Blasting the recent ruling on school desegregation, Hillary Clinton said at last night's debate that the Supreme Court had "turned the clock back" on history. Actually, it's sometimes a good idea to turn the clock back.
C.S. Lewis once wrote, "We all want progress, but if you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive."
Hillary thinks that since things in the past used to be very, very bad, whatever we do to move away from that must be very, very good. Therefore since America used to discriminate against blacks, now it must discriminate in favor of blacks. Since the American South used to force blacks and whites apart, now it must force them together.
This is the craziness that passes for "civil rights" today, and this is the craziness that the Supreme Court is trying to stop. The solution to discrimination in jobs, government contracts, and university admissions is not more discrimination; it is to choose the best candidates based on merit. The solution to school segregation is not coerced integration or busing; it is to let children attend their neighborhood school. This is what Thurgood Marshall argued in the Brown case: let kids go to their local schools.
So if we have to discuss this in terms of clocks, I think we should turn ours back to the original vision of Thurgood Marshall and Martin Luther King. This is the idea of the race-neutral or color-blind society. Better, let's go beyond the whole framework of "going backward" and "going forward." As I argue in my book The End of Racism, we need a fresh debate on race that breaks free of old categories and gives up the pretense that any criticism of current policies is a return to the bad old days of the past.
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 5)
61. Bushthwak: Once you answer my earlier and often-repeated questions about YOUR viewpoint and purported solution(s), I will be happy to discuss mine further.
Oh... that is, I will be happy to discuss further if you can stop throwing around insults constantly. I only have time for intelligent discussion.
eM at 11:05PM on Jul 2nd 2007
62. You never had a question, eM.
Bushthwak at 8:26AM on Jul 3rd 2007
63. Uhhhhhh... Em - You imagine yourself to be "intelligent" - but you have yet to "ask a question". So maybe you have something to ask...
But it isn't in evidence in anything you have posted here. You have asked questions as a rhetorical device - but haven't actually posited anything.
Now it's common for nuveau-racists to try and obsefucate the conversation by neutralizing the impact of the "r" word. At no time during this conversation have you offered the least approbation for the virulent racist comments of cuthean or walt, or the more nuanced soft sell of a Gasket - while chiding me repeatedly for correctly identifying these folks as racists.
From where I sit, this is much the same sthick as the Holocost Denier.
Now - you seem to want to discuss "black families" as you circle back to that discussion in every comment. Introducing irrelevant and rather misleading statistics, you conclude that the black family is in "crisis". Why "irrelevant and misleading"?
Because to discuss the issue of the American family you have to delve a bit further than that shit you have been eating from folks like DD'.
So let's see if you can grasp two simple facts.
Black Americans are more socially conservative than their white American bretheren. This has been proved out in numerous studies by even conservative "think tanks". If you are intellecutally able, a popular (but certainly not scientific) example of this are the Tyler Perry movies which have achieved huge commercial success parroting several consistent socially conservative themes.
The principle and leading risk factor for abberant behavior in children is broken families.
Now - try and wrap your head around the implications of those two statements, and come back with an intelligent, non-rhetorical question...
And we may have something to discuss.
Bushthwak at 12:17PM on Jul 3rd 2007
64. To quote myself (and it quite clearly was NOT rhetorical, if you read it correctly):
"Please explain, if you do agree with the premise that problems with "structure and cohesiveness of the family in our society" (to use your words) could be contributing to some of the achievement issues of our students, do you agree or disagree with the corresponding solution: focus on strengthening the family unit.
Please stop dancing around the topic, using name-calling as your main points. We've had enough of that in this country from both sides already. Answer the question."
Still waiting here...
You are continually proving that you are using the tactic of attacking your opponent rather than addressing the actual issue yourself. I will not respond until I hear what YOU have to say ABOUT THE QUESTION I asked above. I have made myself clear on that point. I'm tired of your accusations of racism with no other clear point to your argument. It's insulting and I'm finished with it. I also am not saying blacks aren't more socially conservative... from what I've read, and from the people I know, that definitely seems to be true. But social conservatism on many levels has little to do with the lingering effects of single-parent homes (economics, role of the father figure, time spent with children due to only one parent working/ caring for children, etc).
BUT, there I go again.... I'll stop for now and wait for you to answer, directly, my question above. If you retract some of your agreement with my statement (that a big part of the problem is with weak families, and this is not a "racial" issue -- it's a societal issue), that's fine, but explain why you now disagree. If you agree, clarify why. And in either case, I would like a discussion of YOUR ideas for a solution.
eM at 4:42PM on Jul 3rd 2007
65. Em fantacizes - ""Please explain, if you do agree with the premise that problems with "structure and cohesiveness of the family in our society" (to use your words) could be contributing to some of the achievement issues of our students, do you agree or disagree with the corresponding solution: focus on strengthening the family unit. "
I'm not sure if you are stuck on stupid, or what...
I said -
32 - "Now - we DO have a problem with the structure and cohesiveness of the family in our society."
32 - "...(Gasket proposes)...that the adolescent trauma of multiple familial breakdowns, and fatherlessness doesn't impact white kids as severly as "fatherlessness" impacts black kids."
38 - "Preservation of the nuclear family has nothing to do with conservatism. It is developed from moral and religious underpinnings as part of the American Judeo-Christian shared value system. "
56 - "I've simply argued that the statistics indicate that a majority of children in the US, black or white - will wind up fatherless at some time in their youth. And as such reinforcing and rebuilding the family needs to be an American objective, providing benefits to everyone."
62 - "The principle and leading risk factor for abberant behavior in children is broken families."
Now - if you are too stupid to see I've already responded to that "question" at least 5 times...
While you've sat here making a complete jackass of yourself whimpering about being challenged on the fact you support and condone racists...
Go hire yourself somebody with a 9th grade education to explain it to you.
We're done. You are waaaaay to freaking stupid to waste any further time with.
BT at 5:28PM on Jul 3rd 2007
66. I still haven't figured out why people think this ruling is racist. To force it upon schools and workplaces to be diverse is racism. This ruling is the opposite, which then would be not racist.
clud at 11:16PM on Jul 3rd 2007
67. So.... if you agree that "reinforcing and rebuilding the family needs to be an American objective" and it is, in fact, your proposed solution (which I had already suggested multiple times), then you really do agree with me. And the whole time, instead of saying so, you're attacking me with the term "racist" for no apparent reason except the excitement of repeatedly trying to twist my words, twist statistics, and in general work yourself up over nothing.
Talk about stupid.
eM at 11:40PM on Jul 3rd 2007