How Political Ideology Trumps Family By Rhiain

How Political Ideology Trumps Family
By Rhiain

The title of this post was a compromise. There were plenty of other titles I could’ve settled for instead, given the subject matter: “How I Allowed My Victimhood Complex To Ruin My Relationship With My Mother,” “How Her White Privilege Ruined My Relationship With My Mother,” and “How I Virtue-Signaled Hard AF (common millennial slang) In ‘The Root’ Over My Trump-Voting Mother” were some of my discarded choices. No, “How Political Ideology Trumps Family” turns out to be a fitting alternative header for this post.

The author makes clear that he loves his parent, but clearly he has a problem with a)the social differences currently wrought from her skin color and his, b)her choice of presidential candidate, and c)his mother’s inability to understand “the black man’s struggle.”

My mother voted for Donald Trump. She’s also white. And she and her (white) husband are members of the National Rifle Association, own two small businesses—including a gun shop—and were actually screwed by Obamacare. In short, my mother is probably what a typical, white Midwesterner looks like on paper. Except, she’s not. She’s an immigrant. She moved to the United States from France in 1970 when she was (I believe) 13 years old.

This American-born homeboy apparently believes that because his mother wasn’t originally born on U.S. soil, she should’ve known better than to vote for that bigoted misogynist in the White House. Yes, really. Immigrants should be naturally inclined to better understand Teh Struggle of younger non-white or mixed-race American citizens.

Our homeboy describes his background growing up with a black father and white mother, and accepts that he’s a “light-skinned black dude.” It’s great that he never “struggled with [his] racial identity,” but astute readers who aren’t “woke” will note that it takes him awhile to admit that his complaints about America revolve around race – all the time. I don’t know about you, but people who obsess about the flaws of others who don’t share the same levels of melanin tend to be bitterly angry shrews. See K. Tempest Bradford’s posts if you want an example of such a person.

If I’m being honest, there has been a very slow erosion of the relationship over time because of what I view as her lack of perspective about the life of her children. Maybe our reality wasn’t hers on a daily basis, but denying our reality, even passively, was eventually going to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

Let’s get something straight: homeboy complains about racial injustices regularly around his non-black mother, but refuses to acknowledge that perhaps his mother’s views on the subject of race wasn’t influenced by politics or even skin color so much as it was by the common American sensibility to “live and let live.”

“Woke” people can’t seem to get this through their thick skulls in this day and age: many Americans, until now, have been more preoccupied with the daily tasks of life than they are with figuratively assaulting others with their politics. Nowadays conservatives and libertarians wax nostalgic about the times when they could have dinner with liberal friends and relatives; polarizing subjects could be glossed over in favor of good food and discussions that had nothing to do with politics. Believe me, this used to be possible. Given the modern liberal’s penchant for segregating their loved ones by political party, I’m convinced those days are over.

Something, somewhere changed. Shortly after the election, my sister and I had planned to head to Michigan for the Thanksgiving holiday. That visit went off the rails before it even started when my mother decided that we would be going to my stepfather’s family’s house for dinner, a family I knew voted for Trump.

Something did change, though it wasn’t on his mother’s part. Homeboy decides he doesn’t want to have Thanksgiving with a bunch of Trump voters, and last November he wasn’t the only one with such sentiments.

His mother and aunt visited last week, and things escalate quickly when his Trump-supporting parent buys MAGA gear and dons it on a tour of the U.S. capital:

But this is when our relationship hit the point from which I realized we’d never fully recover. When we were getting in the car to head to Rockville, Md., she asked why I found the T-shirt offensive. I told her that by her wearing that shirt, it showed that she didn’t care about my life or those of her grandchildren or daughter; after we argued, she refused to speak to me for hours, again.

“Make America Great Again” quickly became as tiresome a political slogan as “Hope and Change” did in the aftermath of last year’s election, but homeboy doesn’t elaborate on how it makes his mother a callous woman. Nor does he explain why his mother’s political worldview endangers his life. He seems to assume that his readers understand that Donald J. Trump’s presidency is enough of a gamechanger in his familial relationships to not bother with an explanation.

‘Scuse me, homeboy, but homegirl here is confused. Or bemused. Or something.

I can’t sit and actively engage with a person—even if it is my mother, whose blood is running through my body—if she doesn’t care about me, my story or what I live through. If she can’t see past her own appreciation for a bigoted, dangerous man, who, because of the position people like her have placed him in, has the ability to do significant damage to my civil liberties, then I don’t know what place she can have, reasonably, in my life.

His public decision to cut off his mother due to a difference in political views is a common occurrence these days. It started on the evening of November 8, 2016 and seems to have snowballed since. Friends are cutting off longtime friends based on how they voted last year. Same thing is happening with families.

Blood is not thicker than freedom and it’s not thicker than safety. Sometimes blood is just that, blood. I know my mother loves me; I’m her son. But, honestly, I don’t think my mother cares about what that really means.

I agree with everything in this graph except for the last sentence. Homeboy, some words of advice:

It ain’t all about you.

You filled a post with an innocent-sounding string of anecdotes about the dissolution of your relationship with your mother. You were wronged by her vote for a man that you consider dangerous and bigoted, yet you blame that man for the damage done instead of engaging in a little introspection.

You view life and especially its flaws through the lenses of race and social justice, which doesn’t make you sound like a fun person to be around on a regular basis. Donald J. Trump wouldn’t know you from Jamal, yet somehow he jeopardizes your life and safety by his office and very existence. Folks from both sides of the aisle are guilty of fearmongering when someone from the opposite political party is in power, but good gods above, man, act like a man, not a wussified homeboy afraid of his own shadow.

If you want to challenge the president on his stances and Tweets, there’s a line as long as the country is wide. First, however, grow some balls and stop blaming him for your own selfishness where your mother’s concerned. Recognize there’s no harm in your political views diverging from hers, which is so common that I can’t believe I have to remind you of this. Yes, members of white, non-white and mixed-race American families all vote differently, if they vote. Shocker, I know! Once you acknowledge this, try to consider that differing political views from one’s parent doesn’t automatically make her the enemy. That’s the important thing; people these days are too quick to label even family as “the enemy.” Before it was “The Other,” but liberals seem to have escalated that.

I mean, after the events of last weekend in Charlottesville, I’m almost tempted to grab a tiki torch for giggles and march through the streets myself, white hood and all, even though I’m not white and certainly not a Nazi. But if doing so forces you to start thinking about the futility of drawing a bloody line over the pettiest of sociopolitical issues, I will have accomplished something.

259 thoughts on “How Political Ideology Trumps Family By Rhiain

  1. Love how these people turn politics into skin colour. Every time I hear someone starting to rant about stuff like this I just tune them out. Not worth the aggravation or blood pressure trying to get them to understand another viewpoint.

    1. Of course, it’s not just skin color. This particular one just happened to be that. But it’s whatever minority classification that someone can claim. My son certainly gets into some interesting conversations because he’s gay and doesn’t toe the lefty line.

            1. Soap, ballet, bullet . . . books, paper, Grandma’s handcrafts . . . toddler!

              Boxes are good for almost everything, except thought.

              1. So I’ve noticed. In another blog post (one future to this, but past to today’s) I challenged RES on a claim that ignorance is not endemic to the human condition…and I found that the comment I wrote was about twice as long as the one I intended to write…and it included insights that I didn’t anticipate (such as it’s *precisely* because bureaucrats can’t obtain a thousand lifetimes worth of expertise, and even if they can, they are still no match for the millions of people they wish to rule over, so it’s extreme arrogance for bureaucrats to think that bureaucrats can live the lives of the people they lord over…)

        1. If I evict the winged wild cat that using the box as a cat toy, well, she’s smart. She’ll know who’s responsible.

  2. This is that poor mother’s reward for getting a college education for that ungrateful child. Holy. Crap. I’d have choked him.

    This is the true evil of Leftist propaganda. They try to replace family with government, and in cases like this, they succeed. There’s something hideous in an ideology that will push a child away from his parents like this.

    1. No kidding – it’s horrible.
      My sister and my mother have imbibed the progessive kool-aid entirely, but I certainly am not going around throwing a tantrum and talking on the internet about cutting off relations over it.

    2. That can also go too far.

      But there is a healthy middle ground between familial amoralism and ‘the state is mother, the state is father, all who stand against the state are enemies, no matter the blood relation’.

      1. This struck me:

        I never struggled with my racial identity. When I was young, my father plainly explained to me that while my mother was white, I was not. I was raised in a black household by a black man who felt very strongly about making sure that I was prepared to be a black man in the world.

        While his father wasn’t wrong, there is some serious problem hinted at there, and I gather from how the biological father is never mentioned again and the mother remarried, there were problems. I’m almost wanting to lay the blame of this mindset being seeded there by the father.

        1. It’s possible his father died; that would explain the lack of further mention as well as the implication that the only option for Thanksgiving is mom’s.

            1. Playing the odds, an Obama style story seems much more likely– but both would explain the irrational response to an emotional threat to the memory.

    3. It wasn’t his parents; homeboy says nothing about why he has a white stepfather, and doesn’t say what happened to his apparently black biological father. But he won’t go to Thanksgiving with his step father even though his mother wants him to.

      Of his biological father we know nothing, although we may infer that he is not having a rival Thanksgiving Dinner. We also don’t know who he voted for.

