Why does "Blind Banker" bother some people?

[Arcadia]

Well, there's a reason it's sensitive here ... slavery, then segregation, always discrimination.

 

I volunteered for the Obama campaign the first time around. My friend and I were sent to knock on doors and hand out leaflets, talk the talk, etc. This was before the primaries, when Clinton was still expected to win the nomination. At one house, a 30-something black man opened the door, and we delivered our pitch. He listened very earnestly, looked troubled, and said "I just don't know, I don't think white people will vote for him." Then he blinked, took another look at us, and started stuttering something like "Oh. I guess you two ladies will." We assured him we would, and by the time we left, he'd decided to vote Obama.

 

I'm not sure why I told that story, except I thought it was funny. I still remember the look on the guy's face when he realized who he'd just said that to. :D

[Arcadia]

Wait... but then, when they put other actors, example whites, to do those things.. they will complain that it's white washing, not respecting culture etc etc.. right?

So what exactly do they want?

 

That's what makes it so tough; different people want different things. But in general, I think most people just want to know that the group/s they identify with aren't being disrespected. Stereotypes verge on that because they make assumptions about people based on their skin color, gender, etc. Of course Soo Lin is quiet, demur and works with Chinese artifacts; she's a Chinese girl! No way she could dress flamboyantly and be a chef in a Mexican restaurant! (And if she did, someone else would probably find a way to make that racist. )

[Boton]

And there are just *so many* things that I had no idea had a racial derivation or came from a stereotype, if I think about it too much I won't even open my mouth for fear that anything I say will be offensive. I have to actively fight against that impulse.

 

The story above about referring to Obama as "the black one" as far as differentiating the candidates reminds me of when I was a kid.  I was always terrible about failing to notice and/or mention the most visually obvious thing about a person, instead emphasizing what I knew about the person. So, when describing who someone should look for, I consistently failed to point out if someone was African-American, if someone was in a wheelchair, and, in one notable case, the fact that someone was missing a limb. I liked that part of me - that I identified people by whether they were great at their sport or if I had history class with them or something, not by something noticeable but irrelevant. I really make an effort to not lose that bit, but sometimes the efforts to be sensitive make me feel like if I don't make a special effort to notice these things, I'm being offensive.

[bedelia1984]

 

I liked Soo-Lin, but I thought the villain at the end was so clichéd! I'm no expert on Chinese culture, but she seemed so stereotypical for a villain that it might potentially be culturally offensive. On the other hand, I liked the portrayal of Soo Lin, which seemed more respectful.

 

I've just read this entire thread, because I keep finding articles online that refer to this episode as "racist."  Apparently the members of this forum don't quite see it that way, because yours is the closest comment I see to such a sweeping statement.  (And I do see your point, by the way.)

 

What really puzzles me is that the articles I'm talking about are actually about other things entirely, but then there's this one casual comment like "and of course I don't like TBB because it's so horribly racist," and then they're on to other matters.  They seem to take it for granted that everybody sees the episode as incredibly racist, and therefore there's no need to explain why.

 

Does anyone here see the episode as racist?  If so, why?  And if not, why not?

 

 

Just catching up with this thread now, sorry!

 

I don't know that I'd call it racist exactly, because I don't see any intent there to portray the culture in a negative light, I think it is mostly just lazy in the same way as a bond villain from some other culture might be stereotypically portrayed- because you can see the culture doesn't really matter to the writer.

 

I'm a bit torn, the more that I think about it, whether it is racist or not. It's unfortunate that other villains on the show- like say, Moriarty, or even the cab driver, are io much more nuanced and interesting that General Shan- then again, the overall standard of the writing in this episode is weaker for me, which I think is more the problem, as opposed to them not trying because she's Chinese. I do wonder, though if they allowed themselves to be lazier because she had the characteristic of being Chinese, and they felt that was enough, without fleshing her out. Possibly they gave themselves a bit of a pat on the back for making her female too.

 

If the episode were better in general, people, myself included might not have noticed how poor the portrayal of the chinese culture was. Arcadia touched on the main point with what she said about the pigeon-holing of interests etc, it's just a bit weak, to me, especially from a show capable of so much better.

 

I cringe at anything like that- if it is the cliché version of a culture- be it Native American, etc, or I've seen Irish characters I thought were really badly done because they're the typical drunk fiddle player, or whatever. It doesn't scream racism to me exactly, but it is a bit offensive because it peddles stereotypes and also it just seems like poor writing. I suppose the general is a weaker villain in general- say what you will about Eurus, she's a much better female villain than Shan. Shan seems mostly a soulless set-up for the Moriarty storyline, than a real character in any way.

