore for the moment that communism doesn’t equal socialism, since that’s irrelevant to the spin doctors on the right. They get to dress Obama and his wife up as a pimp and a whore and it’s just a good laugh. They show up at presidential rallies strapped with automatic weapons (I’d like to see them try that at a Bush rally). “I’m just expressing my 2nd Amendment rights!” Well, so I guess you can carry your guns where ever you want, but those nastly muslims can’t put a mosque in NYC (leaving aside for the moment that it’s not even a mosque, or that there was already a mosque IN the twin towers).The point is that 8 years of Bush gave the racists and the crazies a chance to not be afraid. Gave them the freedom to spread their wares (with no small assist from our friends at Fox news). Now there’s a Black president. Now, we can’t actually say we don’t like him because he’s Black. That would be impolitic. But we can say we don’t like him because of his policies. And we can call them socialist. And we can accuse him of being foreign-born (and even though that’s been proven wrong a ridiculous number of times, it’s still trotted out as some mysterious unanswered question). D’Souza’s column the other day went to great lengths to paint Obama as “the other.” He’s somehow unAmerican. Which, whether you agree or not, is really what’s going on here. We can go back and forth about what is racist and what isn’t. And I’m actually not going so far as to call the Tea Party racist (although tempting). But there are individuals, indeed leaders, who have a tendency to say racist things – or things that at the very least might be seen as offense to people of color. And the minute someone raises that as an issue, you get what gplm2000 posted. “I’m not the racist, you are!” I think what seals the deal for me, is if you go to some of the more extremely racist websites (like Stormfront) you can see a lot of folks saying, in response to some Tea Party thing, “we’ve been saying that for decades, welcome to the party.” And as I said earlier, when your platform starts to emulate the John Brichers, it’s hard to go back from that. Socialism, world government, Alex Jones, 9/11 conspiracies, Trilateral Commission, blah blah blah. If we’re going to talk about the issues, fine. Let’s do that. But if someone raises a question, or challenges your assumptions (that’s the general you, not the Bauerlein you), you can’t go straight to “hey, you accused me of racism, you must be a left-wing looney.”Earlier, mavprof wrote: “And as a veteran observer of several Tea Party rallies, I can’t agree with him that most attendees and speakers advocate gutting or decimating government, merely reducing its expenditures, taxes, regulations, and coercive power as well as increasing its effectiveness and transparency.” Well, I haven’t been to any rallies. But I’ve seen the video. And read the speeches. And dug into some of the other writings, opinions or video evidence of some of those leaders and followers. What mavprof seems to be seeing is a rather calm, organized, gathering of people who just want some simple things. Except they’re not that simple. And if it was just those issues, then why do I keep seeing pictures of Obama with a bone stuck thorugh his nose; or the folks with semi-automatic weapons; or the threatening signs alluding to the individual being a “right-wing fanatic” and “I’m a gun owner.” I’ll be interested to see how those Tea Party candidates who just won nominations play things out. Will Christine O’Donnell be talking about the issues that mavprof thinks matters (and he makes the case are what matter to the Tea Pary), or will she be spending all of her time talking about abstinence and chastity? She’s made more noise over the last 10 years about those things then she has about the national debt, or taxes, or the war for that matter. And perhaps, as mavprof describes it, I’m hyperventilating. Or perhaps I’m just getting warmed up. And p.s., I’m not “well-prepped” by the left. I do my own research.
markbauerlein - September 16, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Agreed on your first point, marktropolis, about race being a wedge issue in American political history (much of my book on the 1906 Atlanta race riot was precisely on race issues in that year’s gubernatorial campaign). It has operated on both sides, though, don’t you agree? The Senate’s denial of Judge Estrada was about the Hispanic vote, as was an element of this year’s Arizona issues. And let’s agree, too, that any large populist movement has its share of extremists. But the meeting on the Mall last month was altogether peaceful and respectful, from what I’ve heard. I would maintain that the central issues of the Tea Party aren’t racial.
