AN INCLUSIVE TABLE

 

History matters: The other side of the story

By: Eartha Hopkins

https://www.mahoningmatters.com/community-columns/an-inclusive-table-history-matters-the-other-side-of-the-story-4466530

The majority of what I know about history was not found in the books I read in a formal classroom.

Instead, I learned about the wide spectrum of culture, traditions, wars and victories of the world from the tender, yet brutally honest approach of my mother who earned a bachelor’s degree in African-American studies from Youngstown State University. It instilled confidence and cultural identity that I still carry with me today.

I learned early the pros and cons of accessing a comprehensive worldview which was in sharp contrast to the lessons I’d be taught in the public school system. I faced reprimands consistently from teachers who did not necessarily agree with the cultural lens that I presented. 

An example that stands out the most is in the fourth grade when my teacher initiated a lesson about Columbus discovering America. When I questioned my teacher about how a man could discover a land that was already inhabited by people, she dismissed my inquiries and described to me and my 20 classmates that they were savages. 

Webster defines "savage" as "not being domesticated or under human control, and/or a beast." This is the framework created in the minds of a group of children expected to accept and trust their teacher. Luckily for me, my mother offered a safe space to discuss a 360-degree-view of history. I can only imagine how my classmates interpreted and internalized this message, particularly my peers of color. 

Throughout my academic journey, I would never be formally introduced to the existence and contributions of Africans before the transatlantic slave trade. Worse, the story of the civil rights movement was rendered incomprehensible because it was filled with the tropes of biased myths portrayed in media.

Omissions of accurate records of my past would create a disconnect that I would fight against to keep my identity intact. If I based my worth and value solely on what was presented to me in public institutions, I would exist in a myriad of confusion, unclear of my role within society.

Education from my perspective seemed one-sided; full of only non-Black protagonists and their viewpoint minus the various multicultural groups I knew to be true. The stories I read reflected perspectives, accomplishments and discoveries of people who rarely shared my culture, or looked like me or my community for that matter.

Even as an adult, I can still see the misguided teachings of what my fourth-grade teacher displayed in the world today.

I am just as perplexed now as I was then at how certain groups of people are dehumanized, displaced and completely omitted from American reverence. This lack of appreciation and dismissal of the full spectrum of humanity can never unite, but only further disconnects communities.

To embrace the full experiences of everyone is to begin a true process of healing and reconciliation; to create a world where we all are seen, heard and validated authentically. 

Chapter review: Introduction to the 2016 edition

According to many commentators, “the root cause” of the problems Americans face as the twentieth century draws to a close  is an “epidemic of family breakdown.” [One education expert] blames the decline of American education on a “parenting deficit.” “It’s not better teachers, texts or curricula that our children need most . . . . we will never see lasting school reform until we see parent reform.” Divorce and unwed motherhood are said to be the major causes of poverty and inequality in contemporary America. In his state of the Union Address for 1992, President Bush claimed that the crisis of the cities results from “the dissolution of the family.” Kate O'Brien of the Heritage Foundation asserts that people of all political persuasions are coming to understand that America's troubles stem from the collapse of “family stability and the work ethic.” -- Stephanie Koontz, The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap, chapter 11, The Crisis Reconsidered, original 1992 edition

Introduction & some context

As one might guess, Introduction to the 2016 edition is the introduction to the 2016 edition of a book. The book in this case is The Way We Never Were: American Families and the Nostalgia Trap by Stephanie Coontz. She is a college professor and an expert on the history of families and family structures and the actual, not spun, reality and forces they operate in.

In revealing and attacking myths, lies and crackpottery, this book is a lot like James Lowen’s 2018 book, Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong (chapter review here). Koontz focuses on and debunks an endless stream of lies and myths about families. She describes how political partisans and special interests use the myths to glorify and/or justify both their political beliefs and ideology, and their political, economic and social agendas. The political mythology around American families is staggering. Crackpot thinking and a combination of lies and ignorance is routine in the faux world of families and their effects on parents, children and society.

One point that jumps right out from Introduction is how well the myths from America’s radical right dovetail perfectly with the non-existent world that fundamentalist Christian nationalist dogma and mythology has created. Millions of American conservatives fully buy into the radical family mythology that Christian zealots have created at least since the 1960s. The idealized time was the 1950s, when prosperity was widespread and wealth inequality was relatively low. Myths about how families were and should be popped up and proliferated.

It is also apparent that radical right family mythology fits nicely with radical right mythology about the dominant, authoritarian role of men in government, society and the economy. That is core Christian nationalist dogma. Thus, on this point the fit between radical right religion and politics is as close to perfect as complicated human things like this can get. 

