Apollo 11--Apogee of White America?

 Watched the documentary film Apollo 11 last night. Seeing it 54 years after the original offered a certain perspective, not to mention color and clarity.

Couldn't help noticing the almost 100 percent white male control room and the almost 100 percent white audience at Cape Canaveral viewing in person.  The film didn't make a point of either, though I'm sure it wasn't by chance the camera passed over one woman in the control room and a couple blacks watching. The film was shot in 1969 with the sensibilities of the time, so I'm guessing it didn't miss much. I'm sure there was a sizeable TV audience of blacks, but few would have had the time and money to travel to the Cape.  I can only guess the feelings of the black watchers; possibly discomfort at being one in a thousand, possibly participating in the sort of nationalistic pride most may have felt, or possibly just enjoying the spectacle.

Apollo 11 was a peculiarly white endeavor; IIRC many black leaders questioned spending the money on space rather than domestic needs. The black participants in the effort were hidden. See Hidden Figures.  So it seemed an white American success, perhaps with a little credit to the German scientists who immigrated to Alabama after WWII. 

In 1969 LBJ had been driven from office, so Tricky Dick got to call the astronauts after their recovery. We'd seen the assassinations of MLK and RFK, and the country was sharply divided.  The immigration laws had been reformed in 1965 but it was too early to see their effect.  We were still on the gold standard and inflation was starting to be a concern. 

I don't know how modern historians place the moonshot in the flow of American life.  I suspect many have considered it a sideshow, an assessment which may be changing as we try to get back to the moon and then to Mars. 

Proper Representation II

 When I was young "representation" wasn't an issue. Instead you had "mobility", the idea that immigrants climbed the ladder from poverty to middle class with some striking it rich.  Actually there were different ladders--Jews were noted boxers and basketball players before they became doctors and lawyers. Mobility was often about "firsts". We noted the "firsts"--the first Jewish SCOTUS justice, the first Polish cabinet secretary, even the first black cabinet secretary.

Emphasizing the firsts obscured our view of the many, or perhaps was just a way to avoid looking at the many.   But "firsts" are still important; they show what is possible, what isn't prohibited.  Similarly the extreme cases, like Muggsy Bogues, may be outliers but they too show what's possible.

Somehow this discussion ties into "intersectionality" to me.  But that's for another day.

What Is Proper Representation?

The conventional wisdom now seems to be that groups, whether ethnic, racial, gender, ideological, deserve to have representation in every walk of life that matches their presence in society.  

For example, I've noted articles on the dwindling presence of American blacks in major league baseball; the absence of blacks in management positions in the NFL, the lack of conservative professors in higher education, etc

My first reaction is to go slowly--the first consideration is whether there are legal barriers to such representation. Those I presume are almost always wrong. 

A second consideration is that under-representation of one group necessarily means over-representation of other group(s).  For example, the over-representation of Asian students in top educational institutions (i.e., Harvard, Thomas Jefferson High School) is the other side of the under-representation of other minorities. 

A third consideration is the under-representation  of a group in one area means the over-representation in other area(s).  For example, the over-representation of blacks in pro football and basketball seems to be the counterpart to their under-representation in pro baseball.

A fourth consideration is trajectory through history.  For example, blacks seem to have created and still dominate areas of music (about which I know nothing), like hip hop and rap.  Jews seem to be prominent in Hollywood and the entertainment industry.

A final consideration (some would put it first) is whether the differential representation indicates a barrier to advancement of some kind. One rule of advancement is usually--it depends on who you know--meaning the greater the representation the easier it is to advance.

Affirmative Action--Three Posts

SCOTUS considers affirmative action today, the occasion for lots of comments; Three blog posts of note: 

• Kevin Drum argues from the experience of California in prohibiting AA that it doesn't make that much difference.  Kevin would prefer class-based action.
• David Bernstein refers to his book on racial/ethnic classification in today's context. He argues that the groupings the Federal government uses are illogical and never designed for the purposes for which they are used.  
• Steven Hayward publishes a chart showing the distribution of SAT scores by group. I found two things surprising: the degree of Asian-American dominance (25 percent in in the top category) and the fact that the group which was next highest in the top category was--wait for it--mixed race. 

Liberals and Change

 

I mean...

What IS the response to this from good-faith liberals, btw? https://t.co/AvRtjYv7xb

— Wilfred Reilly (@wil_da_beast630) July 22, 2022

Within this thread is the "gentrification"/"white flight" cartoon attacking liberals--that is, if the neighborhood changes by increasing the proportion of whites--it's bad because "gentrification"; if it changes by decreasing the proportion of whites--it's bad because "white flight".

