# Does America have a love affair with race?



## Everness

This is what Walter Benn Michaels, a literature professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, argues in his new book "The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Forget Inequality."

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/03/colorblinded/ 

He is in part responding to the fact that on this season (pathetic) TV show "Survivor," a white team, a black team, an Asian-American team, and a Latino team will compete to stay on the proverbial island. 

He poses a very interesting strategy (perfectly captured in the title of his book): Let's (1) stop celebrating diversity, (2) stop attacking racism, an enemy Michaels says has been in retreat for decades, and (3) start confronting economic inequality, which he calls the true bane of society.

Are we picking the wrong battle? Is classism, and not racism, the real enemy? Should we stop obsessing over diversity and start worrying about economic inequality?


----------



## HistofEng

But race is stratified by class.

They are inseperable.


----------



## Everness

HistofEng said:


> But race is stratified by class.
> 
> They are inseperable.



It seems to be intuitively true, but can you back up this statement? Are race and class really inseparable? 

_Michaels notes that as diversity-speak and affirmative action have triumphed in colleges and corporations, the American poverty rate has crept up since the early 1970s (to about 13 percent), working class hourly wages have declined, and the top 5 percent of earners has pulled away from all other Americans._
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/03/colorblinded/


----------



## cuchuflete

Everness said:


> Should we stop obsessing over diversity and start worrying about economic inequality?



Assuming that this is the thread topic...

Who are "we"?  I don't obsess over diversity.  Do you?
I've been quite concerned with economic inequality for decades.
Have you not?


----------



## .   1

Another social commentator becomming richer by nonsensically linking nonsequiters.
The concept of linking race to social status or economic viability displays either a staggering lack of knowledge of who we are or reveals a deepseated bigotry raising the question of what the writer is trying to get at.
If you cut me I bleed red.
If you hurt me I cry clear.
If you bleed me I die dead.
We are all the same when we are dead.

Bigotry does not save lives or make babies smile or flowers to smell sweeter.

Does America have a love affair with race?
I nominate this to be included in the long list of poorly worded utterly ambiguous questions posted to allow the poster to trap the unwary into saying something that they did not mean to say.

I am damned if I can understand how these types of loaded questions help anybody.
U.S. America is going through a very difficult period and I can not see the point of constantly tweaking the nose of the dragon.

Everness,
Do you ever pose any of these loaded questions to your elected representatives in government?

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

The issues of race and class, and where they intersect are alive and well in New Zealand as well...
That being said I think the USA does have a special relationship with these issues.


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> Assuming that this is the thread topic...
> 
> Who are "we"?  I don't obsess over diversity.  Do you?
> I've been quite concerned with economic inequality for decades.
> Have you not?



Well, I used the majestic we. Mr. Michaels is an avowed liberal and his message is geared toward a particular group: the left and/or liberals. His book's goal is to reenergize the left by persuading it to change its tactics. He argues that they have been fighting the wrong battles.

_"The commitment to understanding American society as fundamentally made up of races or cultures, and the vision of social justice that follows from that-the elimination of discrimination against race-has been at best a massive distraction from the project of bringing about greater economic equality in society," Michaels says._

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/03/colorblinded/

In my own words, his message can be summarized this way: "It's class, stupid!" 

Two questions. First, who is on the left or who is a liberal? Second, would libertarians benefit from these reflections or advice? Those are the $64,000 questions. I confess that I've been obsessing over race lately but economic inequality has been by far my main and overarching obsession. (Don't tell anyone but I'm reading Marx again. I hope I don't get into trouble with Homeland Security. After all, Marxism is defunct, right? )


----------



## Tsoman

That survivor show looks like some good TV watching. woot, go white team! 

In this country there are wealthy people of all races. And there are lots and lots of dirt poor white people on welfare too.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

By the way, Survivor may be having this kind of version in every country where it normally airs because this year, Greek and Turkish teams will compete and it'll be aired on both Greek and Turkish channels.


----------



## danielfranco

Yes.__________


----------



## Everness

. said:


> The concept of linking race to social status or economic viability displays either a staggering lack of knowledge of who we are or reveals a deepseated bigotry raising the question of what the writer is trying to get at.
> .,,



I'm not following you here. Are you stating that linking race and socio-economic status, for instance, is a sign of ignorance and/or bigotry? 