Review: Introduction to the 2016 edition

Koontz wrote the 34 page Introduction to describe what she revised or updated in her original 1992 book. She asserts that most of the 1992 edition has been left unchanged and that the facts and/or mythology she saw then has not changed much. The Introduction is thus a nice summary of the rest of the book, with some or most of the core myths mentioned and the debunking data summarized.

Regarding nostalgia as a trap, Koontz correctly points out that nostalgia is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, it leads children to forget bad or unpleasant things in their past while having better recall of good things. But in the minds adults it can be a different thing:

“As time passes, the actual complexity of our history--even of our own personal experience--gets buried under the weight of the ideal image.

Selective memory is not a bad thing when it leads children to forget [parents’] arguments in the back seat of a car and to look forward to the next vacation. But it’s a serious problem when it leads grown-ups to try to re-create a past that either never existed at all or whose seemingly attractive features were inextricably linked to injustices and restrictions on liberty that few Americans would tolerate today.”

Koontz exemplifies the mythology of family using the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision that made same-sex marriage a nationwide right. Judges on both sides of that 5-4 decision got the structure or role of family wrong:

“In his dissent from the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, ‘For all . . . . millennia, across all . . . . civilizations ‘marriage’ referred to only one relationship: the union of a man and a woman.’ Its primordial purpose, Roberts asserted, was to make sure that all children would be raised ‘in the stable conditions of a lifelong relationship.’

These assertions are simply not true. The most culturally preferred form of marriage in the historical record--indeed, the type of marriage referred to most often in the five books of the Old Testament--was actually of one man to several women. Some societies also practiced polyandry, where one woman married several men, and some even sanctioned ghost marriages, where parents married off a son or daughter the the deceased child of another family with whom they wished to establish closer connections.

The most common purpose of marriage in history was not to ensure children had access to both their mother and father but to acquire advantageous in-laws and expand the family labor force. The wishes of the young people being matched up and the well-being of their offspring were frequently subordinated to those goals. That subordination was enforce through the institution of illegitimacy, which functioned to deny parental support to children born of a relationship not approved by the kin of one or both parents or by society’s rulers. In Anglo-American common law, a child born out of wedlock was a filius nullius, a child of nobody, entitled to nothing.”

So much for how the American radical right sees marriage. It is a mirage. How did the majority five justices in Obergefell see  marriage?

“Justice Anthony Kennedy, meanwhile, wrote an eloquent majority opinion in support of marriage equality. Labeling marriage a ‘union unlike any other in its importance’ to two committed persons, Kennedy argued that gays and lesbians deserved to marry because lifelong unions have ‘always promised nobility and dignity to all persons’ and ‘marriage is essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations.’

These claims are also at odds with historical reality. For thousands of years, marriage conferred nobility and dignity almost exclusively on the husband, who had a legal right to appropriate the property and earnings of his wife and children and forcibly impose his will upon them. As late as the 1970s, most states had ‘head and master’ laws, giving special decision-making rights to husbands, while the law explicitly defined rape as a man’s forcible intercourse with a woman other than his wife.”

More mirage. 

Koontz points out that such mythologizing about the historical benefits marriage has the downside of its tendency to to blame social ills on divorce and unwed motherhood. She points out that in the marriage-centric illusory good old days of the 1950s, poverty and material hardship were more common than now. Women and children bore the brunt of poverty in both traditional marriages and in households headed by women. Current worldwide research indicates that men in marriages are often economically advantaged at the expense of wives and/or children. Koontz writes:

 “In chapter 11 I discuss what’s wrong with the claim that unwed childbearing is the primary cause of poverty, economic insecurity, and inequality. Recent research bears out my argument. A 2015 study concluded that overall, between 1979 and 2013, income inequality was four times more important as family structure in explaining the growth of poverty. Another recent study concludes that since 1995, the role of single parenthood in contributing to economic instability has diminished even more.

Yet, politicians and pundits continue to recycle the myth that poverty and inequality are the result of marital arrangements rather than larger socioeconomic forces. A 2012 report for the Heritage Foundation by Robert Rector, ‘Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty,’ insists, even after the Great Recession plunged so many married families into poverty, that ‘the principal cause [of child poverty] is the absence of married fathers in the home.’ .... And a 2014 publication of the U.S. House Budget Committee, ‘The War on Poverty: 50 Years Later,’ totally misrepresents the accomplishments of the war on poverty ...., before joining the chorus with the claim that ‘the single most important determinant of poverty is family structure.’”

In 2014, Republicans controlled the House and this narrative fits with Christian nationalist and authoritarian radical right propaganda. One can only wonder if House Democrats agreed with this nonsense. Maybe they did.