I think it's a fair point.  As a liberal I'm stuck, welcoming change from the "creative destruction" of capitalism/market economy, and opposing change by providing a "safety net". 

The key, I think, is modulated change: change must occur but change that's too fast, too massive needs to be cushioned.  That's my analysis and defense of farm programs--only a rigorous supply management system such as those we had for tobacco and peanuts has been halfway successful in maintaining successful farms. If we aren't willing to go that far, then the best farm programs can do is to cushion the changes. 

Things Get Better?

As someone who lived through the 1960's, I sometimes get impatient with today's discussions of race  and its problems.  I remember how it used to be, at least as best a young white NY liberal could who viewed from afar, did not jump into the struggle.

I was struck by the data in the twitter thread below, covering the life expectancies by race and sex between 1960 and 2017.  While there's still a gap in expected life span, the gap has indeed narrowed since 1960, narrowed signficantly and particularly in recent years. 

here's how it looks to me: pic.twitter.com/bd6NHH0cP7

— blighter (@blightersort) July 21, 2022

Pigford Case Resolved

 Don't know if I've blogged on this part of the Pigford case before, but here's a case which ends in pleas of guilty by four of the six defendants.

Hutchinson on Declaration

Boston 1775 has a post on Hutchinson's view of the Declaration. Denies that the thirteen colonies constitute a "people" and points to the conflict between "life, liberty, pursuit.." and slavery.  

So the founders hypocrisy was apparent early (and to themselves, given the rapid progress of gradual emancipation in the northern colonies by 1790). 

It's interesting though that he thinks there are 100,000 slaves. (The 1790 census showed about 700,000.)  

The To and Fro of Government and Private

 Much of what government,at least American government, does is to take over what private initiative has started and make it more uniform, more universal.

For example, roads--many of our roads started as Indian trails, simply because of the influence of geography. Colonies did some roads, private initiative did other roads ("turnpikes" as I was taught), eventually governments took over almost all roads, except for driveways.  That was mostly true through the 20th century; now private enterprise is building roads again, toll roads.

Another example is redlining.  The simple version is that the New Deal's agency to provide mortgages for housing and distressed homeowners divided cities into two areas: those where no mortgages would be supported and those where mortgages were available.  The redlined areas were black, the others were white. That's drastically oversimplified, as McWhorter describes in this Times piece.

The reality is that bankers were always deciding who could get a mortgage and who couldn't.  As their volume increased, they simplified their decision making by generalizing to areas.  When the Feds got involved, they further generalized the process.  

See this piece by Colin Gordon in Dissent.

Cars and Pedestrians--A Metaphor IV

 I want to push the metaphor comparing drivers and pedestrians to those entrapped in our racial web.

• the norms and rules for driving a car are both imposed by history and learned early, as we watch our parents and others drive from within the car, and watch other cars.  The norms and rules for being a pedestrian are less obvious and mostly less formal, except when walkers come into contact with cars, bicycles, etc.  But they too are learned early.  I had to learn to jaywalk; as a country boy and a natural born bureaucrat I over-conformed to the rules as I learned them. Mostly the norms are learned early enough they work below our consciousness--like walking to the right. 
• typically I think we are much less aware of the driver inside the car; we just see the car.  That's similar to how we treat members of racial/ethnic/identity groups.  We don't see the Amish or Hasids as individuals, not the ego within the body or clothing, just the outside.  The same goes for others on the stage of life: celebrities of all kinds.
• I choose to drive a car, or to walk. Once I make my choice, I inherit the whole cluster of norms described above.  My behavior as a driver is somewhat under my control, but it is very constrained.  The constraints are firmer for individuals; the norm is that an individual's racial identity is not under her control (particularly before the civil rights movement).  

I think what captured my imagination here is how quickly and sharply my behavior and attitudes switch when I got from pedestrian to driver and back.  Intellectually I know we fill many different roles as we live, all governed by social norms and habits, but this particular pair of roles illustrates their nature very well.

Cars and Pedestrians--A Metaphor III

 My second continuation:

The points I made in my previous post:What's going on?  

• binary--cars versus walkers
• power--cars have more power
• conflict over scarce resource
• laws and rules to govern power and conflict
• infringing laws
• identifying with fellows generates emotion
• game playing, esp by weaker

Any reader who has gotten this far may be asking: where's the metaphor:

Specifically, when we Americans have our usual discussions of race, of African-Americans and European heritage, we could be talking cars and walkers:

• blacks and whites are binary groups in society, but not in reality
• whites have more power than blacks
• the groups are competing for scarce resources--position in society as represented by wealth and prestige
• there are laws and norms to govern the behavior of the races
• both push the limits or violate the laws
• there's strong in-group feeling for those identifying with the group
• both sides play games, esp the weaker blacks

Cars and Pedestrians--A Metaphor II

 A continuation from yesterday:

What's going on?  