  3. Perhaps it’s just me, but I think his mother is lucky that he’s cutting himself out of her life. He seems like a pernicious little fart.

    1. He may grow up… and learn that there are things more important to your enjoyment of life than taking unpleasant exception to other people’s personal values.
      Really, he may .. it’s slightly more likely than “pigs may fly”. Really.

      1. Or he may turn out to be an unbending doctrinal liberal unable to deal rationally with any one who does not fully agree with his views.

  4. Not that uncommon a situation. I’m living in a similar one with my youngest child. S/He is so angry with my support for President Trump s/he chooses to leave the house because s/he thinks of physically attacking me. Probably a good idea on his/er part. In fact, the similarities between fairly well-to-do capitalistic conservative parents in the early 1900s, and their ungrateful, backstabbing, wealth-destroying, communist-converted children are very disturbing. It reinforces something that shows a failure in parenting. Once a child is out of infancy, stop giving them everything. Make them work for everything they want. That is the only way they are going to associate effort on their part with earned rewards. Otherwise, they never grow up, and expect the world owes them everything merely for existing.

    1. I love how a coworker turned it into a learning experience. When his daughter went on a tear when Hillary lost, he said “Then why didn’t you vote for her?” She hadn’t.

      1. Rather like the Brexit whiner last summer who screamed at his horrible insular xenophobic countrymen for wanting out of the EU…and admitted that he hadn’t voted in that referendum because getting to the polls was just too hard.

        1. Yeah, I was facepalming more than usual at statist stupidity when people were complaining that the vote didn’t go the “correct” way because the young people didn’t participate.

          If you (generic “you”) can’t be assed (or arsed, I guess, in the UK) to take a few minutes to vote, I can’t be assed to give two squirts of warm urine about your complaining.

    2. “Make them work for everything they want. ”

      How? They have a very clear understanding of how much safety hammock there is available from the government, and that assumes that they don’t decide to go full kamikaze and get the criminal / civil legal system involved. Saw it with one of my sisters; she ran off with her boyfriend, married, divorced, etc., and the amount of government aid that started coming her way as a single mom was amazing. She eventually wised up, fortunately.

  5. Narcissists are incapable of introspection, they don’t want to think about their shabby behaviour towards others.

    Public schools and their agenda of developing self esteem in kids is terrible trend, makes lots of kids little monsters and their parents encourage it as well.

    Black people focused on race so much is unhealthy, colour of your skin should be least interesting thing about you, unless you purple or something.

    1. The current problem is that the racists (both the Democrats and that section of the alt-right that’s heading off the racialism cliff) have conflated race and culture for so long, they’re starting to forget that the two are only loosely connected. The vast majority of what people think is racial prejudice is actually cultural prejudice. It’s true that skin tone and ethnic facial features persist as markers people react to in prejudiced ways, but that’s because they are markers highly associated with culture, and it’s culture that determines how that other person is going to react to you.

      For evidence of this, compare and contrast just about any immigrant (one who’s here to become a citizen, not someone who’s just here for a job as a permanent resident) with the people of his/her ethnicity who’ve grown up being fed the pap that passes for higher education these days. Which one is going to be more successful? The one who has internalized the message “Work hard and play fair and you can succeed”, of course. He/she may share ALL the important DNA markers with the one who internalized the message “The world owes you a handout, and it’s not fair that you aren’t getting one”, and yet the software that’s running in their heads (their culture) is going to be FAR more important than the hardware (the way their DNA shaped their respective brain capacities).

      1. BTW, I just said that culture is both “loosely” and “highly” connected to ethnicity, which seems to contradict itself. I should therefore clarify.

        If 80% of the inhabitants of France are of the French ethnicity, then that means that if you see someone with French facial features (assuming you can recognize a Frenchman on sight) on the streets of Paris, you can probably assume that he’s from France. He might be a Canadian national whose grandparents moved there from France and who’s in Paris on vacation, but the chances that he’s French are good enough that it’s a reasonable first assumption to make until you can actually talk to him and find out. Furthermore, let’s say for the purposes of this example that 80% of the inhabitants of France come from a culture that says “Euro-socialist policies — high tax rates and high levels of entitlement spending — are the best way to run a country.” Simple Bayesian analysis says that this Frenchman you met has a reasonably-high chance — the numbers aren’t certain but the bell curve peaks around 64% or close to a two-thirds chance — of being a Euro-socialist. If you’re highly prejudiced against Euro-socialists and don’t want to hire one, then that means you’re going to appear to be making hiring decisions that are biased against Frenchmen — when in fact it’s their culture, not their ethnicity, that you’re trying to avoid. Furthermore, if you end up interviewing one French jobseeker who tells you how frustrated he is with the high taxes in his country and says “We should pass policies that enable jobs, not handouts”, then you’ll hire him in a snap: because even though he shares the ethnicity that the SJWs are accusing you of being racist against, he doesn’t share the culture that you’re actually prejudiced against.

        That was probably obvious to everyone, but that’s how ethnicity can be both loosely and highly connected to culture: it’s highly connected numbers-wise (well above 75% of people from ethnicity X in this region of the country grew up with cultural traits Y and Z, so it’s a safe first assumption about someone until you get to know that person better), but it’s only loosely connected causality-wise (when you meet someone from ethnicity X who DOESN’T have cultural traits Y and Z, it’s not at all shocking).

        1. I don’t think I can anymore, but I USED to be able to tell Frenchmen and Englishmen, and the various European ethnicities apart. Mom was very upset she couldn’t find a “look” in the US.

          1. A lot of EU folks seem to be unable to wrap their heads around the concept of melting pot. I suspect it has quite a bit of influence on their immigration policies.

            1. That, and since most European countries revolve around their capitols, do they look for something similar in the US. Most of them know that DC is of little significance nationally. Many of them seem to fixate on New York, perhaps because of its size. And then they slowly come to understand that if NYC simply vanished, few Americans would care. We have lots of nasty urban hives, one more or less makes no difference.

              1. Some of us would miss the American Museum of Natural History, Intrepid, the Cloister, Yankee Stadium, and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, were they to all disappear. OTOH, if the rest of NYC were to disappear, it would make access to and parking at those attractions so much more convenient. 😉

                1. I’d MISS some things in NY, but the truth is I see those things once every decade or two. If they were to disappear, I’d be a bit sad, but it wouldn’t effect my life in any significant way. I’d bet most Americans feel similar.

                  1. I have friends there. Yes, they’ve considered moving, but there are considerations that don’t allow it. Jobs and communities, and stuff. One of them comments here fairly regularly. I’d miss my friends. In fact I worry about them a lot.

                    1. I have family in NY. I don’t talk to them much but I would drop everything to help them if they were in need.

              2. Over here on the opposite side of the country, most of us here in Los Angeles couldn’t care less what those idiots in New York think.

                Europeans also, of course, tend to not realize just how big the US is. Crossing the US makes the infamous Berlin to Moscow march look like a Sunday drive in comparison.

                1. My husband relates the story of one of his relatives wanting to ‘pop over to Sydney and have a tour of the sights, and be back by dinner’ … from a rural suburb outside of Melbourne. It’s -at present, after road improvements- an 8-9 hour drive. Father in law had to try explain about the distance, and that it would be better to do it as a weekend trip.

                  I think though, for the heck of proving it could be done, Rhys’ uncle did exactly the ‘be back by dinner’ trip. Drove up to Sydney, did a few hours walking tour of the main tourist sights, and drove back.

                  1. I’ve heard a similar story about some German auto engineers who were in Los Angeles for meetings, and talked about their plans to pop up to Portland on Saturday morning, have lunch there and see the sights, and be back by evening. They’d looked at it on the map, and the distance looked doable. And they would have been right, if the map had been scaled to the size of maps they were used to back home. When an American colleague pointed out the map scale and told them the actual distance, they were a little bit stunned.

                    1. Yeah. Australia is apparently close in size to the US. A news report I remember hearing/reading some years ago described some flood affected areas as being in equivalent scale to flooding all of Germany, France, Spain… and I think England. I remember my mom thinking it affected more than one state, and I said ‘No, the floods are all in Queensland. That’s one state.’

                      There’s a description I’ve heard of some time ago that there are people out there, farm owners, who have farms the size of small European nations. (Scales of which tend to boggle, when attempted to be imagined…) Those tend to be the ones who also have farms that require helicopters to help with the herds, and also are the ones legally allowed to have shotguns, AR-15s, etc, because of the feral animals ranging from ‘feral goats and sheep’ to ‘feral pigs, cows and camels.’ That’s not even mentioning the dingoes or feral dogs… or so I’m told.

                      On a different note, we really don’t need to go to the dusty Outback to run into the dangerous stuff. Last night, after a grocery run, Rhys noticed a redback spider making it’s home on the corner above our door. (They’re Australia’s Black Widows, apparently related too.) And I found my heart warmed by the fact that our reaction was ‘cool. Hope it eats all the bugs from the light!’ – they’re of rather calm disposition, compared to the funnelwebs… and I like that the redbacks like to eat funnelwebs.

                    2. This morning I’m struck that the American reaction at finding a black widow above the door is to kill the thing. Black widow? Kill it. Brown widow? Kill it. Rattlesnake? Kill it. Unidentified spider or snake?.Kill it on the principle of the thing. If it’s even a potential danger, kill it. That says something about our mindset.