Other family myths and lies that Koontz skewers in Introduction with actual empirical data include (i) criticism of parents for not spending as much time on child rearing as in cherry picked earlier times, (ii) complaints that marriage is a dying institution (it is not), and (iii) belief in family self-reliance without help from outside the family, including from government domestic spending programs, e.g., the home mortgage interest deduction is worth tens of billions annually to the top 20% of income earners. There is a cornucopia of lies, myths and BS to be revealed and skewered with data. Maybe that is why the book is 409 pages long, 443 pages if one includes Introduction.

Questions: 

1. Is it too much of a stretch to see a close connection between American family mythology and current (i) radical right Christian nationalist fundamentalism, and/or (ii) the rise of fascism as the dominant ideology or mindset in the Republican Party? 

2. Is Koontz a propagandist or is it believable that she is right in arguing there is a great deal of mythology and lies surrounding the American family and the institution of marriage, e.g., was Supreme Court reasoning based mostly on falsehoods in the Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage?

Enter the Crazy

 I'm just going to lay it out.

Our society is not cohesive lately. It's going off the rails, and where the rubber meets the road that means a lot of people are essentially quite mad.

This includes your neighbor, and filters upward due to money and democracy, so it also includes the movers and shakers, and that's where things get super dangerous because it creates a feedback loop, as crazy appeals to crazy and then amplifies itself across the social strata.

It's a black hole, and there is a certain draw to it even as it disgusts us. There's a Hebrew word, to'evah, that to this gentile's ear nevertheless captures the dynamic of perverse yet magnetic - because we try to understand it. Because of this, you actually have to watch yourself so that you don't fall into it.

One way we find ourselves falling into the crazy is by analyzing the crazy, and trying to anticipate their individual behaviors, or worse, we try to appease them to do damage control (which almost never works).

If you moderate your behavior in response to crazy behavior your behavior will become similarly unhinged - this even as you try to counteract the crazy.

The best thing to do is to walk a line between understanding they are part of the landscape, but not letting yourself be controlled by their behavior, or letting it rule your thoughts.

That means we have to look at our policy goals for example, on their own - regardless of the right wing noise machine. Is the filibuster a necessary tool or an impediment? That is a question that can be answered regardless of Mitch McConnell. Do people need paid family leave? etc. Do we prosecute seditionists and other criminals? Is this a nation of laws?

It doesn't matter if they call it socialism. It doesn't matter if you think prosecuting them will lead to reprisal. You don't negotiate with crazy. You don't appease crazy.

Sadly, I believe we've reached critical mass. Crazy has infected so much of this nation that there's not enough stable society left - it's all downhill from here as the threads unravel, faster and faster until some catastrophic social reset.

Still, do what you can to keep yourself at arms length from the day to day of it. Be well.

What constitutes the mainstream Republican belief and political agenda?

Trump is now calling on Republicans not to vote — declaring “Republicans will not be voting in ‘22 or ‘24” if his election fraud hoax is not “solved” first. He helped Republicans lose two Georgia Senate seats in January. Now he seems ready to try it again in the midterms. pic.twitter.com/ARBnsfwmzJ

— Jonathan Karl (@jonkarl) October 13, 2021

Someone is still interested in correcting the 

massive 2020 vote fraud problem

The mainstream liberal-conservative divide in reality, reason and commitment to democracy and elections are vast and apparently not resolvable by anything other than major mindset change. Major mindset change is impossible.

Here at Dissident Politics

One set of recent comments exemplify the gulf.

Commenter: The democrats are the fascists. Wake up.

Responder 1: Prove your claim.

Commenter: Attempted gene therapy mandate, CRT brainwashing, attempting to tightly control ecomonic output, scapegoating groups of citizens (white suprematists), pushing POC supremacy, wanting to literally starve people who don't take their ineffective and possibly damaging "vaccine", gun control, causing inflation with spending and money printing, then blaming it on others, unfettered illegal immigration. Not hard to do.

Responder 2: Nah, the Repubs are way more fascist than the Dems. Attacks on the 2020 election and voting rights, attacks on abortion, liars about the vaccine, with consequences of killing people and damaging the economy, spending money and increasing the federal debt, fostering slaughter of innocents by eliminating reasonable gun regulations, attacking the free press, attacking and undermining the rule of law, etc.

Commenter: The 2020 election was fraudulent. That was obvious. No one attacks anyone's voting rights. Showing an ID isn't blocking someones rights. Only Jim Crow democrats do that.

The vaccine isn't a vaccine, it is untested gene therapy that only works for some people and only for about 5-6 months per jab. Enjoy your myocarditis.

The GOP has helped run up the debt, but not nearly as much as B. Hussein Obama and now brain dead Joe wants 3.5 trillion more debt for leftist idiocy.

We have many unenforced gun regulations. We don't need more. We need democrat control. It is them shooting each other.

The press are little more than democrat party activists and deserve to be attacked for their dishonesty. 