mavprof - September 16, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Well, Marktropolis, it would be hard to deny your passion–whether for politics or debate, though it’s difficult to discern from your recent posts what positive or constructive passions you hold, for your posts seem soley concentrated on what you passionately oppose, namely the Tea Party “type” you fancy you’ve described in staccato-like alarmist language. The farrago or medley of examples–supposed racist codes, “old anti-communist tools,” supposedly heavily-armed presidential rally phalanxes, Park51 project opponents, D’Souza’s Obama-as-anti-colonialist article, caricatures of the Obamas (recalls the caricature of the Obamas as urban guerillas on the strongly pro-Obama “New Yorker” cover?), Bush’s fault . . . fringe extremist groups . . . “right-wing fanatic” . . . “gun-owner” . . . Tea Party . . . Christine O’Donnell . . . chastity . . . (“gasp! . . . pant! . . . puff! . . . whew! . . . OK, I’m better now”)–tumble out as if each insinuation should be taken as irrefragable instantiation of some not quite articulated guiding point about Tea Party “types”–not exactly being overtly racist (though M-s’s sorely tempted to slander here), but, well, . . . at least, at least, synonymous with something bad.Mark Bauerlein alludes to the opposition to Miguel Estrada, who could have been the first Hispanic SCOTUS justice; one might add Janice Rogers Brown to the list of potential “firsts” for minorities on SCOTUS as the first African-American woman to be considered a SCOTUS candidate, but both Estrada and Brown were deemed too conservative by the Democrats in the Senate, who opposed their advancement.At any rate, even partisan politics quite tangentially related to race are a bit more complicated and nuanced than advanced in M-s’s litany of supposed offenses committed by “Tea Party types.” Perhaps concentration on fewer and more-elaborated examples might be more convincing.
chuckkle - September 17, 2010 at 6:50 am
Related: this from the left (Glenn Greenwald) re snobby reactions to Tea Party candidates on both the left and right (most recently re Rove on O’Donnell):The “tea party” movement is, in my view, a mirror image of the Republican Party generally. There are some diverse, heterodox factions which compose a small, inconsequential minority of it (various libertarian, independent, and Reagan Democrat types), but it is dominated — in terms of leadership, ideology, and the vast majority of adherents — by the same set of beliefs which have long shaped the American Right: Reagan-era domestic policies, blinding American exceptionalism and nativism, fetishizing American wars, total disregard for civil liberties, social and religious conservatism, hatred of the minority-Enemy du Jour (currently: Muslims), allegiance to self-interested demagogic leaders, hidden exploitation by corporatist masters, and divisive cultural tribalism. (snip)It’s hard to avoid the conclusion, at least for me, that, claims to the contrary notwithstanding, much of the discomfort and disgust triggered by these Tea Party candidates has little to do with their ideology. After all, are most of them radically different than the right-wing extremists Karl Rove has spent his career promoting and exploiting? Hardly. Much of the patronizing derision and scorn heaped on people like Christine O’Donnell have very little to do with their substantive views — since when did right-wing extremism place one beyond the pale? — and much more to do with the fact they’re so . . . unruly and unwashed. To members of the establishment and the ruling class (like Rove), these are the kinds of people — who struggle with tuition bills and have their homes foreclosed — who belong in Walmarts, community colleges, low-paying jobs, and voting booths on command, not in the august United States Senate.http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/16/tea_partyChuck Kleinhans
marktropolis - September 17, 2010 at 10:51 am