                    3. Visiting a couple of years ago in southern Germany, talking with a nice German/Italian couple who wanted to practice their English – had a relative who’s apparently a politician in one of the NYC boroughs – and a clarifying discussion about 1) the likelihood that we, from Seattle area, might have heard of him, and 2) whether it was feasible to drive from NYC to Disney World in Orlando, and back, for a day-trip.

                      It’s very true, as they say, that “Europeans think 200 miles is a long distance, while Americans think 200 years is a long time”

                  2. I friend of mine had relative from Japan in the States and they visited the Grand Canyon from Tucson, about a 5 hour trip one way depending distractions and how well you heed the speed limit.

                    They wondered if it would be possible to visit Niagara Falls the next day…

                    1. No, they decided the flight wasn’t worth it once they actually figured out how big the US is.

          2. My wife and I still laugh over how the Spanish vendors all insisted we were Germans, not Americans. I can understand why I have kraut stamped all over me since my paternal great grandparents were from Germany; but my wife has so much Brit in her background its amazing her eyes don’t reflect back Union Jack. I guess we succeeded in following instructions on blending in with the European population.

            1. Clothing and mannerisms are generally the major tells, even if the viewer isn’t sure what he’s picking up on.

              1. Well, her aunt was a German WWII ‘prize’ bride wooed, wedded, and brought back by her uncle after his tour in Germany. She gave her plenty of tips.

              2. *grin* I had an American friend who I used to go walking ’round Paris with, and he used to be soooo baffled that Filipinos could recognize each other out of groups of other Asians. Spotting a Filipino family across the Metro tracks, said family smiled, waved / greeting returned. Scott asked me if I knew them. “No. Just ‘hey there, fellow Filipino!’ ”

                One afternoon, we sat in the plaza outside the Notre Dame, and he had me guessing at the various Asian nationalities from appearance. The real clincher is I got mistaken for a Japanese living locally by Japanese fairly regularly. Made me wish I’d learned Japanese then, if only so I could answer their questions, but fortunately those tourists knew enough English for me to get by… (and direct them to the Japanese restaurants, in case they wanted homefood…)

      2. Malcolm Gladwell – Black Like Them:

        In the past twenty years, the number of West Indians in America has exploded. There are now half a million in the New York area alone and, despite their recent arrival, they make substantially more money than American blacks. They live in better neighborhoods. Their families are stronger. In the New York area, in fact, West Indians fare about as well as Chinese and Korean immigrants. That is why the Caribbean invasion and the issue of West Indian identity have become such controversial issues.

        What does it say about the nature of racism that another group of blacks, who have the same legacy of slavery as their American counterparts and are physically indistinguishable from them, can come here and succeed as well as the Chinese and the Koreans do? Is overcoming racism as simple as doing what Noel does, which is to dismiss it, to hold himself above it, to brave it and move on?

        1. My Theory;

          Before the 1950’s, the Political Left was not especially attached to Blacks. At the end of WWII, the Left looked forward to something like what happened in England…continuation of the high degree of government control that had been justified by The War, but now steered by Progressive sensibilities. They expected to gently guide The Working Man into a world where he lived in Bauhause woke housing, took Public Transportation to work, and went to lectures or listened to Mahler in his free time.

          Unhappily for Leftie daydreams, the American Working Man had just put up with several years of either being lined up, shouted at, and shot at OR had spent several years getting good wages for ‘vital war work’. What the Working Man would tolerate from the Left during the depression and what he would tolerate after the War were two very different things. He didn’t want to live in Worker Flats. He wanted to live in Levittown. He didn’t want to ride public transport. He wanted a car with tail fins. He didn’t want to go to lectures of listen to Mahler. He wanted to go to drive-ins or listen to bee-bop.

          So the Left got left at the altar. And on he rebound, they latched onto the Black community, and have been attached to them like a leach ever since. And like most parasites, they don’t really do their host one hell of a lot of good, or (for that matter) care.

          1. The Communists in the Fifties and Sixties focused on American racism as “The Original Sin” and thought they could keep Southern Whites while recruiting African Americans to their standard.

            The fact that the Democrat-run unions were manifestly discriminatory toward African-Americans did not prove an impediment to this recruitment.

            1. The communists of the ’50’s and ’60’s were busily elbowing their way into the mainstream of American politics, making common cause with the such old Progressives as had not yet drunk the kool-aid. They might WANT the Working Man vote, but they no longer trusted Him, seeing the way he had dropped them with the alacrity of a new recruit getting shut of a live grenade. They latched onto the Black vote, doing their best to disguise their racism in a cloak of ‘concern’.


        2. Culture, Culture, Culture.
          80% of the inheritance factor is absorption of the parents behavior by imitation. And a culture is the cumulative behaviors of a group of people.

        3. A very interesting essay, where an attempt at thinking beyond the box is still sabotaged by some undigested lumps of leftist truism.

          For one, the thought that immigrants will lose their advantage if they assimilate – he never stops to consider that there are two cultures they could assimilate to. The first, the culture of Garden City, the well-off working class culture of America, and the second, the “poor but proud / they owe us” slum culture that’s honestly shared by black, white, and other across the US (though many are eager to pretend white trash doesn’t exist and call it “black culture.”)

          If they assimilate to generic American middle class values, then no matter their genetic heritage, they’ll prosper as much as any other Americans can, whether from the Irish race, the Italian Catholic race, the Cherokee race, or the Chinese race. If they choose to put a chip on their shoulder and rail against “the man”, they’ll fail just as surely as those who embody that culture now do.

          For another, the zero-sum thinking: that by winning, immigrants are the cause of the native population losing. Once again, that fixed economic pie, the “if we do well, others will do worse” that cripples men and societies has raised its ugly head, and hidden the far scarier and more unpalatable truth: that if immigrants are willing to abandon their native society’s “this is how it goes” and work hard and do well, native blacks could also thrive by imitating the abandonment of the culture that holds them back and embracing of the new one.

          On a different tangent: abandoning your culture is far easier if there aren’t a great undigested wodge of your culture living close by and around you. See the German settlers in Texas who were still speaking German (the old form) as a first language up until WWI or WWII, and the Iron Range in Minnesota, where there can be three separate Catholic churches in a tiny town (the Irish, the Slovenian, and the Italians, because it’d be unthinkable to go to church to worship the same G-d with Those Other People.)

          (Man, a quick dip into the history of the Mesabi Range and its immigration will really drive home that the idea of a single “white race” would have gotten you laughed out of town or shot a mere hundred years ago. History’s really good about rubbing your nose in, say, The Immigration Act of 1924.)

          So by that token, the willingness to go far for work is an increased desirability factor: it means you’re not feeling peer-pressured by the local anti-work culture, nor are your inculcated prejudices the same as hte local ones.

          One last thing he didn’t take into account (probably because he hasn’t had to deal with hiring and retention of employees): employee retention is a very big deal, and turnover is very expensive. When dealing with people who do not have an awesome work ethic, and who are not from a culture that prizes work, there’s usually a much higher absenteeism and turnover rate… and, in fact, the easier it is for the employee to get to work, the easier it also is for them to decide they’ve had enough and leave work while on lunch or smoke break. Therefore, there is a… negative incentive… to hire entry-level workers (such as the restaurant employees surveyed) who live in walking distance to work, as opposed to commuters.

          Once you switch to dealing with skilled workers, this reverses, and the ability for people to walk to work becomes a feature instead of a drawback. The airplane mechanic who lives just off the airport is likely to make it in, where the guy who lives on the other side of the perpetual traffic jam is likely to have a higher number of late starts, or be unable to come in if there are bad road conditions.

          None of which has anything to do with the colour of skin.

        4. I saw somewhere (likely a link from Instapundit) that West Indians are NOT the same in Canada as they are here. There, they’re looked down upon, for not getting with the program.

      3. compare and contrast just about any immigrant (one who’s here to become a citizen, not someone who’s just here for a job as a permanent resident) with the people of his/her ethnicity who’ve grown up being fed the pap that passes for higher education these days.

        Well, yeah.
        The flip side is that it’s close to the converts being “holier than the Pope”.

        Which one is going to be more successful?

        At what? Running a Marathon? Applying for a better paid job? MMORPGOMG? Entering a marriage that doesn’t turn out to be a catastrophic mistake? Playing chess? Purchasing the best ceramic tiles at the lowest price? =)
        Accepting those intentionally ill-defined words is how you enter a shell game. And in the shell games the house always wins.

        1. At what people usually mean when they say “successful”: financially successful, getting and holding down a job, paying off one’s debt, and acquiring savings. There are many words that the left has deliberately twisted the meaning of, but “successful” is not one of them, so far as I know. Which leaves me scratching my head as to why you made that comment; have you seen people trying to redefine that term? Where?

          1. And that’s underline-whatever-then-fill-in-the-blank. You’re missing my point – anything so ill-defined doesn’t even need redefining.
            Weren’t there about million of “get nebulous quick” booklets?

            1. Sorry, you’ve lost me. What do you mean by “underline-whatever-then-fill-in-the-blank”? I’m unfamiliar with that usage; you’ll have to fill me in so I can understand what you’re saying here.

              As for your “anything ill-defined doesn’t even need redefining” point, I don’t agree that the word “successful” is ill-defined. There’s a big difference between a well-understood definition that’s broad enough to cover multiple possible situations (e.g., a single person needs a smaller income to be “successful” than a family of four), vs. a term that’s deliberately ill-defined so that the speaker can pull a motte-and-bailey trick on you (e.g., “racism”). The word “successful” falls into the former category: while the precise details of what it means to be successful will vary from person to person (how much per year? how much money in savings? one car or two? and so on), the fundamental meaning is well-understood.