 

So yeah, I don't think the writers are flaming racists or anything, but they could have tried a bit harder, if that makes sense.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Question: Does it bother you when Americans are portrayed in a stereotypical way in foreign productions?

Depends. We often parody ourselves, of course, and as far as I'm concerned, that depends also. If it's an affectionate portrayal of American habits or an American subculture, then it's fine with me, and if it's well done, I'll enjoy it. Of course it helps if it's an "inside job" -- i.e., done by people from the group being parodied -- because if it's done by people from elsewhere (even other parts of the US or other subcultures), they're bound to miss or misinterpret some of the details, and the result may end up sounding offensive even if that's not how they meant it.

 

If the parody is actually intended as mean-spirited, I am of course even more likely to take offense. Unless of course they're parodying some aspect of American life that I myself find offensive, in which case I'm likely to agree with them and laugh derisively.

 

Are mere clichés / stereotypes automatically racist? Guess that depends on the definition. I used to think racism meant more than that but I think the way the word is used is changing.

*sigh* I think so too. This may not be quite what you were talking about, but it's another facet of the same phenomenon, I think:

 

During my college days I was involved in the civil rights movement (in a fairly minor way). I don't recall ever hearing any definition of "racist," but my personal assumption was that it was a person who treated people one way or the other based on the color of their skin, and I believe this was pretty much what most people in the movement meant. For example, consider Dr. King's well-known "I have a dream" speech, which includes this statement: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

 

I believe that is still pretty much the definition among what someone here referred to as "people of good will." But in recent years, some people (who presumably mean well) have turned this on its head. For example, there's a large corporation near where I live that no longer hires the best job candidate regardless of the color of their skin, because they consider that "racist." They now hire because of the color of the candidate's skin (which I still consider racist). In a town with an overwhelmingly white population, they are so determined to set past injustices right that they have been known to "import" dark-skinned people from distant places, even other countries -- not because they are so well qualified, but primarily because of their color. It has become difficult for a white person, especially a white male, to get a job in certain departments of that company. In my opinion, the company should feel some responsibility to the local community, and to the local people who need jobs. It's not their fault that most of them are too pale!

 

... I remember saying that RDJ gave good convincing acting as a black man in Tropic Thunder, that's how I saw it, acting, immerse the role into someone you are not, in behavior and speech, nothing more, nothing less. Didn't remember seeing any controversy at that time, but mostly because I also live under the rock for 'entertainment' news. It's only after a while that I learned the term 'wearing black face' being controversial and I was horrified to think how ignorant I must sound when I said that, even without a drop of racism intended.

In my opinion, if Downey had actually played a black character that would have been odd at best. But I looked up the movie, and apparently he (a white American actor) was playing a white Australian actor who was for some reason playing a black American character when the actors got stranded and the white Australian pretty much had to "be" the black American character in order to survive the situation. According to Wikipedia, the movie is a satire, so I assume all this was done in order to make a point, in which case I see no harm in it.

 

What you may be unaware of is the extinct American art form called the minstrel show, wherein the performers portrayed stereotypical blacks. Having seen a few such shows while they were still being done, I will say that if you can ignore the stereotypical aspect and interpret the performances as portraying individuals who just happen to have those characteristics, the shows are entertaining in a fun-silly sort of way. However, the characters were always portrayed as blacks -- often by white actors who therefore wore a stylized "blackface" makeup, and I believe that aspect was responsible for a large share of the indignation. But Downey was not wearing the stylized "blackface," he was wearing realistic black makeup.

 

While I was in college, a civil-rights organization founded a local chapter on my campus. A very short time later, another campus organization put on an avant-garde sort of play that did not use a curtain (even though the stage was of course equipped with one). Instead, the stage would be darkened between acts, and the stage hands would come out dressed completely in black and with black makeup on their faces. Please note that they did not wear the stylized "blackface" makeup, but simply covered their entire faces with black greasepaint, somewhat in the style of spies trying to escape detection at night. The civil-rights chapter indignantly accused the stagehands of wearing "blackface" and picketed the play. Even though I fully supported their basic goals, I thought their boycott was just plain silly, and probably lowered their general reputation on campus.

 

... imo, a lot of stuffs nowadays are being blown out of proportion. Almost everything is seen from racism point of view, people are way way too aware with racism and quick to judge.

