Race in America: The Marital Counselor Analogy

[Ken]

But perhaps if we drop all those terms and framing and talk about our own experiences, as one person to another?

Well yes. That would be ideal.

But I see zero chance of that happening in any societal sense because people aren't seeking those answers. In fact, they don't really even want to hear them. Instead they are seeking to use specific issues (race, the environment, LGBT rights, guns, education, religion, health care, etc.) to frame and confirm their own larger political beliefs.

And note. This is not a one-sided thing where it is just one side that isn't listening. While I would argue that it is more the right (or some on the right) who aren't interested in having a serious conversation about race, LGBT rights and the environment. It is more the left (or some on the left) who aren't interested in having a serious conversation about religious freedom and perhaps some urban issues like homelessness, housing, drug abuse, and spillover issues like crime.

And note, there has never been a single moment in American history (or in the history of any other society) where there weren't major ideological splits on one topic or another. In the early 1800s it was Federalists vs Democrats. In the mid-1800s it was slavery vs. abolition. Pick any moment in time and you can find huge political divisions.

The more important thing I think is to retain respect for the basic political institutions and freedoms that we all have and not throw that all away over political divisions. I think we are closer to that now than we have been in a long time. And it really isn't about race. Race is just one battlefield between two political tides trying to push they country in opposite directions. I have no idea what the answer is. But I do know one thing for certain and that is that is better to solve our differences democratically rather than via any other means.

[Bootstrap]

But perhaps if we drop all those terms and framing and talk about our own experiences, as one person to another?

Well yes. That would be ideal.

But I see zero chance of that happening in any societal sense because people aren't seeking those answers.

But to return to the marital counselor analogy, they aren't in the room. We are. We can seek those answers with each other and with the people we know.

I hear several people here say things that imply we are helpless unless we can change "them". We can change ourselves. And we don't have to wait for "them" to change first. We don't have to let them control us as much as we often do. The Kingdom of God is supposed to be salt and light to the world, not a passive victim of the world.

In fact, they don't really even want to hear them. Instead they are seeking to use specific issues (race, the environment, LGBT rights, guns, education, religion, health care, etc.) to frame and confirm their own larger political beliefs.

And note. This is not a one-sided thing where it is just one side that isn't listening.

I agree. But recently, I have been having some very meaningful discussions with people where I used to feel that wall you describe. Discussions where we really focused on our own experiences. A mother of young black boys telling me of their experiences and fears for safety - and how that feeds into their response when another young black man gets shot. A mixed-race couple telling me about their experiences trying to find a church that would really accept them without treating them like some kind of prize, where they could just be there like everyone else. A white couple with good intentions that is on the other side of those dynamics, feeling hurt that the mixed race couple doesn't see how good their intentions are, but not really understanding what bothers the mixed race couple.

For the most part, I think these are conversations we need to be having.

But we have partisan political fights instead, using the words and talking points given to us by the political factions. Sometimes even telling people they do not really experience what they experience or they don't really feel what they feel. Treating people as suspect or dishonest if they don't think and feel the same way we do. That makes it hard to be the kingdom on the hill, an alternative to that political fight.

[Szdfan]

How do you have these conversations in a space like this that is dominated by white people?

[temporal1]

How do you have these conversations in a space like this that is dominated by white people?

People who refuse to read/study/discuss Thomas Sowell, and other conservative POC?

[Szdfan]

How do you have these conversations in a space like this that is dominated by white people?

People who refuse to read/study/discuss Thomas Sowell, and other conservative POC?

I think what you’re suggesting is the opposite of Bootstrap’s “marriage counseling” model where people talk about their own experiences and try to understand each other on a personal, relational level. You’re trying to force ideologues that you like and agree with into the conversation.

Thomas Sowell is also not in the room.

[temporal1]

How do you have these conversations in a space like this that is dominated by white people?

People who refuse to read/study/discuss Thomas Sowell, and other conservative POC?

I think what you’re suggesting is the opposite of Bootstrap’s “marriage counseling” model where people talk about their own experiences and try to understand each other on a personal, relational level. You’re trying to force ideologues that you like and agree with into the conversation.

sort of.
i appreciate boot’s call to put it on the individual level (as Jesus did).
(i believe) there are TONS of people (all description) who do this as a matter of course, they “make the world go round,” they do NOT appear in headlines, or are asked to speak in state universities, etc. Some on this forum. (Exceptions+freaks drive headlines.)

i have no power to force anyone to do anything. i’m of the opinion (that many share) that there is a gaping ignorance of opinions of conservative poc, and that these folks take brutal beatings for their views. socially, economically, sometimes physically.

i was recently dismayed to learn that Thomas Sowell still has an office at Stanford University, he has no name on his door, and lives in isolation, due to aggression lobbed at him over his views. He’s in his 90’s.

i understand and accept you have a personal problem with me. that’s ok. your privilege.

none of this has anything to do with boot’s OP, either.

For me, calls for discussion can’t be serious without authentic study and inclusion of conservative POC views.
People bring what they know and are interested in with them.