              But I will grant that if I had said “economically successful”, it would have been clearer.

      1. In fairness, the political left as represented by the Democratic party has done its level best to create a black culture based on institutionalized multi generation welfare which tends to incentivize large single parent families. Something that even black leaders recognize as a serious problem.
        And the left would be delighted if other groups could be isolated from the melting pot and led down a similar path to a glorious future with the State as parent and provider.

        1. …as in “no fair if they get to avoid our mistakes … too many of our people would recognize that the culture we’ve created IS a mistake, and we (leaders) would get the blame” ?

        2. Because the mother doesn’t get paid welfare for the baby if the daddy’s in the house, as I understand it. I could be wrong.

        3. Well, the Left has also done a wonderful job of disincentivizing non-blacks to have one or fewer children. Which is one reason why our population would be dropping just like Europe’s if it wasn’t for immigration.

    2. I have seen some people with skin so dark it does appear purple. That’s fascinating, and can be a conversation opener, although they may just be sick and tired of that particular opening. I’m sorry anyone gets tired of that, but am extreme range skin color is just as strong a point of fixation on first glance as someone with a unicorn horn sticking out of their forehead, or Jimmy Durante’s or Cyrano’s schnoozola for that matter.

        1. Orange I’ve seen on people just out of the tanning booth. Green – well, not since I stopped running around with people that drank way too much.

          White I’ve seen white only in photographs of unfortunates afflicted with albinism.

          I rarely run around without at least a short-sleeve shirt on. When someone remarks on my coloration when I don’t, I just tell them I’m biracial – the arms are Mexican, the rest is from the German/Irish/Normandy genes.

          1. I’ve seen white when someone’s going into shock– I don’t have a word to describe the chocolate brown guy who went into shock, either. He went white under his skin, sort of– it was freaky.

            1. A couple of my kids are white. So pale I have to watch for their chest to rise when they are asleep, because they look dead in good lighting.

          2. Frankenstein’s Monster. SJWs would either have a field day, or stand there completely baffled trying to figure out which way to go.

            1. o/` I dream of Brownie in the light blue jeans,
              She is as sweet as licorice jelly beans.
              She makes me feel happy. She makes me feel merrier.
              Brownie is my fav-o-rite… wire… haired… terrier!

              (Spike Jones)

          3. My mom! She had light brown hair (for some reason, the older she gets, the darker she colors it), green eyes, and looked reddish-tan. Until you saw a portion of her (like upper legs) not normally exposed to the sun, when she looked so pale she could serve as a light reflector.

            1. Might not be that your mom is changing the amount of coloring. My light brown hair is naturally darker the older I get (what there is left of it that isn’t going gray).

              My mom reportedly had what was called “brick red” hair in her teens and twenties – but I only remember it as almost black when she was in her forties and up after I was born (again, what hadn’t gone gray yet).

              Well… Except the one time that she had left the Wisk in the bathroom after doing some house cleaning, and mistakenly grabbed it for shampoo. Then it looked, for a few weeks, exactly like the “blue haired matrons of high society.”

              1. hers is completely grey.
                Yeah, after menopause, my hair (which is also all grey) absorbs dye differently, so light blond dye becomes black.
                BTW my hair went black during pregnancy with younger boy. Pitch black (what hadn’t gone grey with first boy). So I went from dark auburn to black.

                1. I’ve got that bright white skin under my clothes. I tan okay on visible portions. But my blonde hair has gone auburn-ish brown. My mom went from blonde to dark while living in Florida in her early 20’s.

                2. Doing a stage play in college, we needed black-haired dudes, so had to dye some blondies, but their hair came out green — ended up using wigs.
                  (The Wonderful Ice-cream Suit by Ray Bradbury; you couldn’t stage it today, of course, because … cultural appropriation, I suppose, and stereotypes — but it is awfully funny and sad and moving.)

      1. I forget whether it’s metal halide or sodium vapor, but one of those two high efficiency lights makes blacks look purple. How do I know this? When I worked in a prison system another facility put in brand new high efficiency lighting- and had to immediately change it out after black inmates complained the lighting was racist and made them all look purple.

        Just mroe proof that anything can be racist.

      2. The person with the darkest skin I ever saw was not of African descent but was pure-blooded East Indian. The tone was different, but the darkness was startling all by itself.

        1. The tone differences are what fascinate me. My father worked outside nearly his entire life, and his arms were darker than most black people I knew, but they were an almost ashen mahogany color, rather than the richer, redder tone of an African-descended black person.

      1. I’ve seen a lot of body art; but I’ve never seen anyone with a full facial plaid tattoo, much less their entire body. Oh wode is me!

        1. I’ve never seen it, but I get a mental image of a plaid alien race walking into above mentioned gathering and aaaaaall the possible misunderstandings stemming from plaid.

          1. I suspect there would be problems if all humans were plaid. Would the Stuarts get along with the Gordon Plaids? Could the MacDonalds and Campbell’s coexist?

            Face it — some of these are pretty incompatible.

    3. I saw a purple woman in ’98. I’m pretty sure she’d been in the sun for at least four hours in a parking lot.

  6. When the personal becomes political everything gets damaged. I usually manage to avoid these with family but they also know that pushing would probably lead to my funeral. The amount of acquaintances I’ve broken in last year is probably the sum of the eight before at least. But since govt is trying to become omnipotent it becomes a zero sum game. Especially when the mindset is ‘winners get what losers have’.

    In the days after a civil war where families grieved for members in blue and grey the government made attempts to not humiliate the south. Changes were made but the average man was not held to blame for Nathan Forrest. Today it seems humiliation is the goal and that brings about the divide.

    1. Well, such attempted humiliation brings the inevitable backlash from those of us who have done nothing to justify this and refuse to be humiliated. If they insist on a divide between the rulers (putatively them) and the ruled (putatively us), they will in fact see a divide form, but it won’t be along the lines they imagine.

      1. The problem (for them) of a divide between the rulers (them, they hope) and the ruled (us) is that they are famously anti-gun. Other would-be ruling elites throughout history have had a heavy prejudice in favor of arming themselves and being officers (if not necessarily warriors). This bunch cannot help but show that they look down on the military, and on police, and so who the hell is going to do the fighting on their side?

    2. For that matter, none other than William T. Sherman, then Secretary of War, had no problem when N.B. Forrest volunteered to serve in the U.S. Army. Wasn’t alternate history, either. It was the first time things were heating up with Spain, and when that cooled before it came to war, Sherman wrote a nice letter to Forrest explaining that had come to war, he would have gladly accepted his offer. Having read a letter Sherman wrote to someone in Augusta, Georgia, about why he hadn’t attacked the town, Sherman’s letter to Forrest was much more polite.

      1. Wasn’t aware. I knew he (as well as a not insignificant number of southern generals) were highly regarded as to ability. Admittedly that defeats my argument a hair given his incorporation with the klan but still annoying to see the traitor calls. Hell, our second president got the British soldiers in the Boston massacre off.

        As to bases, at least part of me suspects that a Fort Rommel while atypical would be very much understandable. But can’t have ones named after men who spent the majority of their career under Washington’s control because their states tried to secede.

        1. I’ve long been skeptical that the Boston event deserved the term massacre. It is unwise for mobs to trap infantry.

          Of course, I like the Riot Act for all the Founders had good, sound, and sufficient reasons for banning such in the Constitution.

          1. Just noting that the idea that even enemies should have rights is not an abberation in American history but more the rule. Today if the lawyer for the cops in say the Brown shooting tried even for school district they’d be assailed as having helped the enemy.

        2. If what I’ve read was accurate, Forrest disassociated from the Klan once it became more focused on suppressing Negroes than in maintaining civil order in the face of an indifferent/incompetent occupying power. His inability to establish proper military order among the Klan apparently resulted in his repudiation of them.

          From Wiki:
          The following text is excerpted from Forrest’s farewell address to his troops:

          Civil war, such as you have just passed through naturally engenders feelings of animosity, hatred, and revenge. It is our duty to divest ourselves of all such feelings; and as far as it is in our power to do so, to cultivate friendly feelings towards those with whom we have so long contended, and heretofore so widely, but honestly, differed. Neighborhood feuds, personal animosities, and private differences should be blotted out; and, when you return home, a manly, straightforward course of conduct will secure the respect of your enemies. Whatever your responsibilities may be to Government, to society, or to individuals meet them like men.

          The attempt made to establish a separate and independent Confederation has failed; but the consciousness of having done your duty faithfully, and to the end, will, in some measure, repay for the hardships you have undergone. In bidding you farewell, rest assured that you carry with you my best wishes for your future welfare and happiness. Without, in any way, referring to the merits of the Cause in which we have been engaged, your courage and determination, as exhibited on many hard-fought fields, has elicited the respect and admiration of friend and foe. And I now cheerfully and gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness to the officers and men of my command whose zeal, fidelity and unflinching bravery have been the great source of my past success in arms.

          I have never, on the field of battle, sent you where I was unwilling to go myself; nor would I now advise you to a course which I felt myself unwilling to pursue. You have been good soldiers, you can be good citizens. Obey the laws, preserve your honor, and the Government to which you have surrendered can afford to be, and will be, magnanimous.

