Nothing Tacit about the 3/5 Rule in the U.S. Constitution

On February 19, about two-thirds through Black History Month, the New York Times published a column by Erin Aubry Kaplan. She noted how America in celebrating the roles of African American in the nation's history overlooked something far more important:

"The institution of slavery meant that the Constitution, for all its worthy prescriptions...,[would] be a document undermined from the beginning by the founders’ tacit embrace of that institution. Black history rooted in slavery means that the country was always going to have to make ugly compromises with its own ideals, a process that became normalized. The longevity of slavery meant that business and the pursuit of profit, not justice, would be the dominant force in American life and the real energy driving even the most optimistic notions of American exceptionalism."

I have one quibble with Ms. Kaplan. The word tacit. There was nothing tacit about the compromise, which said the southern states could count male slaves as three-fifths of a citizen for its census report, thereby increasing representation of "slave" states in the House of Representatives. The representatives from the "free" states sold out people of African descent--not for the benefit of the average Southerner but for the benefit of the wealthy plantation owners whose worth was tied directly to the value of the slaves they owned. Without the "net worth" of slaves, most plantations would have gone bankrupt faster than a Trump casino--as many did after the Civil War.

Other than that one point, Ms. Kaplan makes excellent points about how American does and does not see itself versus how it should.

Bigots and COVID-19 Thrive in Clusters

Last night I went to NAACP's home page. It has a special section on the coronavirus (COVID-19). In its latest post, the association came out in support of Asian Americans. Apparently some tried and true Americans, who obviously excelled at biology in high school, are blaming Asian Americans for the pandemic.

(Who says American educational system is suffering? With all the information available online, on TV, and in print, one with even two semesters of high-school biology must conclude that the Chinese are spreading the disease. Even our teaching methods of reasoning and logic support that conclusion. Where did the virus start? In China. Whose fault? The Chinese. Just ask Donald "I'm Smart" Trump. [Ever notice that people who are very smart never talk about how smart they are. Maybe someone should tell Donny.])

Surely, some find inspiration from the nation's Bigot in Chief, Donald Trump, who constantly refers to COVID-19 as the Chinese virus. In fact, a photographer captured an image of a briefing page with coronavirus crossed out and Chinese virus written in with a black Sharpie, Donnie's favorite writing tool. His play to some American's more xenophobic natures is dramatically affecting many Americans.

"As the coronavirus upends American life, Chinese-Americans face a double threat," wrote Sabrina Tavernise and Richard A. Oppel, Jr., in today's New York Times. "Not only are they grappling like everyone else with how to avoid the virus itself, they are also contending with growing racism in the form of verbal and physical attacks. Other Asians-Americans — with families from Korea, Vietnam, the Philippines, Myanmar and other places — are facing threats, too, lumped together with Chinese-Americans by a bigotry that does not know the difference."

The story begins as a Chinese-American woman is walking to the gym. A man--not angry, not anything unusual according to the woman--made her feel uncomfortable. As she stops at a sign, he spits on her.

His reaction was stupid. He's an a**hole. He should be jailed for ignoring social distancing mandates. More importantly, he violates the very principles of American citizenship by surrounding to himself in the most undemocratic and base of instincts--fear of what he refuses to understand. The information is available from a variety of trust-worthy sources. He needed only to read, watch a video. He chooses to retreat centuries into a world of fear and distrust. Why?

He's a chicken-s**t. He is afraid. He needs to find a villian. Even if the Chinese government had masterminded this pandemic, which it didn't, the woman walking to the gym had nothing to do with it.

He is not as unique as many European Americans prefer to believe.

They surround us. In quiet. And they're all chicken-s**ts. They fear the world or changes in the world. They want the world caste into their version of an American theme park--whether everyone is of European descent or goose-stepping down Fifth Avenue, New York.

There are those brazen enough to brandish their bigotry. Grudgingly, you must admit that they stand by their convictions. More important, they make themselves easy to identify as a**holes.

There also are those who surround their bigotry in secrecy, like the man who spit on the woman. He is the most dangerous of chicken-s**ts. These cowards find the courage of their convictions only when they cluster en masse, much like COVID-19, making both dangerous.

Fortunately, there will come a time when a vaccine will halt COVID-19's strength. Unfortunately, America has yet to create a vaccine to halt bigotry.

Pop Conservatism's Woolly Logic

Too many European Americans still don't get it.

My postal carrier recently slipped a copy of Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College, into my mail box. I received it mistakenly. The small pamphlet was address to my mother, who died a decade or so ago. While eating a sandwich, I read the "cover" story, "The Roots of Our Partisan Divide" by Christopher Caldwell, senior fellow of the Claremont Institute and author of The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties. It sounded intriguing. I have wondered more than once if my generation, Boomers along with Generation Xers and Millennials (Generation Y) believed that they were entitled to a form of materialism that surpassed that of my parent's generation.

