(no subject)

[leblon]

America has come a long way since 1901 when Theodore Roosevelt invited Booker T.Washington, a black leader, to dine at the White House. A journalist leaked this news to the press, and the reaction that followed seems incredible, by modern standards:

The headline in the Atlanta Constitution blasted, "President Roosevelt Proposes to Coddle Descendants of Ham." When Roosevelt accepted the "learned negro" at his table, the Chattanooga Times grumbled, he "went out of his way to offend the American idea of propriety and social distinction." The New Orleans Times-Democrat complained that Roosevelt had acted as if "the negro is the social equal of the white man," and the Richmond Dispatch declared, "We do not like Mr. Roosevelt's negrophilism at all." Republican Senator Foraker of Ohio cited the Washington dinner and called Roosevelt a man "of whom we may all be proud," but Ben Tillman, future senator for South Carolina, thundered, "Social equality means decadence and damnation." Alabama leaders thought Washington "had better sense than to share a meal with the president's wife and daughter," and one Southern congressman grumbled, "I confess, Booker Washington is a smart 'nigger' and way above the average, but at the same time he is a 'nigger' just the same."

The newspaper "Memphis Scimitar" ran an editorial entitled "The President Dines a Darkie" which said:

"The most damnable outrage which has ever been perpetrated by any citizen of the United States was committed yesterday by the President, when he invited a nigger to dine with him at the White House. It would not be worth more than a passing notice if Theodore Roosevelt had sat down to dinner in his own home with a Pullman car reporter, but Roosevelt the individual and Roosevelt the President are not to be viewed in the same light…He has not inflamed the anger of the Southern people; he has excited their disgust. "

South Caroline senator Ben Tillman claimed, “The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that nigger will necessitate our killing a thousand niggers in the South before they will learn their place again.”

After this, whenever Roosevelt invited Booker T. Washingtom to the White House, the meeting was always scheduled for 10 a.m., so that the President did not have to offer his guest either breakfast or lunch.

Comments

[leblon.livejournal.com]

You can't be serious about musical chairs. The current situation in race relations is definitely not obtainable from the situation in 1901 by a simple permutation. I am no supporter of affirmative action, but it comes nowhere close to the discrimination of blacks (and other non-whites or non-Christians) a hundred years ago. No black could enroll at Princeton at that time, no matter how well prepared. Also, I definitely prefer the situation when people are not free to discriminate others to the situation when people are not free NOT to discriminate.

[posic.livejournal.com]

Well, perhaps it is not a simple permutation, but rather a complicated transformation with chaotic dinamics (whatever is the English term for преобразование пекаря?). But it is not an improvement. Discrimination was mandated by the State governments in the South, yes, but now it is prohibited by the federal government. Princeton is a private university; it is good that it accepts blacks now, but it had the right to accept or not to accept them back then, and now it does not have this right.

People have to come to terms with the simple facts that people generally and representatives of various groups (races, ethnic groups, sexes, etc.) in particular are all different, yet must be treated equally by the legal system for the only reason that they are all people. This has not been internalized. The second assertion was often denied 100 years ago, the first assertion is often denied now. It is bad enough to have problems with law and ethics, but to have problems with facts of nature may be even worse.

The situation will go in circles until people accept both assertions simultaneously and no longer find them contradictory. Until then, there will be complicated chaotic dinamics, surely, but no improvement.

[leblon.livejournal.com]

I think nobody is arguing now that all people are identical in their talents. America is very far from an egalitarian utopia. So in that regard the situation is the same as in 1901. The difference is that in 1901 it was considered commonplace that people of different races have different abilities on average, while in 2008 people who argue this are beyond the pale.

As for overall improvement, this term is not sufficiently well-defined to argue about it. But in my opinion people now have better opportunity to become what they want to become than in 1901. For me, this is the most important freedom of them all.

[posic.livejournal.com]

Of course, nobody is arguing that all people are identical in their talents. Nobody believes that precisely. What many people believe is that though all people are different now, they can be made identical in their talents, and in other relevant respects, by introducing appropriate changes in their living conditions, starting perhaps from the moment of conception, if not from the moments of their parents' conceptions, etc.

Because everyone is the product of his or her environment and life history, so it is all a question of massive enough wealth redistribution, state run medical services, and (re)education campaings. People believing such things (who may be not always declaring them openly now for the fear of ridicule) have a great influence in the Western world nowadays, running the show in the social sciences and humanities departments, the public school systems, etc.

Their goal can even be achieved, and in a very simple way. This is where any attempts to approach the egalitarian utopia lead: destruction of humanity. Then all elements of an empty set will have the same properties.

It is still commonplace that people of different races have different abilities on average. Everyone knows that. People are being intimidated into refusing to admit simple and familiar facts of nature. This situation is itself very telling, and no good at all.

Freedom and opportunity are different things. Being alone on an empty island, everyone would have absolute freedom, but very limited opportunities. Opportunities mostly depend not on freedom, but on the standards of living. This is the main reason there are more opportunities in 2008 than in 1991 -- the standards of living rose. This is because accumulation of capital still continued in XX century, though the rate of capical accumulation slowed down because of the socialist policies.

[posic.livejournal.com]

1901, of course.