From all appearances, this is a serious problem within POC communities, similar to black on black violence.
This forum can’t fix those problems. Thankfully, there are capable competent diverse men dedicated to it. i admire them.
i try to be aware. i try not to be a stumbling block for them. Tough work. No quick fixes.

[temporal1]

i appreciate boot’s call to put it on the individual level (as Jesus did).
(i believe) there are TONS of people (all description) who do this as a matter of course, they “make the world go round,” they do NOT appear in headlines, or are asked to speak in state universities, etc. Some on this forum. (Exceptions+freaks drive headlines.)

i want to repeat this, and add, the reason i believe this about TONS of people, all description, “making the world goround”
is because i live in very culturally mixed areas, always have, and i meet them, all the time. in my community, traveling, in others’ communities. people of all ages and descriptions getting along well ..

The headlines, politicians, activists, instigators, etc., are evil. The exceptions and freaks.
The MAJORITY just want to get through their days with the least drama possible.

If and when headlines ever reflect the majority, “that’ll be the day.”

[Ken]

i was recently dismayed to learn that Thomas Sowell still has an office at Stanford University, he has no name on his door, and lives in isolation, due to aggression lobbed at him over his views. He’s in his 90’s.

I know you have a thing for Thomas Sowell, but you don't have to make things up. Thomas Sowell is not and had never been a professor at Stanford University. He was a professor at Cornell, Howard, and UCLA, but never Stanford.

He is currently a fellow at the Hoover Institute which is an independent conservative think tank that happens to be located on the Stanford Campus, but which operates separately from Stanford University with it's own board of directors, endowment provided by conservative donors, and so forth. The Hoover Institute has made hundreds of notable conservatives into "fellows" which basically means they are supported with stipends and might give the occasional talk there. So people like Henry Kissinger, Newt Gingrich, Niall Fergusson and Condoleezza Rice. Many of whom don't actually move to Palo Alto to occupy offices there. Sowell does not teach at Stanford, the Hoover Institute pays him to write.

The Hoover Institute is an enormous conservative think tank populated almost entirely by conservatives on a university campus that has plenty of other conservative professors. Can you show us the slightest evidence that the Hoover Institute stripped his name off of his office door because of his views? And that he lives in isolation in Palo Alto because of his views? I suspect not. If the Hoover Institute took his name off his office I suspect it is because he is 92 and probably doesn't use it anymore. And not because of his ideology which, in fact, is perfectly in-line with the Hoover Institute and the reason they made him a fellow.

I will say this. He is definitely correct in his views about housing policy and how restrictive zoning has skyrocketed the price of housing in California and led to the homelessness crisis across America. He has written a lot about that topic and has argued that restrictive single family zoning is racist, or has racist effects.

[Szdfan]

For me, calls for discussion can’t be serious without authentic study and inclusion of conservative POC views.
People bring what they know and are interested in with them.

I think any conversation about race needs to include POC. There are practically no POC on this forum, so I don’t understand how Bootstrap thinks the kind of conversations he’s advocating for are going to happen.

I don’t think this forum is an appropriate place to have conversations about race, because it’s primarily white people talking at each other, even if they quote Sowell.

[temporal1]

i don’t immediately recall where i read about TS and Stanford .. altho, it was written by a person who interviewed him IRL, and described the situation of TS’s (forced) privacy. This is easy to imagine, i didn’t question it, i’ve worked in university settings, professors love having their names on doors. It’s an achievement.

i don’t appreciate the presumption that i (or others) “make things up.” (it’s up to mods to determine what’s ok.)
For your pleasure: (this was not my original source)

https://www.tsowell.com/cv.html

CURRICULUM VITA

ADDRESS: The Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
(650) 723-3303

PERSONAL: U.S. Citizen, born June 30, 1930

EDUCATION:
Ph.D. in Economics, University of Chicago, 1968
A.M. in Economics, Columbia University, 1959
A.B. in Economics, magna cum laude, Harvard College, 1958

EXPERIENCE:
Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, September 1980 – present
Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., September 1974 – June 1980
Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, September 1977 – January 1978
Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, April – August 1977
Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, July 1976 – March 1977
Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972 – July 1974
Associate Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., September 1970 – June 1972
Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University, September 1969 – June 1970
Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University, September 1965 – June 1969
Economic Analyst, American Telephone & TelegraphCo., June 1964 – August 1965
Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963 – June 1964
Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, Rutgers University, September 1962 – June 1963
Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961 – August 1962

PRINCIPAL PUBLICATIONS:


Discrimination and Disparities (2018)
Wealth, Poverty and Politics, revised and enlarged edition (2016)
Intellectuals and Society (2009)
On Classical Economics (2006)
Black Rednecks and White Liberals (2005)
Affirmative Action Around the World (2004)
The Vision of the Anointed (1995)
Race and Culture: A World View (1994 )
A Conflict of Visions (1987)
Knowledge and Decisions (1980)
Say's Law: An Historical Analysis (1972)