No one undermines the rule of law more than Biden's handlers.

Responder 2: No response.

 Elsewhere - the FRP plan for subverting elections

In the last couple of weeks, reports of what the FRP (fascist Republican Party) has been doing have come out. For the most part the FRP is focused nationwide on laying the groundwork to attack the 2022 and 2024 elections if they do not turn out its way. Baseless FRP attacks on the 2020 election continue. The Washington Post writes:

The glaring errors became clear soon after a former Wisconsin judge issued subpoenas earlier this month in a Republican review of the state’s 2020 presidential election. Some of the requests referred to the wrong city. At least one was sent to an official who doesn’t oversee elections. A Latin phrase included in the demands for records and testimony was misspelled.

Michael Gableman, the former judge leading the review, admitted days later that he does not have “a comprehensive understanding or even any understanding of how elections work.” He then backed off some of his subpoena demands before reversing course again, telling a local radio host that officials would still be required to testify.

Attorney General Josh Kaul (D) this week called the subpoenas unlawful and “dramatically overbroad,” and he urged Republicans to “shut this fake investigation down.” Voting rights advocates, election policy experts and some state and local officials, meanwhile, accuse Gableman of incompetence and say his review — which could cost taxpayers $680,000 or more — will decrease public trust in Wisconsin elections.

“It’s terrible for democracy in the state,” Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway (D) said in an interview. “It’s corrosive. It undermines confidence in our elections, and it’s deeply insulting to our municipal clerks and poll workers. … The thing that should give everybody some confidence is the fact that our elections are not being run by people like attorney Gableman.”

The FRP's plan to subvert democracy: The FRP's goal is to replace competent elections workers with FRP partisans whose mission is to see that Democrats lose and Republicans win. A lawyer, Mark Elias, involved in court cases that defended against FRP attacks on 2020 election results sees an overarching FRP plan to subvert elections in 2020, 2022, 2024 and beyond. The plan includes passing laws that make voting harder and more complex for both voters and poll workers. The goal is to get people to make mistakes in elections. The FRP intends to point to voting mistakes by voters and poll workers as evidence of widespread vote fraud, giving the FRP the excuse its needs to subvert the voter's will.

This 8 minute video contains the attorney's argument about what the FRP is doing. In his opinion, if the FRP does subvert the 2022 or 2024 election, we will be in a constitutional crisis. I presume he would assert the same thing if the FRP manages to overturn the 2020 election. In my opinion, we have been in a constitutional crisis at least since the first impeachment of our treasonous ex-president.

 

Elias wrote an essay about the FRP plan to subvert elections at Democracy Docket, a liberal media platform focused on information, opinion and analysis about voting rights, elections and democracy. Elias wrote:

We are one, maybe two, elections away from a constitutional crisis. More than a year ago — before Election Day — Donald Trump made clear that he would not accept the results of free and fair elections if he did not win. Too few people paid attention, discounting it as the ravings of a soon-to-be failed candidate. In the days following the November 2020 election, Trump and his allies executed a plan to subvert the election results. While they failed, Republicans learned from the experience and are prepared to try again. The future of our democracy rests on whether those committed to free and fair elections will prepare as well.

Immediately following the insurrection on January 6, Republican state legislatures began laying the groundwork for 2022 and 2024. They enacted new voter suppression laws optimized to disenfranchise Black, brown and young voters. They created false narratives of election irregularities and rallied their supporters around the Big Lie. Most recently, they began using their power in the redistricting process to ensure Republicans control the U.S. House over the next decade. 

Facing this grim reality, some have begun to urge Congress to ignore voter suppression and focus exclusively on the potential for election subversion in 2024. Specifically, they obsess over the outdated and imprecise Electoral Count Act — the process by which states select and Congress certifies presidential electors.  

This misguided effort ignores the fact that voting rules that maximize participation result in fewer disputed outcomes, while complex and restrictive rules create a larger pool of disputed ballots that can be used to justify post-election challenges. Republicans learned from 2020 that the absence of virtually any fraud was a stumbling block to their efforts to overturn elections. Since they cannot force voters to commit fraud, they are redefining the term. Several states, including Georgia, Iowa, Kansas and Texas, have criminalized practices that were previously legal. Some of these laws target voters, whereas other provisions are aimed at election workers. The result is the same. The goal of these new provisions is to manufacture fraud where none exists.

By manufacturing fraud, Republicans create controversy that can be exploited after Election Day by Republican candidates who do not prevail. The faux outrage created by the right-wing echo chamber vilifies election workers and provides excuses for disregarding election results.

Questions:

1. Does the commenter represent most of the Republican rank and file or is that person just a fringe extremist or crackpot who is not very close to mainstream rhetoric and/or belief the Republican Party leadership and donors explicitly or implicitly rely on?