Agreed. There's enough undeniable racism left that it seems counterproductive to label every little slightly questionable thing as racist. I think that such overuse leads many people to simply ignore all such accusations, and generally weakens the impact when the word is used in clearcut cases.

 

During the McCain vs Obama campaign, I was in the US and watching TV with my grandmother and her older sister. My great-aunt was feeling the effects of age on her mind and had always been a little flakey, relying a lot on her family in important matters. So she turned to my grandmother with a perplexed look on her face and asked: "who are we voting for this time?" (my folks have never to my knowledge seen themselves as either Democrats or Republicans so they have to make up their minds every four years). And my darling grandma, bless her, without taking her keen eyes off the screen said in a soothing voice: "the black guy, dear."

 

Now, that sounds incredibly racist, doesn't it? Among so many more meaningful distinctions, to identify a politician by the color of his skin? But the thought would never have occurred to her. She was supporting Obama because she agreed with him more than with the other side and that was that, but to answer her puzzled sister, she chose the most obvious distinction between the candidates she could think of and that happened to be the one thing nobody else had dared to mention yet for fear of saying something offensive.

My first husband was an American-Chinese man with a fairly laid-back attitude. He once told me about overhearing one person attempting to point him out to another person, something like this: "The guy in the gray shirt." "Oh, the one next to the blond woman?" "No, the one in the third row." "Oh, the one with the briefcase?" "No, the one with the long straight hair." And so on -- never once mentioning that he was the only Chinese person in the room. He thought it was hilarious.

 

Wait... but then, when they put other actors, example whites, to do those things.. they will complain that it's white washing, not respecting culture etc etc.. right?

So what exactly do they want?

I think we need to bear in mind that there is no single "they." There are lots of "theys" and even more "sub-theys." Each has its own focus and its own agenda, so they will unavoidably disagree with each other on one point or another.

 

Therefore I believe it's up to each of us to do our level best to be respectful and sensible, and pretty much ignore all of the "theys" except in cases where what they say makes sense to us. Otherwise, we could go crazy trying to please everyone all the time.

[Van Buren Supernova]

I believe that is still pretty much the definition among what someone here referred to as "people of good will." But in recent years, some people (who presumably mean well) have turned this on its head. For example, there's a large corporation near where I live that no longer hires the best job candidate regardless of the color of their skin, because they consider that "racist." They now hire because of the color of the candidate's skin (which I still consider racist). In a town with an overwhelmingly white population, they are so determined to set past injustices right that they have been known to "import" dark-skinned people from distant places, even other countries -- not because they are so well qualified, but primarily because of their color. It has become difficult for a white person, especially a white male, to get a job in certain departments of that company. In my opinion, the company should feel some responsibility to the local community, and to the local people who need jobs. It's not their fault that most of them are too pale!

I believe that is what trying hard not to be racist but end up being racist in a way, similar with what my friend shared with me.

Possible unpopular opinion, I raised my eyebrow when 'Oscarsowhite' stuff came out earlier. I'm not white American so I don't speak in my favor, well of course I don't have the expertise to judge, also not the person who watch every single movies to make comparison, but I was thinking, in industry with percentage of higher white population, and something quite subjective with individual performance, I can actually see the non-racist reason of how it happens? And it's quite likely so.

 

Would this change the way they nominate the candidate in the future just for representation instead of the actual factors it uses for judging criteria? (not at all I'm saying that non white are less talented, if anyone blur enough to think so). Would the attempt on non racist make it racist instead?

 

This stuff is tiring isn't it?

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Yup. 

[Arcadia]

I felt the same way about the Oscars thing, VBS.

 

BUT ... I used to work in personnel for the local government, and we had to make sure we obeyed the "equal opportunity" rules. "Opportunity" being the operative word here; it's difficult for minorities to succeed if they are never considered in the first place. So our job was to do our best to recruit in places where we were more likely to find minority candidates, and make sure that all qualified applicants were considered, not just the ones at the top of the heap (who, at that time, were inevitably white males.) Previously, most recruitment came from a closed circle; people who were already in the industry. People who knew each other already, or knew someone who knew someone. And who did white males mostly know, at that time? Other white males.

 

I guess we did a good job; it was the most culturally diverse environment I've ever worked in. But it didn't hurt that I live in an area that is already very diverse; I imagine it would be a lot harder in an area that is almost all white. But my point is; it worked because we reached out to people who would not have been considered if it had been left up to the "insiders" network that was in place.

