Incorrect. I was merely demonstrating the limits to your “cyclical” argument regarding class and privelige within American history. You are correct that major shifts in the economy saw the fall of one elite class (say the cotton kings) for the rise of another (say the robber barons) to the rise of another (the internet giants) etc. etc. But within those cycles there is a constant. An overwhelming majority of white men.

Let me clarify then before this conversation descends into silliness. I’m not trying to prove that nothing in America is determined on merit. That is silly. I’m also uninterested in talking about these issues in absolutes. Both of us can find “exceptional” examples to any black-white claim (no pun intended) that we make. And if your only goal is to prove that merit counts for something, then we don’t have a debate. But the word “meritocracy,” to me, has a specific meaning. It suggests that merit is the first and most important factor for determining access to education, employment, political influence and quality of life generally. Indeed the word is meant to contrast with “aristocracy”, where birth right was the single most important determining factor in access to the aforementioned “rights” or “priveliges” depending on how you feel about those issues.

So in order for America to claim it was or ever has been a “meritocracy”, the test is not to prove that some people achieve based on merit. The test is to demonstrate if there was/are a standard more powerful than merit that determined/s access to citizenship rights and economic mobility. The answer, in the case of America until 1965, was yes. Whiteness and maleness, traits as “inborn” as noble birth was the first standard for access to the “American dream” for centuries. So returning to your cyclical argument. Once whiteness and maleness gained you access to land ownership, voting, industrial jobs, management, CEOness, political power etc. you could then be judged on your merit. And you very often were. But the United States has always been more than just white men. In fact, white men compared to the demographics of people who are not white men, have always represented a minority. So America was a “meritocracy” for the minority of its people until 1965.



I was offended that you equated Rush’s struggles to succeed with Frederick Douglass. I guess I just think being born into slavery in an era where your race defined you as less than human is a little more of a barrier to success than being born a white guy with not a lot of money. Call me crazy

Hopefully I’ve clarified my statements as to avoid these kinds of absolute claims.

Sorry if I’m taking things out of order, I wanted to try and go in as much a chronological order as possible.

Can you clarify further? “To a degree”? You mean in that one race was classified as property and another race was not? And we’re also talking about the 19th century and early 20th century. While slavery was abolished with the Civil War, by the 1880s the south reestablished white supremacy via Jim Crow. While there was a brief meritocracy for African Americans in the south during radical reconstruction. All of those citizenship rights were rolled back less than a decade after the election of 1876. Indeed, the post-Reconstruction era demonstrates white supremacy’s ability to reconstitute itself despite major legislation. The 14th and 15th Amendments existed before 1965, so laws, in and of themselves do not translate into a meritocracy.

It was a common theme. NOT ANY MORE! Most Americans today do not suffer racists gladly, any more than any other fool. That attitude is offensive to most Americans, regardless of race. Yes, there are still racists and there is still racism, but it is marginalized and condemned and illegal.

I thought we were talking about America’s history as a meritocracy? Not whether American racism is the same as it was in the 1600s. The reason I keep raising the issue of history is to point out that there’s a thing called tradition in this country. Would you agree? What you seem to fail to acknowledge is that American racism wasn’t just about a set of laws. It was deeply ingrained in our country’s history. While we have made progress, the notion that racism somehow became automatically delinked from American culture and society the moment LBJ signed laws in 1965 defies everything we know about how history works in a large nation. Change happens VERY slowly and the longer the ingrained culture, the more difficult the change is. Yes Hillary Clinton was able to run for president this year, but it’s still acceptable to say that you fear for your balls when she comes around on national television, because strong women castrate men right? Yes, Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, but African American men represent the vast majority of people in jail for non-violent drug offenses despite high rates of drug use among white populations. Indeed, my logic here is very similar to your logic of “cycles” in history. One system of racism goes away, but new ones rise to take their place. And with each progression it becomes more and more difficult to openly articulate racism, it however, does not mean that racism goes away.

I didn’t say it did. If you’ll notice my main point was talking about how people who articulate principles of black self-defense are called “crazy.”

I won’t argue that this is an important issue. Doesn’t mean that anti-racist legislation is a bad thing.

How quaintly you put it. What happened was that African American resisted racism and white Americans fought to maintain white supremacy until they were, quite literally, shamed into signing a set of laws. But at what point did those white Americans who came out en masse to prevent James Meredith from entering college or who bombed black public housing residents in Chicago who moved into “white neighborhoods in the fiftes” when did those people actually change how they felt about African Americans? Can you “prove” that? Can you demonstrate some evidence of that? All I saw is that the vast majority of folks moved away from the inner city so they wouldn’t have to integrate. They began putting their kids in private schools to avoid the black and brown inner cities. Opposition to Affirmative Action isn’t new, it existed from the MOMENT those laws were put into place. Can you think of any moment in American history when the majority of whites were presented with the realities of racism and they responded with “yeah, that’s wrong, we should change that.” You happen to love MLK. I’m not sure how old you are but why don’t you go back and read the letters page in TIME magazine when they named MLK their person of the year in 1963. They devoted PAGES to the hate mail they got from all over the nation. North and south. The burden of proof is actually on you here because the vast majority of evidence suggests that American racism is systemic and deeply ingrained. Not the other way around.

Can you better explain what you mean here? I don’t want to assume you’re saying something that you are not. And I’m having a hard time wrapping my brain around that one.

Can you “prove” that anymore than I can “prove” that unproductive white men often maintain their jobs or merely get reassigned to some other job? Until you can “prove it” you’re not really any better than me on this aspect of the debate.

And again, remind me of that moment in American history when access for African Americans didn’t have to be forced down the throats of a resisting white populace? And the guys behind south park know about as much American history as you do.

__________________
Yesterday, John McCain actually said that if he’s president he’ll take on, and I quote, 'the old boys’ network in Washington.' I’m not making this up. This is somebody been in Congress for 26 years, who put seven of the most powerful Washington lobbyists in charge of his campaign. And now he tells us that he’s the one who’s gonna take on the old boys' network,” he said. “In the McCain campaign that’s called a staff meeting!- Obama, 9/17/2008