2. Is what Elias asserts about a nationwide FRP plan to subvert elections mostly accurate, just a plausible hypothesis, mostly crackpot conspiracy theory nonsense and/or something else? If something else, what is it?

3. Is propaganda-fueled Republican fear that Democrats are subverting democracy by rigging elections and committing voter fraud a bigger threat to democracy than what the FRP is doing, i.e., is fear of socialist-communist Democratic tyranny a bigger threat than fear of fascist Republican tyranny, or are neither significant threats, or both about the same? 

All Of These Words Are Offensive (But Only Sometimes)

 I am sure there are more words that can be interpreted than those listed on the article below, but the big question still remains, are offensive-seeming words ALWAYS offensive or only in how they are used?

https://www.dictionary.com/e/words-that-are-bad-in-some-contexts/

How can a word be insulting sometimes … but not always?

One of the many complexities of English is the ability of words to have multiple definitions, which opens the door for some words to be both derogatory and not derogatory, depending on who is using them or when.

These words can be confusing, especially to people who are just learning English and all of its complex nuances. “Why is that word OK to say here … but not there?”

Let’s take a look at some of the words that often draw debate, so we can see when they’re OK to say and when we should steer clear.

monkey and ape

Curious George and those winged creatures who did the Wicked Witch of the West’s bidding in the Wizard of Oz are monkeys, and you’ve probably been using that word to describe them for as long as you can remember. And, King Kong—that is what we might refer to as an ape. That’s as it should be.

A monkey, by definition, is “any mammal of the order Primates, including the guenons, macaques, langurs, and capuchins, but excluding humans, the anthropoid apes, and, usually, the tarsier and prosimians.” Ape is defined as “any of a group of anthropoid primates characterized by long arms, a broad chest, and the absence of a tail, comprising the family Pongidae (great ape), which includes the chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, and the family Hylobatidae (lesser ape), which includes the gibbon and siamang.”

Calling the animals by their appropriate names is not a slur.

It’s even OK to call certain people “monkeys.” After all, small children are often likened by their parents to the person-like beasts, and this affectionate appropriation of the term has been in existence since the 1600s. And, ape and monkey can both be used as verbs. To ape something is “to imitate it,” while monkeying with something means “to play with it.”

So, where’s the problem?Ape and monkey are considered offensive terms when they’re used to describe a person of color. It’s what is known as dehumanizing language, “language that deprives a person of human qualities or attributes.”

Exactly when the words became slurs is unknown, but offensive comparisons of black people to apes date back hundreds of centuries. As recently as the late 1800s, for example, when scientists Josiah C. Nott and George R. Gliddon created the 1854 Types of Mankind (then the leading scientific text on race), they compared black people not to other (white) people but to chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans.

When used in these contexts, monkey and ape are considered extremely derogatory slang.

ghetto

The word ghetto comes from Italian, a noun derivative of 
ghettare, which means “
to throw.” Officials in Venice, Italy were among the first to force Jewish residents to live together in isolated areas, away from other citizens. The Italian name for those places? Ghettos. 

The word was later used to describe similar isolated areas in which the Nazis forced Jewish people to live, cut off from their friends and neighbors and typically stuck in deplorable conditions. By the time the word made its way into English, the relationship with Jewish people was gone. Ghetto came to mean “sections of cities where marginalized people lived, typically segregated from other citizens, often living in poverty.”

oriental

Head to an estate sale, and you may find yourself discussing the price of an oriental rug or some oriental jewelry. Surely these words are OK to use, right?

Well, yes … if you’re talking about jewelry or rugs rather than people. When used as an adjective, oriental means “of, relating to, or characteristic of the Orient, or East; Eastern.” It’s a way to describe things that come from the area of the world once known as the Orient but more commonly referred to as East Asia or Southeast Asia today.

It’s a word that was also once used to refer to people who were either born in that sector of the world or whose ancestors were, but using oriental as a noun is now considered offensive slang. It’s even been banned from usage in federal law, as well as in a number of states, where official documents may only refer to people as Asian Americans, rather than the dated term.

savage

The word savage has taken a circuitous path through the lexicon over the years, first showing up in English in the 1200s from Middle English. As an adjective, it’s typically meant “fierce, ferocious, or cruel; uncivilized; barbarous.” When referring to a savage lion ripping an antelope apart on the African Sahara, that’s all well and good.

But, the use of savage as a noun to describe human beings dates back to approximately the 1400s. At a time when Christopher Columbus was enslaving Native Americans and claiming their lands and work for his own, the word became a slur used by white Europeans to describe Native American people. The usage stuck around for hundreds of years, and it’s still a word that many indigenous peoples around the world find offensive.