          — N.B. Forrest, Lieut.-General
          Headquarters, Forrest’s Cavalry Corps
          Gainesville, Alabama
          May 9, 1865

        3. N.B. Forrest was a complex figure. He was a one-time member of the KKK who also armed his former slaves to the point that it made some US occupation forces nervous. There is a significant Civil War incident I won’t bring up, both because the U.S. Civil War is a forbidden topic and because his involvement is very controversial, and yet his short speech to the Jubilee of Pole Bearers in Memphis on July 5, 1875, is worth reading. Here’s the take-away quote:

          “We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment.”

          If some think I’m trying to “rehabilitate” N.B. Forrest, I’m not. Every person who ever lived is what they were, no more and no less. They are also complex and seldom stereotypes. Forrest happened to be no different.

      2. You are aware that Lincoln offered the post of Commanding General of the United States to Robert E. Lee, and when Lee refused and took command of the Virginia Militia, McClellan got the post?

        1. That doesn’t matter. No less an authority than Gizmodo declared Lee a “loser general” who doesn’t deserve any recognition./sarc

        2. Honestly? When I read your comment, I remembered it, but it didn’t stick out my memory. Most of what I know of Civil War generals consists of a paragraph or two. N.B. Forrest I learned about first for the aforementioned incident I won’t bring up, and then some more casual reading about him.

          I know he didn’t care for Joseph Wheeler, who seems to have been a character and a half. For some reason I’m thinking he may have been the shortest general to have served in the US Army. For those who’ve never heard of him, that’s not a typo. After serving as a Confederate cavalry officer, he eventually ended up in Congress; voted for war against Spain; resigned in order to serve and got carried away in a battle in Cuba and said something like “Come on boys; we’ve got those Yankees on the run.” But was in the Philippines where, in his mid sixties, he heard a soldier complain about marching with a full pack. The story goes Wheeler got of his horse; put on the pack; and marched with it.

          Sorry; just went down a rabbit trail.

    3. If I remember correctly, Andrew Johnson was 100% for punishing the South, officers, politicians, everyone. I understand General Grant, upon being told the President wanted him to begin punishing the defeated officers, basically told Johnson to stuff it. Goes a long way to helping understand why Johnson was impeached.

  7. Just realized what bugs me the most about articles like the one the Rhiain linked to. Something that I keep running across in my experience in RL as well.
    My son is dual heritage, European and African backgrounds (by way of lots of immigration). I am constantly being asked if I am going to raise him in his “black” culture, or told that I SHOULD raise him in that mindset. Here I am puzzling why I would do that when I want to raise him as A.) a child, and B.) give him as many tools as possible to succeed. Why would I want to instill in him a particular mindset when I can give him the world and let him make his choices and decisions on his own.
    By putting a person into a specific pigeon hole you are restricting them. And the minute you start restricting someone you start building into them resentment.

    1. Exactly. The only reasonable response (in my opinion) is, “He’s my son, and I’m going to raise him to be the best person he can be and to think for himself. If, once he’s old enough to make an informed decision, he decides to turn toward any particular ethnic culture, we’ll consider that at the time. Until then, raising him is my family’s responsibility, not yours or any “culture” you imagine he should belong to.”

    2. paladin said: “I am constantly being asked if I am going to raise him in his “black” culture, or told that I SHOULD raise him in that mindset.”

      Toronto, am I right? Land of atrocious morons. Are your knuckles bruised? ~:D

      He’s YOUR kid, wouldn’t you raise him in YOUR culture? Which is, you know, Canadian. And after all is said and done, what does “black culture” look like in Canada? It looks like “white culture” but with a tiny bit more Bob Marley in it.

      SJWs are all going to have a fit of the vapors over this, but the average black kid in Canada mucks in with everybody else, and nobody gives a damn what color he is. It was a long road, but we made it. Nobody. Cares. Sikhs, Blacks, Asians, Bhuddists, , all the same.

      There are some groups trying to get a special deal for themselves of course, Mooselimbs and Indians spring to mind. We’ve got some Indians blocking highway 6 this week in Caledonia, pretty much four old ladies in lawn chairs with a couple of handwritten signs. All that does is piss everybody off, because we all know its not about the horrible racism and horrible poverty on the Six Nations Reserve. There isn’t any. Its about extorting money out of the Liberal government.

      If one starts turning over rocks, it is possible to find the odd Nazi too. There may be as many as a couple hundred real live white supremacists in Canada, most of them in Quebec, a few in Alberta. About the same number of people that believe in the Space Lizard Invasion.

      None of this makes any impression on the SJWs. They keep banging on regardless. Next thing you know, they’ll be declaring Sir John A. McDonald a racist and demanding his statues be taken down.

      Sorry, you pushed my button. Rant mode disengaged.

      1. I think it is hysterical that all these asylum seekers from america are going to quebec after pm trudeau tweeted about what a welcoming country canada is to make himself look better than president trump.

        Francophones in quebec are by far the most xenophobic population in canada, those migrants hoping for better life will be deported soon enough.

      2. Yes Toronto, and no bruised knuckles. I don’t like the concept of jail time. :p
        And I hear your rant having seen far too much idiocy in the current era of politics.

    3. My sister is single mom of two teenage kids. When she signed paperwork to finalize her divorce fifteen years ago, she went on two week Thai holiday and had a sex, drugs and rock n roll weekend with some Thai beach bum. My sis got pregnant, she against abortion, and now our solid anglo family has mixed ethnicity child. My sis lives near me because I work from home and I am free after school care for her children until she gets home from work.

      I interact with my niece and nephew’s school teachers much more than my sis and they have been driving me bonkers with their focus on my niece’s ethnicity and is my family providing correct cultural learning. I have told her teachers that her ethnicity is canadian mongrel but there have been some heated arguments with teachers over the years.

      Ive taught my niece that phrase from the prisoner, ‘i am not a number, I am a free man!’

      1. I forgot to mention that I am canadian, live in guelph.

        I am old enough to well remember what life was like before internet and our communication abilities now still blow my mind twenty years after my first aol account. Colorado woman from portugal is unlikely nexus for three southern ontarians to complain about public schools.

        1. I don’t have to worry about public schools at the moment. That’s going to be it’s own special hell when it happens. Of course I have a lot of disrespect for the current crop of public school teachers already…

        2. Guelph? My condolences on the traffic. ~:D

          Two words on the Ontario public schools: home schooling. Your kid will thank you.

          Good for you looking after your sister like that, by the way. A profound example of how to do it right, not like this cretin from the article.

          1. I feel like I am home schooling them now because every day after school I have to de-program them, there is much left wing propaganda they exposed to like Mrs Hoyt has mentioned.

            My grand parents lived in Hamilton, had a cottage near Port Dover, and my first underage beer at a bar was on six nations reserve, can’t remember what it was called now. My first, and only, proper barroom brawl I involved in was in that bar on the reserve, chairs were used to hit people with, tables flying, good times when you teenager.

            1. The most important lesson you can Home School your kids in is that they should not automatically accept the authority of the teacher in state run schools.

              Parents flood school board meeting after teacher reads kindergarten class books on transgenderism
              Parents flooded a standing-room-only school board meeting in Rocklin, Calif., Monday night for an emotional discussion about one teacher’s decision to read books on transgenderism to a class of kindergartners.

              As the previous school year drew to a close earlier this summer, the teacher in question read two books that addressed transgenderism to her class of kindergarten students at Rocklin Academy.

              One of the books the teacher read students, “I Am Jazz,” is the story of transgender activist Jazz Jennings, the star of a reality show on TLC. The book includes an illustration of a feminine child drawing a mermaid that’s captioned, “I have a girl brain but a boy body. This is called transgender. I was born this way!”

              The books were given to the teacher by a transgender pupil who “at some point during class also changed clothes and was revealed as her true gender,” according to CBS Sacramento.

              Given that this occurred in a class of five and six-year-old kindergartners, not teenagers or adults, many returned home with serious questions.

              “My daughter came home crying and shaking so afraid she could turn into a boy,” one parent explained at the meeting. “I want her to hear from me as a parent what her gender identity means to her and our family, not from a book that may be controversial,” said another.

              Unlike content on sex education, educators at Rocklin Academy are not required to provide parental notice before teaching content on “gender identity.”
              [END EXCERPT]

              1. Being that it’s California, I’m astonished that the parents objected.

                The School Board Stormtroopers will probably be kicking in doors and hauling complaintants off to the re-education camps now…

                1. California has a lot of conservative pockets. And some of those pockets are *extremely* conservative.

                  Additionally, there’s a lot of “lefties” in California who are okay with the general positive-sounding stuff that gets spouted by the left, but don’t pay much attention to the details – particularly since those details still tend to sound like paranoid conspiracy theory stuff. When those details actually pop up, there’s a brief reality check until the public apology is issued, and things temporarily smooth over.

              2. I’m reminded a minor disagreement (honest) with a teacher over estimation before learning how to perform the calculations. I asked her did she want us to read her electric meter or just estimate her light bill.

                On a math and science night, we encountered an electric circuit kit that was a wire short. I took out my multi-tool and was about to cut it the wire in two when the teacher stopped me with “You can’t do that; we have to turn them back in.” I waited until the teacher was occupied, and then introduced the concept of midnight requisition by getting the needed wire out of an unused kit. But we did put the wire back.