• there's a good binary separation going on: I'm either a driver in a car, or a walker.
• there's a power difference: as a walker I can't do much to a car; as a driver I can kill the walker
• there's a conflict of interests--drivers and walkers are dividing up a scarce resource--the right to traverse the intersection.
• there's laws, rules, and norms for each, I suspect particularly because of the conflict and power difference. We're both supposed to act in obedience to the traffic light.
• reality is that drivers and walkers push the envelope routinely.  We mock a driver who obsessively follows traffic laws, like never speeding. We acknowledge jaywalking.
• judging by my emotions, I feel some kinship with fellow drivers, also with fellow walkers; I'd guess that's a common feeling.
• both sides can play mind games. As a driver I don't always yield to a walker in the cross-walk.
• it seems to me mind games are the weapon of the weaker party. Personally, at the intersection I'm describing, there's are turn arrows.  When the through lanes change to red, the right turn arrow turns green.  After the turning traffic gets its turn, the turn arrow goes blank. A couple seconds later the walk sign turns on (and the turn arrow goes to blinking yellow).  I make a habit of starting to cross when the turn arrow goes blank-- figuring that means the turning traffic now needs to stop.  That means I'm often  stepping into the path of cars whose drivers are planning to slow but not stop for the turn.  I take satisfaction in imagining the drivers are frustrated, and perhaps will remember to be more cautious next time.

Cars and Pedestrians--a Metaphor-I

 When I cross Reston Parkway on the way to and from my garden, I now use the button for pedestrian crossing.  (I used to jaywalk because it was easy enough to see oncoming traffic, I was impatient, but no longer--the risk seems greater the older I get.) Particularly going to the garden there's often stopped cars in the 2 through lanes, so cars zooming up Reston and looking to make a right turn onto Glade can't see me starting to cross. They are used to not having to stop, despite the law. 

As I'm walking I silently dare the bastards to run into me.  

When I drive north on Reston Parkway to the library, Home Depot, or Trader Joes, I pass by Reston Town Center.  There's apartment buildings on the south side of the road, with the hotel, stores and office buildings of the center on the north side.  So there's a pedestrian crossing with a button. With a four-lane parkway, it takes forever for the damn pedestrians to amble across.  Or at least, the light is timed so as not to hurry an eighty-year old man with bad legs.

I sit in the car, steaming.  

I think this scenario can serve as a metaphor for racism. 

I'll try to expand on this in the future.

Ethnicity/Racial Data

 ASCS/FSA has had a history of trying to identify its producers as to their race and/or ethnicity.  It seems to me the problem is you can't require citizens to say what they are or consider themselves to be; you can't except for the Census Bureau.

According to this FEMA may be required to collect such data, if the new law passes. As there's more and more written about the disparate impacts of various programs agencies face that problem more.  IMO simply asking, whether orally or by form, is offputting--most Americans I suspect would react: what the hell business is it of yours? So you end up with correct information grudgingly given and an annoyed citizen, or incorrect information, or blank, which puts you into the position of eyeballing.

Expropriation/Appropriation of Culture/Ideas

 Reading Johnson's book "The Broken Heart of America"--early on (page 26) he refers to the expropriation of Indian knowledge by the Lewis/Clark expedition.   Somehow it struck me wrong.  Checking the definitions of "expropriation" and "appropriation" it seems their meaning has been concerning property or assets.  

Johnson applies it to intellectual knowledge and intangible assets. To an economist I think the distinction rests on what is "excludable", which intellectual property isn't as a rule. IP is shareable.  It's appropriate to refer to the expropriation of land or the appropriation of personal property, but to my mind not appropriate to expropriation of IP or appropriation of culture. 

That leaves a question of what label to use instead of cultural appropriation--imitation or emulation or copying, perhaps adding an adjective like "superficial". 

A note from a biography of Josiah Wedgwood I'm reading--there's a quotation from an eminent writer in the 1760's pontificating that the classical past (which was being revealed by excavating Pompeii and the tours of Europe by young English men) should be considered the common patrimony of all, so emulation and imitation was fine.

Is the Midwest Real?

 I've seen a few polls online trying to determine which states people would include in  the "Midwest".  There's no unanimity, just a core of states almost everyone would include (those beginning with "I") plus others--is Ohio in, how about western PA? Is Nebraska in or out, etc.?