There has been some reclamation of the word as internet slang, as more people use the adjective form to describe actions they deem to be especially fierce. However, the racist connotations are hard to ignore, and it may be wise to choose another word to describe something you love on the internet. Might we suggest badass?

chink

When the word chink first showed up in the English language back in the 1500s, it was a simple word to explain “a crack or split.” That’s what chine meant in Middle English, after all, and the addition of the k created a word that’s often used today to describe that crack between the curtains that lets the light through.

Sometime in that era the phrase chink in one’s armor was also born. It was a time when armor was made of chainmail—think medieval knights—and a gap or chink in the armor was a dangerous vulnerability. Which is why the idiom is now used today to mean a vulnerable area.

So, how do you go from the innocent chink to the incredibly offensive version?

That happened some time in the 1900s when people started using chink to refer to people from China (or people who the speaker believed were from China). Believed to be an irregular formation of the word China, the word is derogatory when used to describe a human being.

coon

When a raccoon is feasting in your garbage cans, you might call pest control to come take care of that coon, and no one would think poorly of you.Coon is what linguists call an aphetic form of raccoon, a word formed when a vowel or syllable has been dropped. When used to refer to the nocturnal critter with a taste for days-old food, it’s otherwise inoffensive.

The same goes for the saying in a coon’s age. Although the reference is dated and not often used in modern English, when it was coined as a more colorful way to say “in a long time,” the phrase referred to the trash-eating critters with the black fur masks. The idiom was born thanks to a belief that raccoons lived for a long time (a myth disproven by biologists).

It’s when the word is used to describe a person of color that it becomes an extremely derogatory slur.

This form is believed to have shown up in English in the 1800s, although a lead character in the colonial comic opera “The Disappointment” from the 1740s is a black man named Raccoon. It’s believed that the origin of the slur could be from the Portuguese barracoos, “building constructed to hold slaves for sale.”

Wherever it originated, it’s yet another word that should not be used regarding people.

As an added note: why is honky not on the list? 

Hungarian

Honky may be a variant of hunky, which was a derivative of Bohunk, a slur for various Slavic and Hungarian immigrants who moved to America from the Austro-Hungarian Empire in the early 1900s.

Wolof

Honky may also derive from the term "xonq nopp" which, in the West African language Wolof, literally means "red-eared person". The term may have originated with Wolof-speaking people brought to the U.S.^[ It has been used by Black Americans as a pejorative for white people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honky

Maybe time to ban the song Honky Tonk Women by The Rolling Stones?

Testing Lowen's thesis about history textbooks and the recent past

 In a recent post, James Lowen's savaging of history textbooks was discussed, and this quote was offered:

We read partly in a spirit of criticism, assessing what the authors got wrong as well as agreeing with and perhaps learning from what they got right. When we study the more distant past, we may also read critically, but now our primary mode is ingestive [learning]. Especially if we are reading for the first time about an event, we have little ground on which to stand and criticize what we read. .... Thus authors tiptoe through the [recent past] with extreme caution, evading the main issues, all the main “why” questions.

This struck me as a highly implausible view of how 8th grade middle school students (at least that was my grade for American history) are likely to read discussions of the recent past.  Their parents and grandparents may remember the recent past, but those kids will not be able to.  

I think instead, that history textbooks are subject to the same issues that all textbooks are -- the PARENTS of kids, do not read critically, but sometimes get worked up by politicians or troublemakers agitating over a misrepresented passage. A textbook subject to a fulminating local talk show host in even one district, is a textbook in marketing trouble nationwide.

I would like to offer a test to my thesis, by citing a few of what I consider to be pretty clear lessons from recent history, ands see if they get our board here worked up.

Lesson 1, Wholesale socialism does not work

Motivated by the failures of market capitalism: the sweatshops, terrible wages and political control by oligarchs at the turn of the last century, a wide selection of alternatives were advocated for, and tried, in over half of the world, for most of the last century.  These efforts ranged from social welfarism, socialism, democratic communism, thru bloody communist dictatorships.  This represented a massive uncontrolled experiment to evaluate alternatives to market capitalism.  Karl Popper, in The Open Society and its Enemies, notes that democracies prove the most rapid feedback loop for correcting bad government policy, but that other forms of government may learn in a feedback loop as well.  At any rate, by ~1990, almost all the communist states had replaced their controlled economies with market economies, and the democratic socialist states had replaced much of their bureaucratic controlled sectors of their economies with contracted or privatized sectors.  

There HAS been some successes with the massive experiment in socialism.  Wholesale literacy, and both primary and secondary education were mostly implemented.  Much more access to Housing, and more widespread medical care, were among the benefits. And socialist states often did a better job with infrastructure investments.  

What they did not do well. was technology innovation, product quality, or response to fluxuating demand.  .