Well, that's not what Caldwell was writing about.

Basically, he argues that since the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s, America has a new constitution. (I missed the media coverage of the third Constitutional Convention.) He claims with gusto:

"Let's say you're a progressive…[skip a 129 words of baloney to his conclusion] To you, the other party is a party of bigots."

I'm a progressive. I know conservatives. Some are bigots, usually unbeknownst to themselves, and others are anything but bigots. They merely oppose government interference in the lives of individuals. Most progressives I know agree with me.

He then limps to this mangled bit of logic: "But say you're a conservation person…[skip 21 words of uselessness] There is no avenue for you to complain about …your children learning 'gender fluidity'…[skip more baloney]. You begin to suspect that taking your voice away from you and taking your vote away from you is the main goal of these rights movements."

Let's start with the basics. Kids don't learn about gender fluidity. They learn what we all have learned: Individual gender identities can vary. Today they learn about it in the safe environment of a classroom, not on the streets from their peers. Which is better?

Now let's turn to freedom of expression and protest, his main point. Since when has America limited the conservative voice? He is exercising his voice. So is Rush Limbaugh. So is Donald Trump. How about Chris Tucker and Sean Hannity? The white supremacists in Charlotte? The voices are loud. Lord, are they loud. They bellow, shout. About the injustice to primarily European Americans. No one shuts them up. Millions listen to them. So what is Caldwell's point?

I forgot to mention that in a boldface call-out, Caldwell offers this bit of akilter: "If there is such a thing as 'people of color,' and if they are demanding a larger share of rewards, they are ipso facto demand that 'non-people of color' get a smaller share. [italics are his]"

Cow pucks.

Again let's start at the beginning. Europeans and European Americans developed, fostered, and institutionalized the concept of color to describe human beings, especially during the age of slavery and eugenics. Therefore, people are merely adopting the terminology developed by whites.

Additionally, African Americans, Asian Americans, Mexican American, Native Americans, women of all ethnicities, and members of the LBGQT community are not looking to punish European Americans males. They want the same access to opportunity as guaranteed by the Constitution--even the one before 1964 and the first one adopted as worded, not as interpreted by white landowners--that all European American males have enjoyed for decades, if not centuries.

Caldwell's essay does not express a point of view. It merely reinforces the notion that too many European Americans still have no clue as to the meaning of equal rights.

P.S. [March 21]: By the way, their request for equal access to opportunity also reflects the fundamental principles espoused by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. Increasing the number of participants in our society will increased competition. According to the basic principles of capitalism, we all benefit. Competition will force us to improve as individuals, communities, and a nation. Equal access essentially supports what supposedly is the fundamental principle of conservativism.

Unfortunately, the conservative movement over the past 50 years has moved to preserve the wealth and power of the already empowered at the expense of all other Americans and the nation itself.

The time has come for more conservatives to think with their minds and not their pocketbooks.

Charity in Crisis

Two days ago, I complained that CoViD-19 would cobble people with fewer opportunities and wondered why there wasn’t more support for them. A reader, my son, pointed out that I missed the charity of several individuals.

Zion Williams, the rookie for the New Orleans Pelicans, pledged to cover the salaries of the Smoothie King Center for the length of the initial NBA shutdown for coronavirus. Williams attributed his work to the values instilled by his mother, according to USA Today.

The USA Today article also reported that Kevin Love from the Cavaliers and Giannis Antetokounpo of the Bucks each donated $100,000 to help workers in their respective arenas. The Mavericks, Cavaliers, Warriors, and Hawks also are helping the arena employees.

“Nearly every NBA and NHL franchise has pledged to take care of in-game and stadium employees in some manner, though it’s worth noting players took the lead,” reports Forbes magazine.

“Actors Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively are donating $1 million to two food banks to help older adults and low-income families during the ongoing coronavirus outbreak,” according to The Hill.

Politicians are getting into the act. “As the U.S. is scrambling to deal with the forced shuttering of restaurants, bars, theaters, and other businesses, even some fiscally conservative Republicans agree that giving money directly to people might be the best response,” reported Adam Harris in The Atlantic several days before the House passed a bill that could inject $1 trillion into the economy.

The New York Times reported a few hours ago: “Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said that the economic relief plan included payments of $1,000 for American adults and $500 per child sent within three weeks. It is not clear if Americans of every income bracket will be eligible for the payments or how they will be disbursed to those who do not have bank accounts. The Trump administration has proposed sending $500 billion directly to Americans in two waves.”

