Comments for sursumcorda.salemsattic.com/post/how-can-america-come-together-again-a-guest-post-by-wyatt

Comment #2924

2020-06-30T00:16:25Z

Wyatt - I appreciate you thinking through the issue and posting your thoughts. One thing that struck me is that it seems to me that you are downplaying the role that systemic racism has played throughout this and history. I think the main point of the protests is that racism is more akin to the pandemic then we would like to believe. I too was ignorant of Tulsa and many other historical aspects of Jim Crow and more recently the war on crime. From my standpoint, that recent events have at least begun to shed a light on how policy has been used to repress black people through history.

I enjoyed watching Thirteenth on Netflix to get an alternative view. I also like Emmanual Acho's 'Uncomfortable conversations with a black man" series on YouTube (I liked the first episode the most because I feel the ones with actual guests feel uncomfortable in their efforts not to seem uncomfortable and feature famous people).

Also, you reference the riots multiple times, but you don't make reference to the protests that are happening. Obviously there is some overlap, but they are definitely separate events and reflect different issues. I think it is important to recognize the main issue behind the protests and not let the narrative be changed by the violence incited by extremists on both sides who want to subvert the main message.

Comment #2923

2020-06-21T22:23:44Z

I hadn't heard of the Tulsa Massacre either. It looks a lot like what is happening today, nearly a century later. Only back then the news didn't spread across the country like wildfire. Amazing how technology can change things. The Tulsa Massacre was worse than the George Floyd killing. But, back then the information stayed local.

The victors always write the history books, and as a reader of history books I can back that up. I have school knowledge of Malcolm X, but have yet to read a major book on him. His Autobiography is on the short list, given recent times. I'll check out "The Death and Life of Great American Cities". As an old book, it will be either very cheap or very expensive.

As for poor states being subsidized by richer states, that is what autonomy is tending towards eliminating. It should ideally be a friendly competition, where states do radically different things and are not financially responsible for each other. I hope that eventually the federal government's role would be reduced to defense, while the states deal with everything domestic as they see fit. Everyone who wants socialism can go to California. Then we can see how California does. That is my hope. Now I have to figure out how to convince everyone in Washington D.C. that they don't want to rule the whole country...

Thank you for reading my posts, and for your kind comment,

Wyatt

Comment #2922

2020-06-21T19:35:15Z

More autonomy is an interesting idea. I'm skeptical, but that doesn't mean I'm right.

Why am I skeptical?

First, as you say, the economy plays a central role. Even now, I've heard people complain that California's [insert epithet] blue state laws and [insert epithet] hippie West Coast morals have caused it to fall into major debt. The same people grumble about bailing out other states -- and I suspect that with greater autonomy but a shared economy there will be greater resentment within the wealthier States directed toward the less successful ones they're subsidizing, no matter who they are.

I also deplore the political duopoly. I see it as a major factor in the polarization and divide within the US.

What I agree with is your analysis that it is more an issue of culture than of race, though of course often there is considerable overlap between the two groupings. There's the old saying that the victors write the history books, and I'm afraid that the mainstream historical narrative of the USA bears the clear stamp of the majority culture. I am thankful for the current unrest to have made me aware of a few things I had heretofore not known: Black Wall Street and the Tulsa massacre, for instance. Is it coincidence that I'd never heard of that event, but known, like you, of Malcolm X and his proclivities (based on your post, I know no more than you do)?

I'm currently reading "Hillbilly Elegy" by J.D. Vance. It's a fascinating look at poor white culture, though not everyone will like the language. There's a short aside where the author reads sociological books on African-Americans trapped in poverty and sees massive parallels to the plight of the hillbillies. It's cultural, but it's also a product of certain structures in our society and economic decisions beyond the reach of those affected.

Since you mentioned the urban-rural disparity, I'd also recommend Jane Jacobs's "The Death and Life of Great American Cities," which was written in the late fifties, but still seems relevant to me (in my limited knowledge of US cities).

Thanks for posting!

Comment #2921

2020-06-20T22:47:06Z

Thank you for your response, it spurred me to clarify some issues, and to critical thinking on others.

As for the Sudan/South Sudan illustration, I think this is very far from an autonomous union. The break up of Sudan was preceded by a 22 year civil war. If the U.S. were to grant its states more autonomy, I think that there would be much more free trade between states. Thus, I think that there wouldn't be a major economic issue, once things got started.

Now, as for issues within States, you couldn't be more correct. The cities with their population centers will always be a large factor. But, if things are at the State level, I think that people will be able to migrate between States with greater ease than by moving to a different country. If you live in northern California, it is not that hard to move to Idaho. It requires strong convictions to upset your life like that, but it is far from impossible. So, I think that States would become more homogenous in ideology.

Thank you for your comment, and giving me a chance to clarify,

Wyatt

Comment #2920

2020-06-20T17:05:49Z

I've often pondered the idea that America is divided enough to have had a civil war (or at best a friendly secession) long ago, except that there's no reasonable way to divide physically. Besides, despite the huge differences, rural and urban areas need each other. If I recall correctly, when South Sudan split off from Sudan, that left the resources in one country and the infrastructure in the other, and did not go well.

Your idea of approaching the problem through more state autonomy is an interesting one. I think the countries of the European Union would sympathize. The UK is not the only EU country to have felt the sting of being ruled by a government at odds with local values and interest, and to feel the loss of particular culture.

I'm generally in favor of state autonomy, or more specifically with the idea that responsibilities, decisions, policies, and actions should remain at the lowest practical level, from the family up to the national government. Unfortunately, setting the rules at the state level still leaves the problem that many states are not united in themselves. See Florida/Miami, New York/New York City, Northern/Southern California, Illinois/Chicago. This is a problem with democracy: 51% can tyrannize 49%. Economic freedom can play a huge mitigating role here—but that's another topic.