MarkB, while the Beck was by all accounts a peaceful event, respect is not quite the word I would attribute to it. Beck’s choice of holding it on the anniversary of the 1968 civil rights march was at first pure ignorance on his part, but then he turned it into an opportunity for Beck and his Tea Party followers to attempt to steal the mantle of MLK. If memory serves, Beck made some comment about how “we are the original civil rights activists” (alluding, presumably, to the folks who signed the Declaration of Independence and or the first Constitution). This kind of revisionist history, and borderline racist dog whistling only serves to sully the reputation of that day (and the man, MLK).And I’m not going to get into all the twisted symbolism of the huge “Restoring Honor” banners. Exactly how many people of color were at that march? Anything close to a representative sample?As for Estrada and Rogers Brown… Where to begin. Yes, they were not confirmed because the Dems thought them too conservative. Wasn’t the first time that’s happened. But is it not a tad ironic that the very party that has fought the idea of affirmative action, fights so stridently for a handful of minority judges – and then accuses others of using the race card? Clarence Thomas is probably the best example of this, in that Bush Sr. kept trying to make the case that his choice wasn’t about race, it was about qualifications, and Thomas was *clearly* the most qualified candidate in the GOP stable. Which I think is a little different from Estrada and Brown. Dems were against them for their judicial record, and the GOP kept throwing the race card, accusing the Dems of racism. Kind of like Clarence Thomas calling his hearings a “high-tech lynching.” Nice choice of words. And yes, mavprof, I passionately oppose most of what the Tea Party (and by some extension, the GOP) support. And yes, I believe much of what the Tea Party supports (or opposes, depending on the issue) has racial undertones, if not racist underpinnings. Home schooling, and relatedly the call for the abolition of the Dept. of Education, have their roots in parents not wanting their kids to be in school with minorities. More recently, we’ve witnessed the fireworks in North Carolina where a school board (which was being lead by a professed Tea Party supporter) lit some racial tinder by pulling the plug on a school desegregation plan. Now we can debate until the cows come home the pros and cons of that particular deseg plan. But the underlying issue was a recently elected school board, with heavy backing from Tea Party-like folks, made it their first priority to assault a structure that had been put in place to ensure equal opportunity for people of color. And it went from there.So, mavprof, let me then just focus on fewer examples in the future. And maybe just focus on issues around education. Perhaps we can talk about what happened this year in Teaxas? When a Tea Party-friendly state board of ed decided to re-write history? Or, to press a little further with what chuckkle quotes above – the piece that he didn’t quote was Greenwald making the point that he doesn’t see much difference between what the Tea Party wants and what the GOP has been working for. It’s just a different presentation. The establishment GOP has over the years become much more skilled at obfuscating their true intentions. The Tea Party just says it outright.
blueconcrete - September 17, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Dr. Bauerlein, Many people in the U.S. have varied opinions about the Tea Party Movement (TPM), but you flatter yourself if you think that the TPM evokes fear in more than a handful of them.
markbauerlein - September 17, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I’m not sure what “borderline racist dog whistling” means, marktropolis. And are you saying that Dems opposed Estrada for his “judicial record”? Elena Kagan flatly disagrees with you. And as far as I saw, Beck et al didn’t try to “steal the mantle of MLK,” but instead spoke reverently of him. Remember, too, that the steps of the Lincoln Memorial had deep civil rights meaning well before 1963. Some people date the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement to the moment when President Harry Truman addressed the NAACP from that spot.And blueconcrete, I’m not sure how finding that many people “fear” the TPM “flatters” me. Perhaps you’re right, though, that the fear is limited. It sure does pop up in high-profile places, though, such as the NY Times op-ed page.
blueconcrete - September 17, 2010 at 3:00 pm
Dr. Bauerlein,I simply meant that you exaggerate the importance of a marginal-but-vocal collective with which you obviously sympathize; the TPM isn’t coherent, organized, or sizeable enough to merit fear from most people. The NYT Op-Ed page is hardly a go-to source for public sentiments in the country. Most regular NYT commentators speak to each other in a self-assured vacuum.
markbauerlein - September 17, 2010 at 3:18 pm
Only partly sympathetic with them, blue, but agreed on the comment.