 

Is that reverse discrimination? In our case, at least, it wasn't that white males were discriminated against, it's that they were competing against a much larger pool of applicants than before. But I don't doubt that there were times when a less qualified minority was hired over a more qualified white male. But the white males were more qualified because they had had an unequal advantage all their lives. Not their fault; but if a system is shutting out certain groups of people, it might be wise to take a look at the system and see if it can be changed. And I assume that's what they did at the Oscars. I get the impression that Hollywood is the ultimate "good old boy" system; you get ahead by knowing the right people. And who are the right people in Hollywood? Mostly white males, just like everywhere else in America. So I can see why they were called out, and I can see why they made more effort to include projects done by minorities the following year. But that wouldn't have happened if there hadn't been a protest. Soooo..... maybe "Oscarsowhite" had a point after all?

[Boton]

I was thinking about this last night, and one of the problems I have is that some terms, like "racist," are important, but they can also be used to shut down a discussion.

 

So, getting back to TBB.  I want to have a discussion about General Shan. She's a bit cliche, and her character is written without a great deal of nuance. But, on the other hand, she's almost an old Hollywood stereotypical villain; if she hadn't used the bags of sand and timed-threat of being shot, I would have expected her to tie Sarah to the train tracks, tell her all the secrets of the nefarious secret organization, and leave her there until the hero swooped in to save her.  :-)  From that perspective, I found this a fairly relaxing plot; of course everyone was going to get rescued, so I was free to enjoy the interaction among Sherlock, John, and Sarah without undue worry about what was going to happen, which struck me as just right for the second episode. From that standpoint, I think Shan was a success.

 

We can all have that conversation here. But if you aren't careful and talk to someone who says, "well, the portrayal of Shan is racist," it shuts down anything you might like about it, even if some of the things are cliche. That's one of the things that bothers me about using that word too freely about entertainment. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Right. You don't dare object outright to their use of the term, because that's taken as proof that *you* are a racist. And you don't dare associate with them while avoiding the issue, because that's naturally taken as agreement. So unless you have the subtle persuasive skills of Socrates, your only option is to avoid that crowd altogether -- which may well also be taken as proof that you're a racist, but at least you don't have to listen to a tirade.

 

I love discussion -- but only with people who are willing and able to discuss rather than accuse or insinuate. And of course each of us has certain subjects that are nearly impossible to consider dispassionately. I get the feeling that in certain circles, the mere thought of subjecting the concept of racism to logical scrutiny is ipso facto considered heresy. And of course in other circles, other concepts are just as sacred. So in the end, I suppose each of us ends up discussing such concepts only with those who basically agreed with us in the first place.

 

I treasure opportunities to discuss such topics with people whose dearly-held beliefs differ from my own. But those opportunities are awfully rare.

[T.o.b.y]

They are indeed, at least if you want a real discussion and not some kind of fight.

 

I remember when my husband (then boyfriend) started uni, one of his roommates was a law student from a very conservative family. Our views on almost anything were completely opposite but I had some of the best conversations of my life with him. Neither convinced the other of anything but we always parted with increased mutual respect. I wish this kind of exchange would happen more often.

[Boton]

I had a work colleague once that I miss desperately.  We were of completely different political persuasions, but I always went to her (and, I think, she to me) with hot button issues of the day to get the other's take.  I cherished the times that she could explain her perspective to me in a way that gave me something new to think about  and broadened my view, even if I didn't fundamentally change my mind.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I had a neighbor like that. We held very different views on religion in particular. But we could discuss. We could ask each other what we believed and why, with no negativity and no attempts to proselytize . It was wonderful. But then we both moved away, in opposite directions. We've exchanged a few emails since, but somehow it's just not the same.

 

Arcadia, I agree that some things aren't fair and ought to change. But it seems to be human nature to change things by imposing the opposite problem. I suppose that's why in some countries you get a few decades of Faction A violently suppressing Faction B, followed by a few decades of Faction B violently suppressing Faction A, and so on. I don't know exactly what the answer is, but I must say I'm glad that in this country we merely get Democrats alternating with Republicans. This may be just my American bias talking, but it seems to me that the smaller the waves, the more likely they are to lead to peaceful, permanent change instead of retaliation.

[Arcadia]

Maybe, I don't know. Aren't big waves necessary, sometimes? I was just reading about the Montgomery bus boycott, and the way it led to an ever bigger civil rights movement; and yes, there was retaliation. But the protesters thought it was worth it in order to gain more equality; and they did, and I think it would be hard to find any decent person now who wouldn't applaud them for having done so. But at the time ... your average Silent Majority type thought they were trying to change too much, too fast, that they should be patient and wait for change to happen gradually. In other words, make smaller waves. Maybe the result would have been the same, or even better ... or maybe we'd still have Jim Crow laws, I don't know. I only know I can't blame them for being impatient.
 