It struck me this morning that the term "Midwest" has a similar relationship to the geography and society found in that general area as the term "race" has to the people who might be included in a specific "race". 

This is all in the context of discussions of whether "race" is "real"--many on the left would say race isn't real. I think it's real in some sense, but once you start defining it you find the concept fuzzy and sometimes evanescent.

What Constitutes "Race"?

 A question raised by recent reading--what constitutes "race"?   Disregarding the issue of whether or not "race" is real, it seems to me our understanding is historical, lacking background.  Specifically:

• African race is really a concept derived from past experience with slaves.  Although in the early years of slavery I understand that enslavers knew and understood difference in the people they imported from different parts/nations of Africa, as time went on those distinctions faded away into one "African" race.
• Today we easily use "Asian American" as equivalent to a "race".  In part that may be a carryover of history: whites treating the "Orient" as one big confusing place with "Orientals" as the race.  
• Today we have the information and the ability to distinguish between Nigerians and Gambians, and between Bhutanese, Nepalese, and Chinese. But having the ability doesn't mean we use that knowledge in our discussions.  

NIMBY and Racism

 Recent articles on how industrial areas, particularly those with undesirable side effects such as air or water pollution from chemicals or what we used to call "junkyards", are located in or near black areas.  The usual theory is the choice of the site was racist in a sort of generic way.  

I used to try to slow my employees down when they tried to explain something to me--usually I wanted a step by step approach to get things clear in my mind.  That temperament is perhaps one reason I resist the implied explanation. 

I can imagine a cascade of NIMBYism that produces the end result without anyone involved in the decision making process being consciously racist.  Both a reaction against a proposed siting decision by rich and powerful neighbors, or the anticipation of trouble by those making the decision could play a part, as could a higher cost of land.  That's even assuming there was a decision point, rather than a more unplanned evolution of land use.

Identities: Race and Religion

 Two of the more idiosyncratic bloggers I follow are University Diaries, written by Margaret Sotan, a GWU English professor, and The Daily Howler, written by Bob Somerby, a retired schoolteacher and Harvard grad. Both have, as my mother might have said, bees in their bonnet. I say Prof. Soltan's are guns, corruption in colleges, and Haridim. Mr. Somerby's are liberal media (particularly on education and statistics) and philosophy.  

Soltan has a post on an article from Mosaic, an online Jewish magazine, describing education in the Haridim schools in New York City.  There seems not to be much education occurring within the schools.  She calls it a cult, and questions its acceptance within American culture.  

Somerby has posts yesterday and today on a NYTimes Magazine piece on Rebecca Hall and an upcoming movie.  He questions whether an individual belongs to a race, and the nature of the linkage. Is it the one-blood rule, is it the context within which the person grows up, or something else? Is there any reality to race?

Seems to me both bloggers are dealing with issues of belonging and identity. If you view, as I do, the bonds between individual and nation as rather rubbery, stretching and contracting depending on the individual and the circumstances, under what circumstances do the links break.  I've no problem with the Amish Americans, even though they end education early and get some special treatment. But Haridi Americans (is that a term) stretch the bonds more, perhaps simply because they have the history here than the Amish do. But for both the Amish and the Haridi the bond between individual and group are voluntary, though as long as one is a member you're subject to group pressure.

Somerby's subject relates to involuntary bonds--you can't choose your grandparents or the cultural context you grow up in.  At least, they used to be involuntary, entirely determined by the community.  It turns out there is choice: first for those whose color is ambiguous, they can "pass", and now for many who can choose which parts of their history they accept.  (Somerby has some fun with the words "Allen whose great great grandfather...", pointing out she had several  great grandfathers (16 to be specific). 

Logistics of Segregated Buses

 Talking with my cousin about her experience living under Jim Crow laws caused me to think about the logistics, or the daily experience.

Some things were clear and definite: separate schools, separate swimming pools (or days of availability), separate drinking fountains.  Once you knew the rules, complying with them was relatively straightforward.

But some situations were not so clear and fixed.  For example, on the bus, a bus that's heavily used by both blacks and whites. At the beginning whites sit at the front and blacks at the back. But once it gets full, if you're a 10-year white girl boarding the bus you're forcing a black to give up her/his seat, regardless of the age or condition of the black.  If it's full and a black is the next to board, she's forced to stand unless another black yields his seat.

Depending on the rearing and beliefs of the girl, she may accept causing inconvenience to the black as her right and due, or as a violation of treating people as equals.