Will the payments help the average American family? Somewhat. But not much. The average American family, which has a net worth of $59,000, earns around $57,000. Most American families live paycheck to paycheck. Yet the expected federal payment is better than nothing, which is what many in the top 10% are doing to help in this crisis. For example, are the top executives of major corporations waving their salaries, many of which were excessive during good times, and passing the savings to their employees?  

Finally, who or what receives the remaining $500 billion? Will it amount to a bailout similar to what happened in 2008 when most of the banking and investment executives kept their jobs and some even earned bonuses?

You may call me cynical, but I have my doubts that a Republican Senate will pass a bill favorable to those individual families most in need. They didn’t with the tax-cut bill our President pats himself on the back for, which only made the rich richer.

Zion Williams is being charitable, meaning that he gets nothing in return for his good deed. Can the same be said from the Trump Administration which has done too little, too late during this crisis, especially for the underserved in this nation? Or is he looking to play the “savior” in order to get re-elected in November? I pick door number two.

It’s about time the top 10% step up and do their patriotic duty since it was this country that enabled them to amass their wealth. And regardless of what BS they may say, not a one of them did it on their own. Not a one.

The Fallacy of Race

A point I hammered home in my book For a Dignity Deserved (as yet unpublished) is the fallacious nature of race. It has been an obsession of European Americans and Europeans for more than two centuries, slipping unnoticed from the works of supposed naturalists into the American lexicon. It is a filthy four-letter sound whose meaning rests not in science but the quagmire of disregard, bigotry, and hatred.

Originally the Romans used the word to describe people of different cultures, such as the Greeks, Gauls, Franks, Egyptians, and Ethiopians. The word did not denote a particular skin color. That came much latter as European, followed by American, polygenists wanted to prove God’s loving approval of the European (white) people. They, therefore, “believed that modern races had emerged either through separate acts of divine fiat or from distinct ancient progenitors,” according to Charles King in his wonderful and easy-to-read book Gods of the Upper Air.

Then Charles Darwin turned the argument of polygenists upside down with Descent of Man.

“He took aim squarely at the concept of race itself,” writes King. “No one could even agree on how many races there were, he wrote, subtly mocking his scholarly rivals: ‘Man has been studied more carefully than any other animal, and yet there is the greatest possible diversity among capable judges whether he should be classed as a single species or race, or as two (Virey), as three (Jacquinot), as four (Kant), five (Blumenbach), six (Buffon), seven (Hunter), eight (Agassiz), eleven (Pickering), fifteen (Bory St. Vincent), 16 (Desmoulins), twenty-two (Morton), sixty (Crawfurd), or as sixty-three, according to Burke.’”

King noted that Darwin concluded: “’Those naturalists…who admit the principle of evolution…will feel no doubt that all the race of man are descended from a single primitive stock.’ Human being came in backward varieties and more advanced ones, Darwin believed, but these were largely a result of environment and habit rather than of innate biological distinctions derived from separate paths of evolutionary development.”

Several years later, Franz Boas single-handedly created American Anthropology at Columbia University (with little support from the university). (Read Gods of the Upper Air or the Wikipedia listing for the genius.) Through a variety of anthropological studies in the early 20^th Century, he disproved what then was called scientific racism for a study commissioned by the U.S. Senate, which then ignored his findings. He also introduced the then controversial notion of cultural relativism. He pointed out the obvious. No culture is higher or lower than another. They merely are different. He argued that too often we judge other cultures based on the priorities of our own, which in and of themselves are subjective preferences.

Polygenist theory died a deserved death, but its shadow cast its darkness over too many European Americans. You may doubt me. You may believe racism is dead. Okay. Then ask any African American man or woman if I’m wrong. If he/she believes you are sincere, you may hear a litany of polygenesis-based behavior.

At the same time, cultural superiority waves like the stars and stripes over Yankee Stadium. Ask Donald Trump which country has the best culture? America, of course! It’s a strong cultural. How does it compare to China, India, France, Italy, Great Britain—all considerably different from American culture and from each other?

American boasts of its wonderful, Constitutionally mandated ideals. Yet it falls short of achieving them. Does that make it a terrible culture? No. But it does make it one of many in the world that serves the needs and wants of people—sometimes well, sometimes not so well. Why? We’re all too human.

CoVid-19 Versus Inequality

There is a silent injustice to the dignity of people when it comes to economic inequality. Those living on incomes in the lower quintiles are more likely to caught CoVid-19 and to die from it, as reported by Maxx Fisher and Emma Bubola published first in Sunday's New York Times.

"As the coronavirus [CoVid-19] spreads across the globe, it appears to be setting off a devastating feedback loop with another of the gravest forces of our time: economic inequality.

