Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
I didn't write it, I just quoted it. It was written/said by a black man. I am not even sure what he was trying to say to be quite honest. All I know is that it was written in 1881. Was he a time traveler?
|
the point I was trying to make was that he was a man with a lot of problematic beliefs and practices. To quote W.E.B. Dubois (a pivotal Civil Rights leader during that era): "
Mr. Washington?s programme practically accepts the alleged inferiority of the Negro races"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladewire
It's called a gateway policy. It makes neither side happy but is necessary to move forward to the actual liberation of the oppressed. Don't ask don't tell was a gateway policy that eventually led to the liberation of non straight military personnel.
An effective politician says and does what the public actually needs to move forward, they sacrifice their own agenda & opinions for the greater good. This is nothing new.
|
that's not exactly what occurred in the case of Booker T. His approach was more about preparing Black Americans to fill specific (subservient) positions in an unjust system, not about enacting greater progressive change. The doc
The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow gives a really wicked analysis of his approach
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladewire
There is a connection between class and morality, that is not the problem. When you have more resources and no worries about feeding your children, or yourself, you're more capable of doing what's ethically acceptable. Many of the very poor, or very rich, exhibit a deficit of many morals overall. Neither have much to lose. The super rich feel they should be held up in bad times because of all the good they've done, the super poor feel they should be held up because they've been dealt a bad card.  When I mention very poor/rich, that is the bottom rung of any given society, not what someone in one nation might consider poor in another. |
the connection between class and morality to which I was referring was the attitude that poor peeps somehow had it coming, that simply being poor indicates laziness, poor character, blah blah blah
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bladewire
You cannot be higher class and maintain your position without appropriate ethics, but you can with inappropriate morals.
|
dude, seriously.
think back to the financial crisis back in '08. How many peeps earned massive profits from that? How many of them went to jail?
If you're poor you can get jail time for kiting a check, but participate in an elaborate, ongoing scam that nearly brings down the global economy? Pay a corporate fine that equals a small percentage of the overall profit gained through the unethical means.
No one at any point on the income scale has a better claim on morality than anyone else, and I'd argue that within the current system those who have the most already sometimes have the least to lose.