The socialist democracies basically abandoned the socialist goal of the public owning the means of production, and instead adopted a social welfare program, of providing the education, medical care, housing, and safety net that markets do poorly.  The countries of the world have, coming out of this experiment, converged on a model of 50-70% market economics, with 25-50% state services.  

Lesson 2, Burke was right, anarchists wrong

Burkian social conservatism is -- basically, a Darwinian belief that a successful societies norms and institutions are GOOD norms and institutions, as they are the ones that a successful society used to out-compete the legions of societies that are now historical footnotes.  Burke basically advocated for stability and social convention above all, out of a concern that societies are fragile, and institutions and norms difficult to recreate.  Lord of the Flies was a Burkian book. 

Robert Heinlein, a mid century Science fiction writer, was a leading advocate of an alternative more optimistic  anarchist view.  He advocates that breaking social conventions, leads to societies that spontaneously form new structures and norms, and that these are generally better than what they replace.  Much economic market theory basically assumes this spontaneous emergence of unplanned order is expected.   

We got to test these two models, in China, and Eastern Europe, when they each de-socialized.  China did this gradually, fearing instability.  Eastern European leaders were assured by market advocates of the ability for spontaneous order to emerge, and the old controlled Soviet economy was basically shut down overnight, and sold off for a pittance.  China, gradually built up an effective and innovative market economy, while state employers have been gradually scaled back over a period of decades.  China is now a global economic superpower.  While Russia and the rest of Eastern Europe -- have yet to experience the economic windfall that was promised decades ago by anarchist libertarians.  

Lesson 3, Armed revolutions work, except when they don't.  Ideas are more powerful.  

The 2oth century started with most of the world occupied by a few European powers. Under the Enlightenment values that those nations supposedly held, this was unjustifiable.  And the peoples in these occupied regions became restive.   There were world wide violent revolutionary movements against colonialism over much of the 20th century.  The cost and blood needed to maintain those empires, was more than those countries were willing to pay anymore, and revolutionary movements gained control of newly freed colonies worldwide.  This gave the illusion that popular revolutions are easy, and readily successful.

Other than the decolonization by democracies whose own value system did not support colonization, there were few other successes.  Cuba, Vietnam, Iran, Nicaragua and Soviet Afghanistan were among the few. Thousands of other revolutionary movements died in remote jungles and mountains, and the torture chambers of secret police.  Most states, are stable.  At least against armed revolution.  

What works far better to overthow a state, is to subvert it, with more attractive ideas.  Note, that is how the decolonization happened -- the colonial powers were forced, by internal civil rights movements, to confront the racism that was behind their occupations.  And enough of the state decision-makers were no longer believing in the racist/imperialist principles that are needed to be a colonial power.  

The Shah as also overthrown by ideas -- democratic theocracy in his case.  His army was unwilling to fight the popular will for democratic theocracy, so he fled.  Ferdinand Marcos fell the same way, although to democracy not theocracy,.   And both Eastern Europe, an South America, democratized due to a groundswell adoption of enlightenment principles by the dictatorial state's own agents!

Ideas matter, and have replaced many times more abusive states than armed revolution has.  .  

Lesson 4.  9-11, and Iraq Invasion.  Blunders all Around.  And good by accident.  

Both Lowen and Germaine seem pretty off here on even this very recent history.  Here is Lowen:

Textbooks find it hard to question our foreign policy because from beginning to end they typically assume the America as “the international good guy” model .... Like all nations, the United States seeks first to increase its own prosperity and influence in the world. .... We preach democracy while supporting dictatorships.

And here is Germaine: 

 the 9/11 attacks are inexplicable [I assume meant "Are only explicable] if most Arabs and other people in the Muslim world see America as a great hypocrite, not an innocent international good guy? 

For Germaine, the 9-11 attack was not a popular attack.  The entire world, arab, muslim, and everyone, rallied to assist us in destroying Al-Quaida.  Russia offered their bases.  Iran offered their intelligence info, etc.  For Lowen -- the US reputation, has nothing to do with the attack.  

Osama Bin Laden was a zealot.  He believed in religious purity, AND that a community of religious purists would triumph over rivals.  This is a common view in history.  Zealots want their society to adopt their zealotry, in order to defeat other societies.  This generally means purging those who oppose Zealotry.  

His model for this all came from his early life, as a Muhajideen volunteer in the Afghan war against the Soviets.  Zealots frm around the musllim world came together, defeated the Soviets, and their secular/communist Afghan quislings, who were killed and their ideas have not resurfaced.  THEN, compromisers and corrupt leaders squabbled, until a MORE pure zealot movement swept the corrupt away, and unified the country.  Something very similar had also just happened in Lebanon, during an Israeli occupation.   Osama wanted to apply this model to the world, by:

1. start a war with the USA  
2. provoke the US to become an occupier, like the Soviets were
3. rally the zealots of all of Islam to fight the US
4. Use war with US to purge Islam of secularists and corrupt non-zealots
5. Us will be defeated more easily than the soviets, because we have no staying power (lesson he learned from Vietnam)
6. A victorious unified Isalm, under a new Caliphate government, will then replicate Mohammed's success in conquering and converting much of the world.  