I wouldn't know where to start if that were the case. 

There are studies on gender, race, and class that examine relationships between economic structures, race, culture, and gender, and their combined influence on health. This is particularly important when you study health disparities. 

In the post-modern and multicultural worlds of criminology and criminal justice, the variables of class, race, and gender remain fundamental to both theory and practice. There is certainly an emerging consensus on the importance of these three variables analyzed separately, and increasingly, on the intersections between them or on their interactive or reciprocal relationships.

Even the University of Sydney is currently offering a class "HSTY2655 - Race Relations and Australian Frontiers." And one of the topics is intersections between gender, class and race. http://edutech.arts.usyd.edu.au/Art....cfm?uid=175415&Menu=Public#UoS_DescriptionNL



. said:


> If you cut me I bleed red.
> If you hurt me I cry clear.
> If you bleed me I die dead.
> We are all the same when we are dead.
> .,,



That's true. We are all the same when we are dead. But we aren't while we are still alive. By the way, Jorge Manrique has a great poem on this topic. http://users.ipfw.edu/JEHLE/POESIA/COPLASEN.HTM


----------



## Everness

Victoria32 said:


> The issues of race and class, and where they intersect are alive and well in New Zealand as well...



But how could that happen? You're so close to Australia!  



Victoria32 said:


> That being said I think the USA does have a special relationship with these issues.



With race, class, or their intersection? The more I think about this, the more I think Michaels is onto something. We are reacting the right way to the wrong stimulus. 

What do I mean? When Washington Post columnist and ESPN sports commentator Michael Wilbon found out that this season on "Survivor," a white team, a black team, an Asian-American team, and a Latino team would compete to stay on the proverbial island, he was outraged: "It's insulting. It's irresponsible. It's reprehensible." 

But why is it that no one even flinches when they are told that a shocking 37 million Americans live in poverty. That is 12.7 per cent of the population - the highest percentage in the developed world?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1712965,00.html


----------



## fenixpollo

Everness said:


> But why is it that no one even flinches when they are told that a shocking 37 million Americans live in poverty?


 Because that would require that people actually DO something about it. Americans may have a love affair with race, but they are married to capitalism... and in capitalism, the poor are poor for a reason and it's not my job to sort them out.


----------



## .   1

. said:


> Everness,
> Do you ever pose any of these loaded questions to your elected representatives in government?
> 
> .,,


This is the main question I was interested in you addressing and that was why I addressed it directly to you.

Do you give your politicians as hard a time as you give us on the contentious issues you seem so fond of constantly starting here.

.,,


----------



## Brioche

Everness said:


> But why is it that no one even flinches when they are told that a shocking 37 million Americans live in poverty. That is 12.7 per cent of the population - the highest percentage in the developed world?
> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1712965,00.html


 
The article didn't say what the "poverty line" is for the US. 

It does say that 25% of African Americans live in poverty.

Looking at the figures for unmarried mothers, taken from the US census, in 1998,
32.8% of all births in the US were ex-nuptial, and 69.1% of black births were ex-nuptial. Teenage motherhood among blacks is twice the rate among whites.
http://www.allcountries.org/uscensus/85_births_to_teens_unmarried_mothers_and.html

I'll no doubt be accused of blaming the victim, but early, ex-nuptial pregnancy is almost a guarantee of poverty for mother and child.


----------



## maxiogee

Brioche said:


> I'll no doubt be accused of blaming the victim, but early, ex-nuptial pregnancy is almost a guarantee of poverty for mother and child.




The only 'victim' is the unfortunate child born to a young and unsupported mother. 

Pregnancy in teenage years is routinely, but not always, a serious problem for any society. It is almost always a waste of what education the mother received, it reduces the mother and child to dependency or poverty and it draws off resources which could be better spent on less extremely urgent situations.


----------



## roxcyn

"I'm no better, and neither are you.  We're all the same in whatever we do"
- "Everyday People" (song)

We are all people, we all live on Planet Earth but we have many differences:
Gender (Male, female, transgender)
Social Status (Married, Single, Comitted, Divorced, Widowed etc)
Employment (Yes or No)
Skin color (Any of the posibilities)
Income (None, Low, Low-Medium, Medium, Medium-High, High, Super High)
Relgion (Any one on Earth or none at all)
Environment (Positive, Negative environment, neighboorhood, friends, associates, family members, et al)


They all play an "ism" in any country.  The rich don't want to live around poor "broke" people.  (the money differences.  The rich person thinks that the poor person will steal.)