mavprof - September 17, 2010 at 3:31 pm
Again, Marktropolis, I can’t help but think your straining to tie nearly every Tea Party position (ostensively against redistributive taxation and crippling deficit spending, excessive government regulation and coercion, for increased government effectiveness, economy, accountability, and transparency) to a race issue is an attempt to win rhetorical advantage by exploitation of a moot point for most of their supporters and speakers. Is there an issue championed by Tea Partiers that doesn’t involve race for you? Or is politics for you just race all the way down?
gplm2000 - September 17, 2010 at 3:37 pm
marktropolis: “They’re bringing all the old anti-communist tools out of the chest since they’ve now pinned Obama as a socialist….They get to dress Obama and his wife up as a pimp and a whore and it’s just a good laugh.” It seems that you have a problem with name-calling.I guess anyone who disagrees with your leftist rhertoric must be a bigot or racist. Unfortunately libs and dems only see things through the limited prism of equal outcomes. BTW, a society/culture has a right to like/dislike anything/anyone it pleases. Instead of criticizing the western european heritage of most US citizens, maybe you should look at the restrictive cultural practices of blacks(American Negro)and muslims. It might open your eyes to which culture is one of equal opportunity, oppression, freedom of speech and movement. Much to your dismay Asians and Hispanics will do just fine integrating into American society—if we still have one.
mavprof - September 17, 2010 at 4:14 pm
gplm2000: Generalizing about the “restrictive cultural practices” of African-Americans and American Muslims as you do is both insupportable and lends anecdotal credence to Marktropolis’s equally generalized claims about the prevalence of American bigotry, though I’ve no evidence that you are a Tea Partier. I doubt whether such views would be welcome at their rallies.
marktropolis - September 17, 2010 at 4:41 pm
MarkB: since you don’t seem to know what dog whistle politics are – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politicsI'm not sure who in their right mind would peg the beginning of the civil rights movement to Truman. And, yes, the Lincoln Memorial has alot of meanings for a lot of people. But those steps on that date: since 1968, Aug. 28 has held tremendous meaning to a lot of people. And Glenn Beck has a pretty good idea of what it means to those people – which is why it was a stroke of political genius for him to have his march on the same day.Secondly, Beck’s march was nothing but pure theater. Granted, most marches end up that way (with carefully orchestrated gatherings, hand-picked speakers, etc.). But Beck’s was orchestrated to give the viewers (and to a certain extent the participants) the new cleaner version of the Tea Party. No politics, no accusations, just a lot of nice things about God and Country. Oh, and honor. But it wasn’t about honoring King. It was about obfuscating Beck’s real agenda. Which you can discern if you spend 10 minutes looking at his history. Media Matters did a cute little piece of how MLK would fit on Beck’s chalkboard (you know, the one where he sketches out all these deep left-wing conspiracies. Check it http://mediamatters.org/blog/201008280005.Sorry, but for those of us who truly honor those who gave their lives for the civil rights movement were deeply offended by Beck’s choice. And then he has King’s niece get up there and spout her nonsense. Just because she’s related doesn’t make her right. She’s been a pariah to the movement for decades. I didn’t march with King, but I have marched with Abernathy, Lowery, and Andy Young, to name a few. And Beck doesn’t deserve to sweep the floor they walk on.Beck’s been playing this game for many years. We just didn’t really know about him before he got to Fox. But he’s got decades of experience. He knew exactly what he was doing, and it had nothing to do with honoring MLK.And mavprof, no, it doesn’t all boil down to race, but in this country, there is often (most of the time?) a layer of the issue that does play out along racial lines. Like it or not, race is one of the singular issues that makes America what it is (warts and all). Slavery wasn’t just a way to get cotton picked. Jim Crow wasn’t just because white people didn’t like black people. And that was barely 50 years ago. We can’t even deal with something like school desegregation without riots breaking out. And yes, when it comes to the distribution of public goods and services, you’re damn straight race plays a role.