But all that is on a whole different level of importance than a TV show, isn't it? You can turn off your television if you're offended by what you see there. I do, often. Maybe that's the real issue here; some people choosing to fight the small battles ("that show is racist!") instead of the ones that really matter. Of maybe not; I'm just winging it here. :P

[Carol the Dabbler]

I had no objection to the boycott then, and I have none now -- because as far as I'm aware, the participants weren't imposing their views on anyone else. They were simply doing collectively what each of them had a perfect right (both morally and legally) to do.

 

What I do object to is things like bussing kids to some distant school in the name of racial balance. OK, so there's a lofty rationale. But you're still forcing people to do something that many of them disagree with for any number of reasons. In my opinion, redrawing the district lines is about as far as it's reasonable for that sort of thing to go.

 

There's as old saying, "You can't legislate morality." Seems to me that you also can't legislate tolerance or respect. And if you try, you're more likely to end up with resentment.

[Arcadia]

Well, actually, yes, they were imposing their views on everyone else -- they were insisting they had a right to sit anywhere on the bus, even though it was illegal to do so. But I think I know in what way you mean that.

 

What I didn't know before until I read it today, was that the Alabama government kept finding ways to make their activities illegal, so they had to keep adapting how they dealt with not using the buses to get to work. It was interesting, the civil rights movement is one of my favorite things to read about. We were overseas at the time and weren't confronted with it all on the news every night, so I was only vaguely aware of what was happening at the time. Also I was rather young and didn't fully understand what was happening. But it created the world I live in.

 

I wasn't fond of the busing solution either, but I don't know that redistricting would have turned out any different; it still would have resulted in kids going somewhere other than the school around the corner. But considering how far people are willing to drive their kids to attend a private school these days, I don't really think the extra travel time/distance was the real issue. The fact that it was imposed on people was the issue. Something the black kids were all too familiar with, since it had been imposed on them all their lives that they were not permitted to go to the white school, no matter where it was.

 

How does a society address injustice without causing someone else to feel something is being taken away from them? I dunno. My instinct is, you can't. Maybe in the best case, those with the privileges realize how unfair it is to maintain those privileges at the expense of those without, and become willing to take steps to share. But when that doesn't happen ... what's to be done? Let the injustice continue so as not to inflict the comfortable? Somehow that doesn't seem right either. I just dunno.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, actually, yes, they were imposing their views on everyone else -- they were insisting they had a right to sit anywhere on the bus, even though it was illegal to do so. But I think I know in what way you mean that.

 

What I didn't know before until I read it today, was that the Alabama government kept finding ways to make their activities illegal, so they had to keep adapting how they dealt with not using the buses to get to work.

 

For a minute there I thought I'd misremembered the boycott.  But I've checked the internet, and the boycott was indeed a genuine boycott -- the blacks simply refused to ride the city buses.  That's not imposing anything on anybody -- riding the buses was not mandatory, so boycotting them was even perfectly legal (give or take some shenanigans on the city's part, as you mentioned).  Simply holding their views did not impose anything on anyone either.  People were free to agree or disagree.

 

The only related imposition of views was by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that segregated city buses were unconstitutional.  And I personally find it perfectly reasonable that governments should not be allowed to discriminate against certain of their citizens on the basis of race, sex, and such.

[Boton]

Any kind of de jure discrimination that doesn't serve a concrete purpose is onerous.  (I will support something like a height requirement in the military, however, if that is needed for operational safety.) But segregation laws should indeed have been boycotted. 

 

But how far do you go to impact de facto practices? And why do we think it's OK to "punish" people in positions of privilege? I'm not at all for establishing or supporting a caste system, and I do think we are inching toward a system where hereditary wealth and power is becoming problematic in the US.  But when it comes to something like bussing, I don't think someone who happens to have "regular people" money and privilege should be inconvenienced any more than I think someone who lives in relative poverty and disadvantage should be, and that was my problem with sending kids hither and  yon to achieve a balance in the schools. Mostly, you were inconveniencing school children.

 

 

[Arcadia]

What I meant by imposing their views was ... the buses relied on fares from the black residents; by refusing to take the bus they upset the applecart ... forced THEIR views into the open, where a lot of other people didn't want them to be. But as I said, I think you were referring to something slightly different, Carol, which I get. You meant, I think, trying to force other people to do as they did. I meant, I think, trying to force society to change.