We cannot just pinpoint it and say "hey it's our money differences" or "hey it's our race differences."  We have to look at the overall big picture.  And I would say there are a lot of differences between people.


----------



## Outsider

Everness said:


> HistofEng said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But race is stratified by class.
> 
> They are inseperable.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to be intuitively true, but can you back up this statement? Are race and class really inseparable?
Click to expand...

You should see this.


----------



## luar

Let me add another ingredient to the salad: religion. I believe that religion has something to do with our attitude towards poverty, and our reluctance to actively work for its eradication. Depending upon our religious beliefs, we might consider that people are poor because it’s God’s will or because they are lazy, and accordingly they deserve it. These two extreme positions have something in common: We are excused from all responsibility. So, why should I care about modifying the social structures that perpetuate economical inequalities? Definitively, it is not my job! 

Esta es harina de otro costal, but isn’t it contradictory that those who defend the equal and fair sharing of richness were against religion?



fenixpollo said:


> and in capitalism, the poor are poor for a reason and it's not my job to sort them out.


 
It was not accidental that capitalism flourished in countries where religious doctrines promote individualism.


----------



## ireney

Didn't Christ say 

“He who is kind to the poor lends to the Lord, and he will reward him for what he has done.” Prov 19:17

“The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.” Prov 29:7

“Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy.” Prov 31:4

“He oppresses the poor and needy…Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.” Eze 18:12-13

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” Matt 19:21

“Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” Jas 2:15-17

and ( I can't find a quote for that one) that he who has two coats must give one to the he who has none? 

Religion can and will be blamed for many things but not attitude towards the poor.


----------



## Outsider

Some people use religious arguments to justify their lack of compassion, others are inspired by religion to be charitable. It's not a one-way street. Anyway, we're getting off-topic...


----------



## cuchuflete

Does America have a love affair with race?

Stupid question, even with the bits of added information Everness was kind enough to provide.

Some people may be preoccupied with race.  They do not represent the majority of the population.

Most of the population, based on what they do and on what they don't do, are not particularly interested in either race or economic inequality--so long as they are at or above the median-- or income frequency distribution curves, adjusted for local cost of living factors.

America, like most places, is preoccupied with routine existence.  Alexis de Tocqueville wrote insightful things about what America is preoccupied with...back in the 1830s.  Most of them remain true today.  

Here is an example:



> I think that democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom;  left to themselves, they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation  of it with regret. But for equality their passion is ardent, insatiable,  incessant, invincible; they call for equality in freedom; and if they cannot  obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery. They will endure  poverty, servitude, barbarism, but they will not endure aristocracy.


----------



## maxiogee

ireney said:


> Didn't Christ say
> 
> … Prov 19:17
> … Prov 29:7
> … Prov 31:4
> … Eze 18:12-13



No.
Christ didn't say anything in the Old Testament.
Those were written by people. People to whom divine inspiration has later been ascribed.




> “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” Matt 19:21


Possibly… but as the evangelist Matthew is most likely _not_ the apostle Matthew there is some doubt that he was there to witness the words being spoken.





> “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, ‘Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?” Jas 2:15-17


No, again. This is James speaking for himself. He is not quoting.




> and (I can't find a quote for that one) that he who has two coats must give one to the he who has none?


This is from Luke 3:11. Again, another who wasn't there to witness that of which he wrote.


----------



## Tsoman

Just because you can't document those quotes doesn't mean that they aren't part of the religion.


----------



## mjscott

maxiogee said:


> No.
> Christ didn't say anything in the Old Testament.
> Those were written by people. People to whom divine inspiration has later been ascribed.
> 
> 
> 
> Possibly… but as the evangelist Matthew is most likely _not_ the apostle Matthew there is some doubt that he was there to witness the words being spoken.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, again. This is James speaking for himself. He is not quoting.
> 
> 
> 
> This is from Luke 3:11. Again, another who wasn't there to witness that of which he wrote.