                1. I’ll admit that I’m a fan of estimation. No, I don’t want you to estimate my electric bill rather than reading it, but I wouldn’t mind it if you had a reasonable estimate in mind first, so that if the meter told you I owed $10,203,295.84 this month, you’d at least consider that something was wrong with the meter.

                  I’ve seen too many stupid mistakes from students who could have done better with a bit of estimation before hand. Someone who bothered to think about a reasonable answer beforehand would recognize that his calculation that the professor lived 8094 miles from campus was probably in error…

                  1. This is estimation after knowing how to calculate it. What they were doing was wanting kids to flat out guess before knowing how to figure it.

                    I didn’t know this was going until helping one of ours estimate the area of a rectangle. When I showed how easy it was to calculate, I was told “She hasn’t shown us yet.” That evening was the first of many times I said “Do it this way, then put it how your teacher wants.”

                    The feel they wanted for estimation comes only after running through the calculations a number of times and building a memory of value ranges. It doesn’t come by looking and making a WAG.

                    Using power bills for an example, I have filled in on that part of billing at times, and our system kicks anomalous bills for review. If you do it enough, you can do a reasonable check simply by looking at the type of account. It’s “Oh, that’s an irrigation account,” and you spot check that, or “Oh, that’s a trailer.” But that comes only by experience. The first time you do it, you end up checking most of them because you don’t have that memory of range as a function of type built up yet.

                    1. This is true. The “estimation” exercises that I would give are things more along the lines of, “Gas is $2.19/gallon. You fill up your mostly empty tank and see a charge of $32.50 on the pump. Is this reasonable?”

                    2. @Zsuzsa – it wouldn’t be reasonable for me, but I’d have a tiny bit of moral dilemma about whether to accost the station about it. (25 gallon tank.)

                      Sigh, I’d go see them about it anyway…

                  2. I remember reading, some years ago, about an experiment where the experimenters were testing how much trust people put into the results they received from calculators. They modified the calculators used to produce incorrect results, gradually increasing the amount of “incorrectness” to see when people would refuse to accept the calculators’ answers. They stopped the experiment when they go to 30% off the correct answers, as no one refused the calculators’ answers. Regardless of how obviously wrong they were, they were automatically accepted. From the point of reading that article on, I have always tried to estimate a ball-park answer to any calculation just to make sure that the results I get aren’t obviously wrong.

                    1. See Asimov’s story on the man who “rediscovered” math: THE FEELING OF POWER.
                      I taught HS Algebra II in summer school once; first thing I did was make them leave the calculators at home.

                    2. They obviously didn’t test me. Back when i was in college, depending on exactly how complex the calculations were, I would have picked it up as soon as when it was off by 5%.

                      I also learned early on that I should not trust MY FINGERS to enter the data correctly, so I would always estimate the answer anyway.

              1. My old explanationn of our after school process was that after the school attempted to brainwash the boy we would fluff dry and reshape.

    4. I think there’s justification in saying that raising a child in a stereotypical American black culture would be failing to give her or him as many tools as possible to succeed. I saw too many black guys and gals coming into the Air Force whose reading, writing, speaking, and math skills barely met 9th grade standards for that time; or came from a single-parent-broken-home-gang-in-the-hood environment with illegal drugs thrown in just for kicks. (Yes, we had our share of white and other color people with the same disadvantages, just not as many.)

      Given another chance to parent a child, this time one from African or Asian ancestry, I’d raise them the same way I was raised, not making the same mistakes my parents made with me, just making my own set of mistakes instead. They’d grow up assimilating a white culture, libertarian & Christian set of values where what you do and how well you do it takes precedence over who’s doing it.

      1. I remember watching Thomas Sowell interview about how high the expectations were of him and his classmates when he went to public school sixty or seventy years ago. Sowell compared his education and what he was expected to learn to how kids are being taught today and said kids now are purposely kept ignorant and miseducated in name of equality.

      2. Our paternal grandmother raised me and my two sisters after our mother passed. She was very upfront about it: “I made some mistakes raising your father, I won’t make them with you three.” And she didn’t…make the same ones.

        All three of us turned out well enough, by all accounts.

    5. That kind of mindset was starting to rise in the late 90s in the Philippines. It resulted in an ill-conceived, badly implemented push to use Filipino-only in schools. The idea, in of itself, was not a bad one – it was the abrupt change and implementation that was. They suddenly said that Filipino – specifically, Tagalog – was to be used in schools all throughout the Philippines, in all subjects.

      Except, there was few problems. Not all regions in the Philippines speak Tagalog. English was the bridging language – used to speak to people outside of your own province, and functioned as an equalizer – regardless of where you came from you could – in theory – access the same books and education, no matter what province or backwater you come from, even if you lived outside of Manila. Was one of the artifacts of equality that the ‘evilbad colonizers, the Americans brought along, as part of their ‘horrible alien culture.’ (*eyeroll*) It was a big improvement, mind, over the education that the Spaniards had, which was pretty much ‘learn enough to get bits of the Bible’ – and not even that to certain classes. Kept them under control of the Friars, you see. But the Americans didn’t have that attitude in general. They felt education was meant for everyone, regardless of wealth or background, or caste, or what province you were born in.

      The second problem was, well… because Filipino wasn’t being used to teach, it was pretty much a social language. It grew – rapidly – in that function, but a vast number of terminology and words were not added to the Filipino language – a lot of them needed in education. Science, math, history, … well, everything, really. There was some outcry about the sudden implementation, but it was eventually decided that elementary and high school was supposed to be taught entirely in Filipino.

      So you had teachers who were supposed to teach a vast number of subjects in a language that was beyond inadequate in doing so – and worse, outside of the Tagalog speaking regions of the Philippines, the schools that taught in English and (insert local major dialect here). You had students who had to learn in that crippled manner. Even if they wanted to do their best to learn, they couldn’t. It took years before a semi-decent dictionary was hurriedly slapped together, and even then there weren’t good enough words that explained or translated various concepts. By the time my brother was in early highschool they had translated a number of textbooks, but when he was trying to translate words sometimes just one word would make the whole paragraph make absolutely no sense. That particular textbook was a World History one, and it happened that I had my old high school textbooks on my shelves… and we found that they’d basically taken that book, and translated it, choosing words that they felt was ‘close enough’ but wasn’t the exact translation, or an appropriate one. (Brother eventually just ditched using the Filipino textbook and used the English one for homework.)

      This resulted in over a decade or more of students that were inadequately prepared for earning a livelihood; and an eventual backlash resulted – which was around when I immigrated – where schools started advertising that they were using English in school. Given how expensive private education is in the Philippines, I am not surprised that those schools went that route.

      TL;DR: Big sociological experiment by the nationalistic and anti-American left in the Philippines resulted in crippling a good chunk of their youth.

      1. The main advantage of English over most other languages is that if we don’t happen to have a word for something, we just kidnap one from some other tribe.

        (Then we all too frequently force them into rather perverted cross-breeding. I am minded of a recipe I once ran across for hummus tortilla pizzas…)

        1. I thought “hummus tortilla pizzas” had to be exaggeration for effect. Silly me.

          “Preheat oven to 400 degrees F. Line a baking sheet with a piece of parchment paper. Spread hummus evenly onto your tortilla. Top with veggies (and any other toppings of choice). Bake for about 10 minutes, or until the tortilla is browned and crispy.”

          1. Professional satirist is a very poor career choice these days. Worse than science fiction – you are frequently proved to be wrong by the past, not just tomorrow’s paper in the journals.

        2. “…humus tortilla pizza…”

          That sounds disturbingly tasty.

          Was that with or without wasabi to round out the cross culturalness?

        3. Hummus tortilla pizzas…?

          The thing that really hammered the stupidity home is that this is the PHILIPPINES. It’s the melting pot of Asia, so to speak, being the historical nautical crossroads for trade, long before the Spaniards bumped into us. The idiots doing this were totes okay with proudly assimilating other cultures… JUST NOT ERHMERGERD AMERICAN COZ REASONS. The arguments I used to get into in high school (when this was really in full swing) showed the brainwashed didn’t know what they were talking about, just going along with the awesome feeling of nationalist pride.

          Mind, the really rabid sorts want to ‘remove’ all ‘foreign’ influences of language from the dictionary, but will happily eat pancit canton.

  8. It used to be that you avoided situations like this with the simple rule that you don’t talk politics at the dinner table. The problem is that with a certain type of millennial, everything is political. Food is political: is this organic? was it locally grown? how is this meal affecting climate change? Speaking of climate change, obviously the weather is political. The “cultural appropriation” fad means that clothing is political. Books and movies are political. Hoop earrings are political. The freakin’ eclipse is political. How do you avoid politics in an environment like that?

    I’ll admit that when I read your summary (I refuse to give that little whiner clicks on his screed), I did think that maybe the mother should have skipped the MAGA gear: she must know how her son feels about Trump, why shove it in his face? But on the other hand, if he was whining and carrying on at the mere thought of spending Thanksgiving in proximity to people who had voted for Trump, maybe she was just tired of walking eggshells because no amount of consideration on her part would ever be enough for him.

  9. What makes him think his mother is white? Doesn’t he remember that XXXXXXX start at Calais? Doesn’t he remember “You must hate the Frenchman as you hate the Devil”?

    What makes him think that Trump is anti-immigrant? Trump has twice married immigrants.