 

As to "punishing" the privileged ... I've heard that before. All I can say is, the way I was raised and educated, the things the privileged were being asked to do were not considered punishment. Pay more taxes so those without can have better lives? That's patriotism where I grew up, not a punishment. Change the housing rules so a person of color can move in next door? In my world, that's only playing fair, not being punished. Send my kids to a different school ... well, I said I don't like it either, but it would never have occurred to me to regard it as a punishment, but as a civic duty. Give up my seat on a bus so an older person can sit ... even though she's a different color than I am? When I was growing up, that was just manners.

 

But I understand that other people consider what I'm describing to be an idealized version of life, or maybe simply self-righteousness. Maybe it is, but it seems incredibly real and practical to me; that really is the kind of people I grew up with. People who genuinely believed that when they were passed over for a job in favor of a minority, they weren't victims, but part of something more important than themselves; that they could accept being passed over in order to benefit society as a whole. People who voted for a tax hike so their community could have more services. People who were privileged enough to afford to be generous or inconvenienced or bypassed, and believed it was justice that it should be so.

 

Is that really so different than the way other people were raised? Maybe it is, maybe my little circle of acquaintances is unique. I hope not, because I really liked those people, and believe they did a lot of good in the world.

 

At any rate, I notice that I keep using the past tense, and indeed I don't think I have as many of those kinds of people in my life anymore. A few, bless them. But the world's changed and the privileged of that time are often the ones who are struggling now ... and the super privileged are so stratospherically beyond the rest of us, they get to make up their own rules, and everyone else be damned. Not too fond of the world I've ended up in, quite frankly, where how much you earn is the only thing that matters any more. But I guess some people think it's always been that way. Not me and mine, though. I miss mine. :(

 

(In case you're wondering; I grew up solidly middle class, surrounded by educators and civil servants, diplomats and Peace Corps workers, and a lot of it overseas where the culture, language and lifestyle was far different than the small town in California where I was born. So blame all those people for the way I turned out, not me. Clearly I was brainwashed. :P)

[Boton]

Arcadia, thank you for sharing that perspective.  That's what I mean by being able to explain a worldview in such a way that people can take it in.  I don't think your vision is idealized, so much as I think it comes from a different context and different experiences than I knew/know. My perspective is also from people who I think do and mean a lot of good in the world.  

 

I'll take your example, quoted below:

 

 

All I can say is, the way I was raised and educated, the things the privileged were being asked to do were not considered punishment. Pay more taxes so those without can have better lives? That's patriotism where I grew up, not a punishment. Change the housing rules so a person of color can move in next door? In my world, that's only playing fair, not being punished. Send my kids to a different school ... well, I said I don't like it either, but it would never have occurred to me to regard it as a punishment, but as a civic duty. Give up my seat on a bus so an older person can sit ... even though she's a different color than I am? When I was growing up, that was just manners.

 

First, the way I was raised, changing housing rules to admit people of color (gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation) and giving up a seat on a bus to an older person are no-brainers.  The latter, as you say, is manners, and the first is equal opportunity. Anyone who can do something (like buy a house in a given neighborhood) should be allowed to do it, full stop.  So, to my background, those are givens.

 

Now, as far as paying more taxes being patriotism, that's where I would disagree.  For most of my life, including now, being asked to pay more taxes could tip me or people I know off a knife edge between the ability to help their kids go to college or not, or the ability to pay for a new roof on the house versus going into debt to do so. I grew up with and am mostly surrounded by people who are one job loss or one major expense (including taxes) away from a substantial change in standard of living - making too much money to get any tax breaks or subsidies and too proud to want to ever do anything but pay their way and only their way.  I am and am from the kind of people for whom one cancelled project, one eliminated shift at the factory (not a day, but elimination of third shift for the season), or one blip in the economic landscape causes a burst of terror.  I myself have shed tears over this kind of event, wondering how we're going to make up for the loss or what kind of part time job or side hustle is going to have to be added to the mix to keep things stable.

 

I grew up with farmers who have always known their income depends on how the crop comes in this year, and people in manufacturing with crazy-intricate skills who have watched $25 an hour jobs (in the 1980s) become $12 an hour jobs while they are told to "get over" the decline in the sector and just "retool" - when that means going back to school for an additional degree in one's 50s or 60s, making retirement all but impossible. And with both of those comes the worry that your body will give out long before you have enough money put together to pay your bills, and there probably won't be a Social Security there even as a supplement.