 
Holy smokes! Are you to tell me that quotes from the Holy Bible--(regardless of someone's belief as to their veracity) are not used as standards by Judeo and Christian religions as standards? What do you think they stake standards on?....And if Jesus had spent his time _writing_ instead of _ministering_--and if someone else deemed an account of what he said about the 2 coats as a secondary rendering, that its effects are invalid in the church today, I think you'd better research their relevance among churches today. (The daVinci Code has gotten under your skin--but that is yet another thread).

Does America have a love affair with race? I say, "Yes!" Even immigrant families are extremely concerned that the even-greater love affair with the Almighty Dollar will steal away family values that came over in the immigration and have withheld the test of time for many generations. The surface love affair with race is so that people will maintain their cultural identity _despite _where they lie on the strata of wealth.

As far as the US educational system, the dollars they give out from the old Eisenhower Grant (Now amended to be NCLBE (prounced "NICKEL-bee) (No Child Left Behind) their greatest allocation to a school district hinges on how many free and reduced lunches the school provides for--which hinges on the income level of the family in which the student resides.

The other demographics also come into play--race, gender, special needs--etc. But whether or not you come from a poor family or a rich family--unfortunately has been shown to directly correlate with whether or not you will be successful in school. The money received by states and school districts is thrown at things such as cultural diversity, cultural identity, making sure kids have books in homes, etc.--But the bottom line is the love affair with the $$ is really where its at. In that aspect, I'm not sure I'm in disagreement with Michaels.


----------



## maxiogee

Tsoman said:


> Just because you can't document those quotes doesn't mean that they aren't part of the religion.



I didn't say that.
Please read very carefully what I wrote.
I did not say that they aren't documentable - they are very positively "documented" - documented in the world's best selling book.
Re-read what I wrote!



mjscott said:


> Holy smokes! Are you to tell me that quotes from the Holy Bible--(regardless of someone's belief as to their veracity) are not used as standards by Judeo and Christian religions as standards? What do you think they stake standards on?....And if Jesus had spent his time _writing_ instead of _ministering_--and if someone else deemed an account of what he said about the 2 coats as a secondary rendering, that its effects are invalid in the church today,


I have not said what you ask me if I wish to tell you.
Please read what I wrote.
Is it so difficult?

ireney wrote *"Didn't Christ say…"* and quoted various pieces of scripture. I pointed out that Christ did not say anything which is in the Old Testament. —> *Do you wish to contend that he did?*

I further pointed out that two of the New Testament pieces quoted were written by people who weren't witnesses to what Christ said, and the other made no claim to being the words of Christ. *Again, do you wish to dispute that?* Either of you?


----------



## mjscott

Please read what I wrote, also. If people believe the Bible as the "inspired Word of God," then they will abide by what they believe is inspired.

Much emphasis has been made that Jesus spoke to the woman at the well (who was socially not up to what they thought his sandard should be), and to his completing the request of the Roman Centurion (who was certainly not Jewish!) Those who have a love affair with race will emphasize these points--because they are *not* a silly slip that our fathers did into generalization, but are a reality--and have been since there were more than one family in this world! (contrary to Michael's belief)

I am stating that the love affair that supercedes race is the love affair with power--which in this world equates to money.

I am disdainfully anticipatory as to the result of this new Survivor year. I think that the producers could move the river over to where it causes more cultural tension, or could move it in the direction of causing more emphasis on other things in society, beside race.

We'll just have to see--which is what I'm sure producers were expecting....Such an outroar as to its production, that the $$$$ (which is the real reason for choosing this bent on the present Survivor episodes) will be rolling in--both from opponents and from supporters!


----------



## Everness

cuchuflete said:


> Some people may be preoccupied with race.  They do not represent the majority of the population.



Can you back up this statement? However, you might be right, after all people of color don't represent the majority of the US population. The results of the following poll are interesting. People were asked:

"Have you personally ever felt that you were being discriminated against because of your race?"  	

19% of White folks answered yes and *81%* answered no. On the other hand, *54% *of Blacks answered yes, and 45%, no.

http://www.pollingreport.com/race.htm

But again, the results prove you right. If you're white and benefit from what has been called "White Privilege," you shouldn't be preoccupied about race.


----------



## maxiogee

mjscott said:


> Please read what I wrote, also.