"In societies where the virus hits, it is deepening the consequences of inequality, pushing many of the burdens onto the losers of today’s polarized economies and labor markets. Research suggests that those in lower economic strata are likelier to catch the disease...Research on influenza has found that in an epidemic, poverty and inequality can exacerbate rates of transmission and mortality for everyone."

My wife attended Sunday services. The church's pastor had implemented a series of requests to ensure social distancing without interfering with the intent of the service. During his homily, however, he mentioned nothing about kindness and generosity to others during this time of crisis. When I went to the store a few hours later, the hoarding of neighbors and fellow citizens stripped the shelves bare. I wasn't looking for a 24 roll package of toilet paper or a month's supply of frozen pizza [starvation sounds better]. I just want four rolls of TP.

Moments such as these depress me. It's not the virus. It's us. I wonder if we are worse than the disease.

We look out for ourselves, but the philosophy of self-preservation serves only the wealthiest with the best results. In the Atlantic Monthly magazine, Adam Harris notes that from March 6 to March 12, the state of Alabama conducted only 12 tests, while"the Utah Jazz consumed 20 percent of ...[Oklahoma's] entire stock of test kits [after Utah Jazz center Rudy Gobert tested positive for CoVic-19 at an Oklahoma City Thunder game]"

"For a professional sports organization to receive so many tests—which are being rationed across the country—in such short order is a jarring disparity, but it’s not unexpected. When I spoke with Wendell Potter, a former communications director at the insurance giant Cigna, on Thursday, he had a succinct explanation: The health-care system in the United States is built for the elite."

While I am glad most players on the Jazz and the Thunder were CoViD-19 negative, why are they more deserving on care than tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of Americans who must wait to be tested?

After CoViD-19 runs its course, individuals with the fewest economic resources will have suffered the most. Where's the dignity in that?

They Just Don't Get It

The two columns of quotations on the opening page represent two sides of America, not the only sides, but two sides seeking dignity for all people living within the borders of America's 50 states and its various territories. These are noble ambitions representing more than 150 years of active public debate, protests, murders, dog attacks, lynchings, rape, tar-and-feathering, and a host of minor indignities inflicted on people just because they were not of European descent.

On the left, there are the insights of African American intellectuals during this time. On the right, those of European and European Americans. Read the words carefully. While their intent is identical, they come from two different world experiences. The left arises from individuals who endured slavery and institutionalized racism. The right comes from individuals who were wealthy and faced comparable few restrictions.

I do not demean the sentiments of the Europeans and European Americans (I'm one). Their writings launched a new way for people of Europe and America to see themselves and others. Philosophers, such as John Locke, paved the way for national equality, which was not even present when the nation's founding fathers created the United States and eventually its Constitution. For example, only white land-owners had the right to vote until the early 19th century. African American men did not have that right until the later half of the 19th, and women did not get the right until the early part of the 20th century. So the voices of more than 50% of American population were ignored for the nation's first 150 years or so.

The difference between these two groups comes from how they came to equality. On the left, the authors and their "American" ancestors struggled for a mere grain of dignity, which often European Americans denied them. On the right, they assumed the right to dignity, as guaranteed by the Constitution of the nation and the states. Their dignities were protected as they should be, but those on the left, their dignities were denied--immorally, illegally, and illogically.

It is, therefore, hard or impossible for a person of European descent to understand the tribulations of person of African descent. We, meaning people pale like me, can intellectualize it, study it, vote against it, protest about it, but no matter how hard we try it's not in our marrow. The society and government we, as children, were told to honor never cheated us, beat us, kill us in the ways it has African Americans. So while we mean well, any advice may seem hollow.

For some European Americans, it is. They stand by the rights of people of color until a few black or brown families move into their neighborhoods. They become nervous about the land values. They wonder about drugs and crime. I had such neighbors, and to my shame, I rarely challenged them. In essence, I permitted the perpetuation of the very thing that I disdain.

Few are immune to this not so unique disease of humankind. We as Americans have become refined in classification of color. Whites, blacks, and browns shade the skin color of people in their own groups differently, creating a pecking order from lightest to darkest, from best to least.

Most well-intention Americans whom I've met carry these burdens. There are a few who do not, and they come into my life so rarely as to shock me.

I know two. They are my grandsons. They are African American. My son and daughter-in-law adopted for reasons that have nothing to do with this blog. The oldest, William, knows that we differ, feels more comfortable at times when there are more African Americans his age, and that it doesn't matter if he's enjoying himself with whomever. Marcus, he's another story. He's too young to notice the differences, but his lack of "racial" judgement does not one realize how much better the world would be if we all were more like him and his brother.