    1. The answer to all your questions is, “Leftist SJW indoctrination from his earliest school years on.”

  10. I was going to go all “poor widdle fellow,” then I thought of other periods of American history where political differences made for awkward family relations. You could have probably cut the tension between Ben and William Franklin with a knife. Ben could have told him “You’re a real b*stard,” and made it stick, too. In the course of work and dealing with customers, I’ve seen family rifts over all sort of things, and regardless of the reason, most turn nasty.

    I don’t know if I could reach that point. I’ve had relatives that I disagreed with what they did and with their opinions, but they’re still kin. So far I’ve yet to break of relations with family members over an issue, but I won’t say it will never happen.

    If he really feels that way, he can get glad like he got mad, and his mother can hold her head up high, because the rift isn’t her doing. But while, to me, it’s a petty reason, it obviously isn’t to him. If he thinks so much of his ideology that he has disowned his mother, that’s his loss.

    1. Had his mom been inclined more to his ideology, and had she known what an ungrateful little git he would turn into, she could have resolved the whole thing in her first trimester.

    2. “You could have probably cut the tension between Ben and William Franklin with a knife.”

      Especially when Ben’s homeschooling had them both with the same taste in mistresses. 😉

      Ben Franklin is the clearest possible example I can think of (along with Augustine) of CS Lewis’ Screwtape saying that the same raw materiel makes great Sinners as well as great Saints.

  11. It is hard to argue with juvenile narcissists. His facts are assumed, not demonstrated, and his demands are all one-sided; I expect he would be appalled by the suggestion that he has a duty to follow his mother’s vote. She is, after all, more experienced than he.

    Frankly, I find the declarations of The Woke akin to being asked if I would like a “gift” book for “a small donation.” These are cultists whose heads are so far up their bums that they’re incapable of connecting to those not of their cult.

      1. Funny – that was pretty much the argument we used with Daughtorial Unit when she reached that stage of thinking she knew better than her parents about how the world should run.

        1. Yup. Told my son after he graduated from college, “You have a degree and no student loan debt. You need to get a job and move out–you are now an adult.” To his credit, he did exactly that and is completely self-supporting (at 25, as he darned well should be).

  12. “Honor thy father and mother.”

    “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is
    To have a thankless child!”

        1. Mostly to offer sympathy for some of the reasons behind the search (presumably the level of stupid and crazy exhibited by the young man in the article in question). I WOULD advise staying away from the one in Crete. I hear it’s a tourist trap these days and that’s not a good way to reduce the crazy.

        2. Slow down, bull! What kind of cookies are those? Oreos? Is this some subtle trap to make you seem as if you endorse Google’s new OS? Or perhaps that you despise Black Identity?

          Cookies carry symbolism, after all. Vanilla Wafers are evidence of sympathizing with White Nationalists, Chocolate Chips are a sign you oppose full integration of Chocolate People into American society. Ginger Snaps indicate hostility toward the Scots-Irish. and Snickerdoodles are a clear symbol of … ummmm … Transphobia*.

          *Because anything can express Transphobia, even excessive expressions of support for Persons of Transitude as that is an obvious defensive reaction.

          1. I’m fond of the 2nd Amendment, but it’s my chocolate chip cookies that you’re going to have to pry from my cold dead hands. And if you do, you’d better be prepared for the vengeful ghost that’s going to come after you.

          2. They seem to be a mix off all sorts (not allsorts) with sugar cookies with sugar tinted various colors, fiber reinforced (coconut, yum), coffee (not to be confused with covfefe) and there might even be a gingerbread wallaby or three.

  13. Ah yes. I have a friend and a relative that we have agreed not to discuss certain political and cultural matters. I like my friend too much and love my relative too much to pick that kind of fight. It sometimes involves tongue biting, but they are both really good people. I don’t want to lose that.

    1. So who’s doing the tongue biting? You, or them? If they feel free to express their opinions, and you don’t, who values the relationship more?

      1. In polite society?


        When manners have been abandoned? For a little while, the right bites their tongue.

        AFte rthat? They’re screamed at for being “rude.”

  14. Imagine that! His own MOM putting on the sheet and dunce cap and chasing him down the road with a noose for lookin at a white woman!

    Wait… she didn’t? All she did was vote for a guy who… um… hasn’t really done much “to do significant damage to my civil liberties” either?

  15. I was taught in Tennessee public schools, probably about 5th Grade, that the KKK was formed in Pulaski, Tenn. by former Confederate officers in the back room of a bar. They asked General Forrest to be its Grand Dragon; that and some other of the titles like Kleagle should convey an attitude.

    Under Reconstruction anyone who had held office under the Confederacy — any office — could not hold any public office. This deprived the South of most of its leadership class, while many offices were held by Carpetbaggers who came in from the North, and the Freedman’s Bureau had uniforms and an armed component, and dominated some of the state legislatures.

    The result was predictable; the Klan, originally composed of former officers who were now forbidden to hold office was looked to by many as the “real” government.

    This continued until the Hayes-Tilden election, which resulted in stalemate, neither candidate able to get a majority in the electoral college and then in the House. Negotiation for its resolution included many former Confederate officers including Forrest. The compromise result was that the Republican took office, Reconstruction was effectively ended, Federal support of the Freedman’s Bureau was effectively ended, and General Forrest formally disbanded the Klan, which pretty well vanished into history and with the restriction of office holders ended was not seen as important. The South became so solidly Democrat that radio comedians used it as a standard joke, such as “My father runs a whore house, my mother works there, and I have two Republican cousins. My question, Abby, is do I dare tell my fiance about those no good Republican relatives?”

    The Klan was revived after the turn of the Century but flourished largely in the North, and I believe actually held majorities in one house of the state legislatures in several state, but never in the South that I know of; certainly not in Tennessee. My family was middle class — my father was Sales and later General Manager of WHBQ, the largest non-network radio station in Memphis and rival to the Nashville stations for most popular in the state. I never heard any opinions but contempt for the Klan from my family or any of our frequent dinner guests, nor did I have any teachers in either public or after I got to High School, Catholic, school teachers who spoke of the Klan in a positive manner. No one I knew had relatives in the Klan, and Mr. Trump, the popular city boss in Memphis, didn’t let them have any public meetings in the city.

    I met my first Klansman in the Army. He was from Ohio. I know there were some modern Klan chapters in cities around Memphis because you’d see photos in the morning papers sometimes, but they were never large (25 – 30 people). I don’t know about after 1950 because I left Memphis to join the army, but in the South I grew up in, the original KKK was history, and the new Klan was mostly spoken of in jokes.

    1. There were some chapters up near the Great Lakes in the 20s and maybe 30s, they had big recruitment picnics. My grandfather use to go to them, said the ladies could cook incredibly well. (Given his family background, the idea of them trying to recruit him probably amused the heck out of him, too.)

    2. That version came in the aftermath of the Leo Frank lynching. I don’t know how widespread that version was in the South, but it was enough that I know some blacks identified members by the shoes they wore, and I heard an anecdotal story of someone who found robes in a trunk at a county courthouse, and I’ve heard of people who came up on cross burning rallies.

      There was one Southern state with heavy KKK influence, but I can’t recall which.

    3. The Klan came mighty close to taking over the KS legislature in the 1920s, but the Clerk of the Senate and a few others pulled some fast ones and stalled legislation until strong anti-KKKers could rush back to Topeka and stop the bills. A few families are still KKK, but they seem to be more “no illegals, end welfare, get tough on crime, down with the UN” than “blacks get out.” At least the few I crossed paths with who admitted to it.

      And a few were just flat “why are they on the loose?” bugnuts crazy.

  16. While reading much about the Confederate statue kerfuffle, an odd thought struck me. Frequent reference is made in arguments by iconoclasts that we need to understand why a black parent wouldn’t want to walk his kids past a monument to people who fought to keep their race enslaved.

    Except … they lost. The statues may represent the efforts of Southern Democrats to intimidate Black people, but BLACK PEOPLE’S RIGHTS ARE NO LONGER DENIED. Any African-American walking past those statues today has the choice to view his walk as a triumphal strut, a thumbing of the nose towards those losers in grey.

    Arguments that they are “offended” by those statues are arguments asserting their own lack of pride in Black achievement.

    1. Pretty much this – yeah, y’all LOST. You’re dead and gone, and we’re still here and winning, so SUCK it, ya losers…
      Note: I’m an unreconstructed Yankee, the descendant of a Pennsylvania Quaker who was such a ferocious Abolitionist that he is reputed to have his own house as an alternate safe house on the Underground Railway, and to have been thrown out of his local Meeting for being SO much in favor of President Lincoln’s war.

      1. Both misses what’s really going on, and the quickest way to cut to the chase is to point out it’s about family. If you drive from Atlanta to Nashville and back, look for little monuments beside the road. Some of them are for Union dead. Or go to Andersonville and see the monuments to Union dead. The South didn’t have a conniption about it because it was someone’s father or son or husband, and the North didn’t have a conniption about Southern monuments for the same reason. They were not monuments for a government; they were monuments for the dead.

        To have denied someone to put up a monument in memory of a dead loved one would have been lower than a tick on a snake’s belly. It simply wasn’t done.

        People on up into my generation used to be sensitive about that. You might think someone was an SOB, but you don’t say that to their children.