I have no trouble with what you wrote. I was responding to your question to me.
That sentence which read "Are you to tell me that quotes from the Holy Bible--(regardless of someone's belief as to their veracity) are not used as standards by Judeo and Christian religions as standards?" was asked of me, 5 believed, as it was written beneath a quoted post of mine. I wasn't, and don't, comment on how people interpret the Bible. I just commented on its component's authors.

Anyone may wish to believe that any human writings are divinely inspired. I would just ask that, if they wish to compel me to abide by their interpretations of their God's divine writ (by seeking to have their religious convictions enshrined in the laws of a state in which I reside), that they produce any evidence of this divine inspiration. The problem I have with the Old Testament is that it was written largely long after the events described and, as I mentioned in another thread, the God 'quoted' there on repeated occasions as "God said" or "The Lord said" is only quoted on four occasions as speaking to more than one person at a time, and three of those four were apparently to one of the authors of the work and his brother. In the case of the New Testament, there is no contemporaneity to the Gospels, and in many of the other NT writings they are not quoting Jesus, as in the case of ireney's passage from James.

My problem is that, while it would appear that most people on the earth who are religiously inclined believe in a single God, there appears to be many variations on the theme of what this God requires of us. Why should any one religion's opinions be reflected in the laws of any state?

To haul this back to where it is departing from the topic, is not all religion all about encouraging divisions amongst people. They all seem to thrive on a "we are not them" principle, best evinced by the Jewish people's arrogation of the soubriquet "The Chosen People". Without a "them" to be damned to perdition, how can "we" be the saved?
Cultures always select an underclass to despise and feel "holier than thou" about. I suppose that one is as good as another.


----------



## .   1

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Everness* [URL]http://forum.wordreference.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif[/URL]
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *HistofEng*
> But race is stratified by class.
> 
> They are inseperable.
> 
> It seems to be intuitively true, but can you back up this statement? Are race and class really inseparable?


Does this mean that a person from the black race is always at the lower end of the social scale.
Is a person of the yellow race always superior.
I suppose that a person of the red race is always considered to be a welfare case.
And a white person is always placed where in the social strata.
I grew up in a predominately white community that has now become vastly multicultural. This community has always had stratification of social class. 
In the begining of my experience white people filled every niche of my society from the most abject of the poor to the most obscenely wealthy.
Now that multiculturism is alive and well the people filling each niche have changed and we now have rich and poor yellow people and black people and white people and 'race' seems to bar no one from being poor.

.,,


----------



## Everness

fenixpollo said:


> Because that would require that people actually DO something about it. Americans may have a love affair with race, but they are married to capitalism... and in capitalism, the poor are poor for a reason and it's not my job to sort them out.



So what are our options here? Communism is dead. (Even if it's dead, the US government doesn't want to take any chances. Did you know, for instance, that if you have you Green Card and you decide to apply to become a naturalized US citizen and the government, when processing your application, discovers that you are a member of the Communist Party of the United States and/or that you wrote a book or an article advocating the economic, international, and governmental doctrines of world communism, your request for naturalization will be flatly rejected?)

Back to your reflections. Should we try socialism? Should we reform capitalism? Are there other systems out there that could bring some economic equality to the US? Or should we be content with having the lesser of all evils when it comes to political and economic ways of organizing society?


----------



## djchak

Capitalism ALWAYS needs to be reformed. (or perfected, if you prefer)

But this is so far away from the original question. Which wasn't really clear to me anyway.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:


> Or should we be content with having the lesser of all evils when it comes to political and economic ways of organizing society?



The implicit message of that sentence is stunning.


----------



## Everness

luar said:


> Let me add another ingredient to the salad: religion. I believe that religion has something to do with our attitude towards poverty, and our reluctance to actively work for its eradication. Depending upon our religious beliefs, we might consider that people are poor because it’s God’s will or because they are lazy, and accordingly they deserve it. These two extreme positions have something in common: We are excused from all responsibility. So, why should I care about modifying the social structures that perpetuate economical inequalities? Definitively, it is not my job!
> It was not accidental that capitalism flourished in countries where religious doctrines promote individualism.



There's another biblical verse often quoted and most of the times grossly misinterpreted. Matthew 26.11

10Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 *The poor you will always have with you,* but you will not always have me. 12When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."