Note the US plays the role that war with weak foreign powers has often played in domestic politics -- a bogey-man threat to use for domestic power grabbing purposes.  

9-11 was not about hypocrisy, or ANYTHING the US did.  Only what we were -- a secular state, with an army, and no backbone.  

Osama was right about roughly 2/3 of his agenda.  The US became an occupier, he was successfully able to propagandize this, and rally millions to Al Quaida, and Zealots killed thousands of secular educators, writers, and screen personalities across the Muslim world.  But the Zealots could not defeat stable states, nor unify.  And the Us DID eventually pull out, but after MUCH longer than he predicted.  His 2/3 agenda -- had harmed the world immensely.  

Note, the US WAS an innocent target for 9-11.  

Then, the Bush admin, run by the "Valkyries" who believed that mass movements were irrelevant, in the greatest foreign policy  blinder in my recent memory, decided to use 9-11 as a pretext to "take some pieces off the board" by invading the uninvolved Iraq.  they were convinced that AlQuaida, and the GWOT was actually irrelevant, because they were not state actors.  ,

Much of the Left's criticism of the Bush2 admin was valid.  We did invade on a lie.  Part of the calculation, was that we could take Iraqi oil as payment for our military costs in liberating them.  The centrist critique, that there was no plan to govern, was only partly true.  The Bush2s -- after all -- were mostly Heinlein optimists about spontaneous organization. Many of the others has thought "roll in, roll out" should have been the plan.  

Blunders accumulate:  When the lack of any police or courts became a clear problem, The Bush admin overruled the Valkyries, actually did set up a military occupation, and seemed to be trying to learn from and copy the successful Japan occupation from a half century earlier.  That occupation had been for over a decade, and left Japan a stable democracy.  But the Bush people had not looked at the Lebanon example, that Osama had.  Religious/nationalist zealots increasingly attacked the US forces.  An election was coming up, Iraq was spiraling out of control, Bush's Valkyrie and post WW2 advisor teams were both out of ideas.  Kerry put a proposal together of transferring Iraq to an appointed administration of Iraqis, and planned to run on it.  So Bush -- implemented Kerry's plan the very next month!

The US was an innocent, attacked for domestic political purposed, by a purging religious zealot.  And then, while the US was deceitful about it, for about half of the Bush admin the planned outcome of the Iraq invasion was to eventually leave them with a democracy.  Lowen's own example does not support his apparent thesis that the US was attacked for justified reasons on 9/11, and invaded Iraq purely for selfish reasons.  

Lesson 5 -- Marx was mostly right (if you drop the historical determinism)

Karl Marx was a pretty good economist, and a pretty good sociologist, and he built a toy model for both, to try to understand our future.  He ALSO believed in historical determinism, which got in the way of his understanding his own models. But we can look at the models without the determinism.  Those models predict that oligarchs will maintain economic affluence, basically forever, and they will use that money to buy governments that help them maintain their wealth.  This model was true of the time he contracted it. Both democracies and monarchs protected and assisted oligarchs.  

But soon after he constructed it, the income of workers went up, as did their political power, and the western democracies imposed OSHA requirements, and work week requirements, etc that ended the sweatshop era.  There is a question here -- why was his model wrong?  And more importantly will it STAY wrong? 

The answer appears to be no -- we have seen a gradual re emergence of oligarchs, along with a decline in worker income.  Which, as per his sociology model, leads to a more pro-oligarch government.  

The problem in his economic model was he trusted Malthus, and assumed workers would multiply without limit.  Remove unlimited workers, and add a cost to ship goods, and one can get a local labor shortage when industries co-locate to minimize transport costs.  We had a labor shortage in N America for a half century.  Industries are relocating to the 3rd world, and that drops our wages here, and increases oligarch profits.  

Note, we have seen previously that oligarchs will own our democracy if they have all the wealth,   One of the major themes of this board is how to prevent that from happening.  This lesson -- shows we really need to figure that out.  

Do these belong in a history textbook?  

Here were 5 controversial, yet potentially critically important lessons I at least see from recent history.  But does anyone else here agree with all of them?   Note I am a centrist -- my views are probably less offensive to more people than that of most historians.  I would be surprised if everyone on this board could agree on more than one or two minor lessons from recent history.  Do what should a text do?  Just make some parents apoplectic?