        Of course, this goes both ways, and I’ve pointed out to the kids that while our ancestors fought for the Confederacy, they needed to keep in mind that the ancestors of most blacks they knew were slaves at the very same time. This isn’t about something in history book, but about g-g-grandfathers and g-g-grandmothers. This is someone’s family we’re talking about, and as such some respect is due, It’s not a matter of honoring the dead yourself; it’s a matter of acting like a descent human being to someone in front of you.

        1. The point is, what meaning you take from those statues is a choice. You can choose a meaning that is expansive, either

          I met a traveller from an antique land
          Who said: `Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
          Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
          Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
          And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
          Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
          Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
          The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
          And on the pedestal these words appear —
          “My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
          Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!”
          Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
          Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
          The lone and level sands stretch far away.’

          triumphal, empathetic, or which makes you feel little and embittered. Which you choose says much about you.

        2. It’s not a matter of honoring the dead yourself; it’s a matter of acting like a descent human being to someone in front of you.

          Y’know, it’s been a thought floating around my mind for a while… Ya know how the SJWs are all about removing basic decency and replacing it with something they call ‘decency’ but … really isn’t? How they remove values and limits and deride them as old fashioned? How they destroy the very same good things that allow them to have those good things but prevent them from having their perversion of the same? (And I’m not just talking about sexual stuff, mind, but also of what’s considered ‘socially acceptable’)…

          How many of them scream for other people to act like ‘decent human beings’ to them, but are categorically incapable of acting in even remotely similar manner towards anyone else?

          They want the respect, but don’t want the effort of earning it, even just through normal social behavior. They want their ‘unacceptability’ to be accepted, because they say so … and then it all crumbles down, because they don’t have that reciprocity, are unable to do it, because the ones they demand ‘respect’ from, they cannot give in return, nor earn it in truth.

          Sorry if this seems a bit scrambled and badly worded, I’m rather hungry and should have lunch. But… that’s the best I can manage for the moment.

          1. Studies have shown that when a person ostentatiously “cares” about an issue — such as AGW, the Environment, treatment of Oppressed Groups, etc. — then said person is more apt to behave abominably in their human interactions. While this is often interpreted as alleviating common courtesy (I gave at the office oops, I am too busy addressing macro issues to bother with the micro) I wonder whether it isn’t often the other way ’round: I can’t be bothered to behave decently, but if I grab onto Big Important Cause that will excuse my lack of consideration.

            1. Shorter: “if I virtue-signal hard enough, people won’t notice that I’m too self-centered to behave decently”

          2. I agree they WANT respect — but refuse to accept that it must be earned, instead assuming it’s the result of having the power to demand it.

              1. Exactly. The inevitable result, I think, of childhood-self-esteem-building-by-making-losing-impossible: Nobody ever has responsibility for winning or losing, nobody ever has to deal with discomfort of character growth from owning up to having been at fault.

              1. I suspect they’d like something like that. Except the populace isn’t anywhere near as disarmed so it’ll be not quite as one-sided as they want it to be. Blood-soaked nightmare regardless.

                1. This never made sense, because the same vainglorious fascists who want to be able to shoot the ones disagreeing with them also are the ones proudly declaring they are virtuously unarmed.

                  I figure it’s the same kind of delusion that lets them scream that Islam is feminist and friendly to homosexuality…

                  1. I suspect it’s because they know the people they hate aren’t monsters.

                    Islamists, OTOH. They don’t insult or criticize Islam because they don’twant to be Charlie.

                    1. Well, its easy to call monsters the ones who aren’t.

                      There are good reasons why monsters are feared. The socjus idiots like to think it is awesome to monsterize their ideological opponents in order to justify the atrocities they want to commit on their targets; but they forget that their opponents see just who the *real* monsters are…

                    2. It’s only been a generation or so since “projection” was mostly used in its psychological sense in learned papers or by people trying to impress you with what they learned in Psych 101.
                      Now, thanks to SJW’s and the vivid examples they offer, many people – maybe a majority! – know what you mean when you respond to accusations of being a “monster” (or a “hater”, etc.) with “project, much?”

                    3. I’ve often worried that I am using the term “projection” too much, but when I’m confronted with a prog’s accusations and/or predictions about their opponents I find myself forced to use the term since it matches it so well.

                  2. They count on having minions to do their shooting for them.

                    The obvious flaw with that scheme seems not to have occurred to them, in part because they do not read “bad think” novels such as John Ringo’s Black Tide Rising.

  17. Politics doesn’t have to be the end all be all. Look at Mary Matalin and James Carville. They’ve married for 20 years and have two daughters and still happily married even though they are diametrically opposed politically. She’s R and he’s D.

      1. I think I read somewhere recently that (since Trump) she’s no longer an R, she’s an I. Didn’t pay it much attention because why would I? Could searchengine it, I suppose, but it seems pointless.

  18. I was driving all day yesterday and missed this, but I do want to say that it’s one of the best guest posts I’ve ever seen here.

    “Nowadays conservatives and libertarians wax nostalgic about the times when they could have dinner with liberal friends and relatives; polarizing subjects could be glossed over in favor of good food and discussions that had nothing to do with politics. Believe me, this used to be possible. Given the modern liberal’s penchant for segregating their loved ones by political party, I’m convinced those days are over.”


    Perhaps a quarter of my fannish friends, many of whom I’ve known since the 70s, will no longer associate with me. This had nothing to do with Trump, but rather my open and aboveboard skepticism of climate alarmism. I hate to think how many more I’d lose if I started endorsing Trump.

    1. My issue with climate alarmism is perhaps the same as yours: we know what runaway conditions look like… and this planet’s history is full of crazy swings.. BUT they seem to be hard-limited by “rails” (like an amplified signal!) and that if runaway was going to happen… why didn’t it already happen? There are sound reasons to limit certain combustion products (do we really need/desire more sulfur or nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere?) but to panic? Silly and wasteful – and that’s the least bad part of it!

      1. I haven’t helped by being a snot on occasion. I told one private group echo chamber that if they were more afraid of nuclear power than global warming, I saw no reason to be afraid of global warming at all. Oh, the butthurt…

    2. Since I was a kid, I’ve been wondering– if a bore is someone who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject, what the heck is the guy who can’t change his mind and won’t stop changing the subject to his hobby horse?

  19. Used to be, in being polite, you didn’t discuss politics or religion.
    Now, everything is politicized, and so many people’s politics are their religion. So it’s impossible to be polite anymore.

  20. and…
    I can’t sit and actively engage with a person—even if it is my mother, whose blood is running through my body—if she doesn’t care about me, my story or what I live through.
    Maybe it’s that she understands that “your story” is a fantasy, not truecrime.

  21. If you were a Jew, and your mother voted for Hitler (never mind that Jewishness is maternally inherited) and started wearing the swastika, would you cut her off?

    It’s a ridiculous analogy, but it’s what the Left chooses to believe in. They have persuaded themselves that Trump, and Trumpists, and social conservatives, and even conventional Republicans like Mike Pence are all part of a great wave of violent bigotry directed at the Left’s favored clients: blacks, homosexuals, women, immigrants, Moslems.

    Anyone who chooses to support Trump is therefore choosing to be part of that wave – in their minds, like someone joining the Nazi Party.

    They desperately want to believe in this threat, to confirm their self-image as heroes.

    1. Thing is, if my mom was literally a Jew voting for Hitler… I wouldn’t cut her off, I’d be scrambling like crazy to TALK HER OUT OF IT.

      And my mom is roughly as pig headed as I am.

      1. I noted that Jewishness is maternally inherited, but wrote to ignore that for the sake of the hypothetical, i.e. the Jew’s Hitler-voting mother isn’t Jewish, just as in the case cited in the post, the Trump-voting mother is white, the son is half-black identifying as black.

        1. So if “jewishness” is inherited matrilineally, if your mother were a gentile adopted into a semi-secular jewish family (and wasn’t “baptised” into the faith after adoption) would you still be Jewish?

          1. “Still” be Jewish? I think you’d never have been Jewish in the first place.

            Although, had you been raised Jewish and undergone the traditional rites — Bar.Bas Mitzvah, Consecration, Bris — it is unlikely anybody would challenge your rights … especially if you pay your Temple taxes and are a member in good standing of B’nai B’rith, Hadassah, etc.

  22. Nice cameo by Steve Landesberg* in this 17″ film from 1996:

    HT: Power Line

    *Det. Sgt. Arthur Dietrich on Barney Miller

  23. The thing I was looking for in the linked article — and never found — was some specific hurtful thing in his life that he had told his mother about and she had failed to empathize with.
    ” She often questioned my rage at injustices in society. Not so much the instances that annoyed me, but my belief that America, as an institution, was at fault. She preferred to believe that there were just bad apples out there making bad choices. My issues were isolated, not systemic.

    No matter how I presented my case, she always found a way to insinuate that maybe it wasn’t as bad as I was making it out to be and that everything wasn’t about race. These conversations always frustrated me because I couldn’t understand how anybody who watched the news, and then heard her own flesh and blood speak passionately about his own experiences, could doubt with so much conviction.”

    We have no way of knowing if he really suffered “Jim Crow level” prejudice, or if it was in fact isolated –“Annoyed me” ?!? — and maybe she was actively trying to counteract the programming from his father: if you look for bigotry, you will find it.
    And some people just try to put a positive face on things because life is hard and why let it get you down?
    The point is: all we have is his side of the story.

    However, making him take her around town in the MAGA gear was pretty insensitive — and potentially hilarious.
    He could have injected a little humor into the situation — the scenes pretty much write themselves.

Comments are closed.