Apparently some of us are so Christian that we don't want to contradict Jesus or prove him wrong. Our major concern? What would happen to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy if suddenly poverty was eradicated from the face of the world? Yes, the Word of God would lose credibility. Our strategy? Let's not fight poverty or do anything to change the status quo. Let's make sure that we always have poor people among us.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:


> There's another biblical verse often quoted and most of the times grossly misinterpreted. Matthew 26.11
> 
> 10Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 *The poor you will always have with you,* but you will not always have me. 12When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."
> 
> Apparently some of us are so Christian that we don't want to contradict Jesus or prove him wrong. Our major concern? What would happen to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy if suddenly poverty was eradicated from the face of the world? Yes, the Word of God would lose credibility. Our strategy? Let's not fight poverty or do anything to change the status quo. Let's make sure that we always have poor people among us.


I don't much care for religions but my suspicion is that any religion that actively promotes poverty based on an interpretation of a multi-translated quote from a very old text will not remain a religion for very long.  Not enough people are that dumb.

.,,


----------



## Everness

djchak said:


> Capitalism ALWAYS needs to be reformed. (or perfected, if you prefer)
> 
> But this is so far away from the original question. Which wasn't really clear to me anyway.



Even Greenspan agrees with you! 

"The result of this, said Greenspan, is that the US now has a significant divergence in the fortunes of different groups in its labor market. "As I've often said, this is not the type of thing which a democratic society - a capitalist democratic society - can really accept without addressing," Greenspan told the congressional hearing."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0614/p01s03-usec.html

So who is in charge of perfecting capitalism in order to create economic equality? If you have an hour to spare, listen to this program on Inequality in America. It's sobering to say the least but there are some good ideas to tackle this immoral issue. I loved a new proposal no country has tried before: to index the tax system to inequality. If inequality gets worse, tax rates go up for the rich! (At minute 42 of the show if you don't have 60 minutes to spare.) 

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2006/09/20060904_a_main.asp


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:


> There's another biblical verse often quoted and most of the times grossly misinterpreted. Matthew 26.11
> 
> 10Aware of this, Jesus said to them, "Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 *The poor you will always have with you,* but you will not always have me. 12When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 13I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her."
> 
> Apparently some of us are so Christian that we don't want to contradict Jesus or prove him wrong. Our major concern? What would happen to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy if suddenly poverty was eradicated from the face of the world? Yes, the Word of God would lose credibility. Our strategy? Let's not fight poverty or do anything to change the status quo. Let's make sure that we always have poor people among us.


In my opinion Jesus was talking about how things are, not how they should be..It was a prediction, not a commandment!


----------



## Noel Acevedo

Everness said:


> This is what Walter Benn Michaels, a literature professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago, argues in his new book "The Trouble with Diversity: How We Learned to Love Identity and Forget Inequality."
> 
> http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/03/colorblinded/
> 
> He is in part responding to the fact that on this season (pathetic) TV show "Survivor," a white team, a black team, an Asian-American team, and a Latino team will compete to stay on the proverbial island.
> 
> He poses a very interesting strategy (perfectly captured in the title of his book): Let's (1) stop celebrating diversity, (2) stop attacking racism, an enemy Michaels says has been in retreat for decades, and (3) start confronting economic inequality, which he calls the true bane of society.
> 
> Are we picking the wrong battle? Is classism, and not racism, the real enemy? Should we stop obsessing over diversity and start worrying about economic inequality?


 
Everness:

There is an interesting book by Emmanuel Todd titled "After the Empire" Columbia University Press, which although covering a number of other theories as to why the US is no longer an empire in ascendency, does cover on race as well as economic equality. Without going into the details the author posits that the US has always been a nation in which diferentiation has been prevalent.  The founders distinguished from the founding white fathers and blacks and indians (slavery, discrimination, reservations).  During the Cold War and only because the USSR was conceptualy more egalitarian, the US during the 60's until the fall of the USSR entered into a phase in which blacks were given greater and more rights; tendency the author believes has reversed to its original position with the aggravation that there is now a new race that is receiving the scorn of the white ruling majority: the hispanics, specificaly mexicans.  He also argues that the US from a non dependant country is now a dependant nation economically responding not to the needs of the majority of its people but to the whims of a few, i.e. the US now is becomming an oligarchy.

Noel Acevedo


----------