 

I grew up with and am surrounded by a lot of people who would help your family out in an emergency - bring food, literally rebuild a barn after a fire, give rides to work while you get your ancient car repaired, but who bristle at the idea of politicians who live in 6,000 sq. foot houses in gated communities deciding when it is time for people to give more money for the common good.  I grew up with people who trust fixing these problems on a town or neighborhood level but who are increasingly suspicious of anything that happens at a governmental level.

 

At the same time, I grew up with the belief that any of us could work our way into being affluent, if we just worked hard enough, so you treat those who have "made it" the way you yourself want to be treated.  That's ingrained in me.  Hard work will get you anywhere.  I will probably die believing that if I don't get to where I want to be in life, it will be because I didn't work hard enough.  Heck, let's just stipulate I will die thinking I didn't work hard enough - that's my personality on top of my upbringing.

 

However, let me say I wholeheartedly agree with what you said here:
 

 

But the world's changed and the privileged of that time are often the ones who are struggling now ... and the super privileged are so stratospherically beyond the rest of us, they get to make up their own rules, and everyone else be damned.

 

Yeah, ^^^ that.  I don't want to believe that my lot in life was determined the day I was born into a certain social class.  I don't want to believe the upper echelons of our society are forever closed to me, no matter how many degrees I get, how refined my manners are, how well-put-together I can be, or how hard I work.  It scares me that this is starting to be the conclusion in this country.

[T.o.b.y]

Wow, you guys are having such an interesting discussion I don't even want to bring it back to the topic of the thread... Besides, it's still related to that in a roundabout way.

 

My impression is that sadly, many people feel like they cannot afford to give up one more thing, be that some part of their income for taxes or an (unfair?) advantage, however slight, on the job or housing market. And what's even sadder is that many of them are right, they can't. But instead of admitting this, many try to justify their (understandable) fear of a more level playing field by denying any systemic disadvantages based on race, gender etc even exist any more. It just sounds better than "sorry, can't help you out because I am struggling to keep my own shit together".

[Boton]

...denying any systemic disadvantages based on race, gender etc even exist any more. It just sounds better than "sorry, can't help you out because I am struggling to keep my own shit together".

 

 

Great point, Toby!

 

To which I would add:

1. It is important to admit that systemic disadvantages exist.  It is equally important to admit that that a great deal of progress has been made in many areas, and we should be as proud of that progress as we are concerned about remaining problems.

 

2.  If only there were a way to tell the government that you're going to have to take a pass this year while you get your own shit together!

[T.o.b.y]

Well, ideally, taxes wouldn't be "for the government" but an investment in the future and the community. Taxes payed for my education for example and I am pretty sure that during the few years I have been working so far, I haven't even come close to paying that back out of my income.

 

But of course we don't live in an ideal world and tax money is being wasted left and right. A "toilet concept" for our capitol is actually among the more sensible uses it has been put to recently.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I do think we are inching toward a system where hereditary wealth and power is becoming problematic in the US.

 

In my view, the main threat (in this country) to us ordinary folk and our way of life is the unholy alliance between big government and big business.  For example, the agri-chemical industry is de facto in charge of the Department of Agriculture, and thus is regulating what farmers can and cannot do, and of course influencing them to use more and more chemicals and genetically engineered crop seeds.  The pharmaceutical industry is influencing the medical establishment to a ridiculous extent (e.g., providing many of the the continuing education classes that doctors are required to take), and is also pushing the Food and Drug Administration to ban many vitamin pills and other supplements.

 

It does occur to me, however, that the world has just about always been that way.  Where my ancestors came from, the alliance was between government and religion, and even more so further back in time -- and of course it's still that way, to one extent or another, in many (perhaps most) countries.  There are even certain factions in the US who want to turn this country into a theocracy, despite the clear constitutional ban on state religions, and even though they are appalled (as I am) by Sharia Law in the Middle East.

 

I'm thinking that these alliances come about for two reasons:  1) People with a certain level of authority, be it small or large, tend to cooperate with other people in their same stratum, from the top of the heap clear down to the bottom.  But when you get to the top, the only other people at your level are in other organizations, so you naturally tend to form coalitions.  In other words, good ol' boy networks are just human nature.  2) People who are not experts in a field (and I think especially people who lack self-confidence) tend to trust people who are (or claim to be) experts.  (Though there are some skeptics like me, probably more so with age.)  So again, it's human nature to allow "experts" to influence one's decisions, sometimes to the exclusion of any independent thought.  Both government and industry claim to be filled with experts, so people in general tend to consider it perfectly normal and even desirable for them to work jointly.  And in my opinion, not enough people complain when government and industry start running each other and endeavoring to make most of our decisions for us.