marktropolis - September 17, 2010 at 4:55 pm
gplm2000, yeah, I do have a problem with name calling. Especially when it’s unfounded or unsubstantiated. And I also have a problem talking with folks about race when they refuse to consider the possibility that they don’t know it all (about race and racism). I know I don’t know it all. I know I’ve got a ways to go in my own racisms and prejudices. But I’ve also spent the better part of the last 25 years studying this very issue. And to a certain extent, living it. No, I’m not Black. I do have a Black wife a couple of multiracial children. Doesn’t make me an expert. But it does give me a certain perspective that you may not be able to grasp.And did you actually just refer to blacks as “American Negroes”? And yes, you get to like or dislike whatever you want. But when someone (like Beck or Palin, or any of those other folks) decide that their version of civil rights is more “right” than mine, yeah, I’ve got a problem with that. You can believe whatever you want, you just can’t make me live by it (1st amendment and all that). People died so that MLK could give that speech on Aug. 28, 1968. And people have died so that folks who still use the phrase “Negro” aren’t determining social policy for this country.As for Hispanics “integrating” into this society. Perhaps you should take a trip to the southwest. You know, that place where Mexicans have been living for around 500 years. Better yet, go to Washington, DC and see what “integration” looks like in Mount Pleasant, or Arlington, VA. Entire neighborhoods of Latin restaurants? Ever heard of Chinatown? Sheesh, what rock do you live under?This isn’t about western culture. This is about American politics and race. Then again, maybe you should go hang out with Dinesh D’Souza. He seems to have “integrated” just fine. Or perhaps you think all those Negroes should go back to Africa if they don’t like it here. Then again, maybe the European “settlers” should have done a better job of integrating with the so-called Indians back in 1500′s….?
markbauerlein - September 17, 2010 at 5:59 pm
To make judgments about “restrictive cultural practices,” gplm, be concrete and specific and avoid generalizations like that one.For marktropolis, if you think Harry Truman had no role in sparking the Civil Rights Movement, consider facts such as his desegration of the armed forces and the Federal Gov plus his creation of the President’s Committee on Civil Rights. Truman’s attitudes were largely responsible for the formation of the States’ Rights Party. Also, King’s speech was in 1963, not 1968.
mavprof - September 17, 2010 at 6:20 pm
Marktropolis, one small correction on your statement that “people have died so that folks who still use the phrase [sic] “Negro” aren’t determining social policy for this country.” Senate majority leader Harry Reid’s claim that President Obama doesn’t adopt “a Negro dialect” unless he chooses to?
marktropolis - September 20, 2010 at 10:45 am
mavprof, yes, Reid went there, but he also got skewered (although probably not as much as he should have). MarkB: mea cupla on the 1968/63. Don’t know how that got in there. And not to discount what Truman did. But I think your placing a bit too much emphasis on that one speech. If anything, the modern civil rights movement started with the first meeting of the Niagara Movement in 1905. Or A. Philip Randolph’s March on Washington that didn’t happen because it freaked out Roosevelt so much he signed Executive Order 8802, the Fair Employment Act. And the States’ Rights Party really started with the Dixiecrats – which I believe preceded Truman’s administration. That said, I’d argue that much of the civil rights legislation (going back to 1865, if not the Emancipation Proclamation itself) had more to do with white Northerners thumbing their noses at the South, and pretending they didn’t harbor any racism towards Blacks. The Reconstruction legislation of the 1880s was similarly about disempowering southern politicians – and not about really making anything much different for Blacks in the south. Yes, there was some federal protection, and a few Blacks got elected to Congress, but then Tilden threw it all under a bus.
markbauerlein - September 20, 2010 at 12:14 pm
No, the States’ Rights Party formed in 48, and they were often called “Dixiecrats” (because they were Southerners who broke off from the Democratic Party). And I think you mean Reconstruction legislation of the 1860s and 70s, not the 1880s.