 

What I meant by imposing their views was ... the buses relied on fares from the black residents; by refusing to take the bus they upset the applecart ... forced THEIR views into the open, where a lot of other people didn't want them to be. But as I said, I think you were referring to something slightly different, Carol, which I get. You meant, I think, trying to force other people to do as they did. I meant, I think, trying to force society to change.

OK, I now see what you mean, but (as you've already deduced) that's not what I mean by "imposing" or "forcing."  Just because the boycotters had been bus customers, I don't see that they were under any moral obligation to continue, whether or not the city had been treating them like dirt.  Just because I've been shopping at Buddy's Supermarket all my life doesn't obligate me to continue if I find a different grocery store that I like better -- and I'm also well within my rights to encourage all my friends to switch.  I don't call that forcing or imposing anything on anybody, even if Buddy's happens to go out of business as a result.  (I do feel loyalty to certain small local stores, but that's my choice, not an obligation.)   Regarding the bus boycott (as I understand it from reading Wikipedia), the boycotters even offered to go back to riding the bus if the city would make what in hindsight were a few very minor concessions.  But of course the city refused until the Supreme Court stepped in and imposed (I assume we'd both use that word here) far wider changes.

 

... that really is the kind of people I grew up with. People who genuinely believed that when they were passed over for a job in favor of a minority, they weren't victims, but part of something more important than themselves; that they could accept being passed over in order to benefit society as a whole. [....]

 

But the world's changed and the privileged of that time are often the ones who are struggling now....

Cause and effect? I am all in favor of a "color-blind" hiring policy, and wouldn't mind companies using minority status as a tie-breaker, but hiring less-qualified candidates because of non-job-related characteristics is hurting not only the more-qualified candidates; in the long run it's hurting the company itself by filling it with less-qualified people.  Enough companies like that, and you're hurting society.

 

Mind you, "less qualified" doesn't mean that the person is poorly qualified for jobs in general -- merely that they're poorly suited to this particular job.  Therefore if they're hired for it, they may well be missing out on another job where they'd be a better fit, would perform better, and would be more at ease.  (Same applies to college admissions, by the way.)

 

I'm also concerned about the long-term effects of such policies, especially those enforced by government.  There are now, I believe, roughly two generations of minority young adults who have grown up being told that the only way they can hope to get a job is for the government to force a company to give it to them.  What effect does this have on their sense of initiative and self-respect?  I assume the theory is that these policies will be phased out as the need for them decreases.  But if the people that the policies were intended to help actually become psychologically dependent on them, how can the policies ever be phased out?

 

Is that really so different than the way other people were raised?)

 

I'm with Boton on this one.  Not so different in overall effect, but somewhat different in tone.

[Van Buren Supernova]

I support paying taxes for facilities as general idea. 

 

However, like Boton mentioned, taxes could really be a big burden and make a lot of difference for mid to low income. Furthermore, I have no faith with the taxes being used for good causes or improving facilities. I may see a thing or two, but many more times I wonder if what I paid are just going into fattening the pocket of corrupt government. Every time I encounter dangerous holes and roads in bad conditions, riding through darkness because street lights are off, spending months or years of saving just because of hospital admissions, horrible public transportation and all around inadequate public facilities.

Education, well I was one of the lucky ones who got into the best government subsidized university during its best time when competitions was really based on performance and results, not money. (and luckily, all my siblings too despite the our horrible odds, yes, because of racial segregation too, it happens everywhere. In our case, it's stereotyped that we are supposed to be able to afford private university that cost arms and legs so the seats ratio were very very low).  

Eventually, it becomes semi private and now students would need to pay good money to get in on top of passing the tests, so it's up to whether you believe that they prioritize performance over money. It's still the best uni I believe, but the year you graduate matters a lot now to potential employee and eventhough we are not affected, I despise how new students who genuinely put efforts and got in have to face that prejudice about the possibility of 'money talks'.

 

It pisses me off more whenever I heard about tax evasion from the rich and richest, they have ways to get around them and they have good lawyers and even worse, when I read about multi million companies running sweat shops and don't bother to pay or treat the worker humanely. It's different animal, but you probably get my point.