Tracking "differences" prevents operation of America's "Melting Pot" heritage

Our Government, at every level, has stopped America from continuing to operate as what we used to refer to as "the great melting pot."  When our country was "discovered" by the Italians, the Scandinavians and the Irish, among many others, as holding out the opportunity for attaining success, they ran into opposition.  Much of it was oriented around Race and discrimination.  But over time, that passed and today they and their offspring are seen as "American" as anyone else.

Today, we have arguments about "racism" all to often, regarding Color of Skin, and Religion...and there seems little hope that it will be resolved anytime soon.

Why did the first groups go beyond it in relatively short order while others cannot seem to get beyond the perceived challenge?

I hear comments that America has a problem with "white" privilege, that a significant portion of our residents are racist and act punitively against anyone who is not considered "white."  Others posit that skin color never fades and is always a sign that is interpreted as being "different."  And the argument regarding religious practices and beliefs adds fuel to the flame of perceived negativity.  All of these positions are offered as reasons (or excuses) for the failure of groups being assimilated into American Life.

These reasons (or "excuses") don't hold up to close scrutiny.

Those who came to this country voluntarily wanted to become Americans.  They had not found opportunity in the country of their birth and wanted the chance to attain more.  They knew there was no guarantee of success, or even of survival, but they appreciated that America provided opportunity to try to achieve something more than was afforded them in their birth country.  Many failed.  Significant numbers died.  But those who survived became full-fledged Americans thankful for the opportunity to succeed or fail on the basis of their own abilities, rather than a caste or other system in the country of their birth that denied them the chance to prove themselves.  They saw the obstacles, including the racial opinions of those already here and established, as challenges to be overcome.  There were no guarantees or gifts of success, but they accepted that as only fair.

African-Americans did not come by choice.  And until freed by the Emancipation Proclamation few had the chance to succeed on their own abilities and merits.  But freed they were, and declared to be citizens of the United States of America.  Did they have challenges due to lack of education?  Yes...but so did those who came from the Mediterranean and Asian countries.  Did they face organized resistance and fear from those already established?  Of course they did, just as did the other groups that had chosen to come here.  The big difference was not the color of their skin; those of Mediterranean and Asian Heritage had the same obstacles. Their big difference was choice!   What was the solution to that challenge?   They could have actively petitioned for funds to travel back to their home country.  Of course, history tends to ignore the fact that African-Americans were sold into slavery by their own countrymen for profit and to eliminate competition for power. Going back to those countries would allow them to look the same as others of their race, but they were unlikely to survive for long...and they had become used to living in America.  So the clear choice for the vast majority was to stay here and strive for a successful free life.

And that struggle was severe in the Southern States of America due to the ingrained attitude of non-African-Americans to see African-Americans as less than equal.  And the North, despite their self-serving claims, wasn't much better;  they simply hid their opinions a bit more effectively.  The Civil Rights Laws passed in the mid-twentieth century as well as the Supreme Court decisions of that ere were needed to provide legal protection for some semblance of equal treatment.  But equal treatment in America as well as throughout the world has always been an illusion rather than a reality.  It hasn't, doesn't and never will exist.  America tries harder than most, but it is an impossible goal because the human race is not equal at all.  We all have different abilities and traits and no one and no government can or should promise equality of anything.  All that can be promised is to allow each person the right to take a chance.  No guarantees of success or any level of result.  People don't grow up equally.  Someone born to well-educated and financially secure parents has a better shot at success than someone born in poverty to parents with no appreciable education.  That is the way of life.  But even a casual study of achievements reveal that a fair number of children born in poverty achieve greater success than those born into wealth and privilege.

The reason that a perception of racism remains so strong today is that our governments' decisions to trace and classify Americans today by Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation and Religion tells us that such differences are important.  It says that even if you are a third generation American, the background of your great grandparents matters...officially.

It shouldn't.  Yes, the laws of this country can provide a legal remedy if one is discriminated against...and they do.  But that should be a private action by one citizen against another...not a basis for tracking by and the interest of the entire Federal Government.  Leaving the government out of tracking such differences would send the clear signal to all of us that such differences do not matter, that we are all Americans and we have that common identity.

Every immigrant group that has come to America has had to comply with the requirements of our immigration laws, has had to adjust to American Society.  In most cases, those coming here would gravitate to hold to themselves for emotional and financial security, even as they encouraged their children to learn English and become "American."  Later generations increasingly became assimilated with the enthusiastic encouragement of the first arrivals...the "melting pot" worked.

Currently there are only two groups where this hasn't taken place;  African-Americans, and those of the Islamic faith.

African-Americans that have failed to escape poverty can look to the Federal Government as the real cause.  By taking the attitude that there needs to be virtually eternal financial support in a variety of forms, the Federal Government has essentially declared that African-Americans cannot succeed on their own efforts and merit.  By so doing they invite and encourage all but the most dedicated and inspired member of that community to just take the offerings of the Federal Government and remain dependent thereon.  They take it...but they are not stupid and do recognize that they are being disrespected and ultimately resent it mightily...and quite correctly start to "cop and attitude."  Any human being would. Want to see a happy community? Provide limits to government support, but provide plenty of job training and guidance.

The other group that has not assimilated is that of the Islamic Faith.  They show no sign of wanting to assimilate.  Apparently, they want to re-create their country of origin here in America.  That includes Sharia Law and a way of living that is contrary to the inherent freedoms of American culture.  Such "separateness" should not be permitted...certainly not the legal attitude.  In America, American Law applies and no area of the United States should be allowed to apply any other standards.  If immigrants fail to follow our laws, they should be deported back to their country of origin.  If already a citizen, they need to be prosecuted and jailed.

But our Federal Government would go a long way to recognizing the equality of every American by applying the policy of benign neglect to any and all attempts to track any racial, gender, ethnic or religious elements of its citizens.  As the populace realizes that it isn't important to the government, they will cease to see it as important to them.

What should be the criteria for being "President of the United States?"

It is the election season.  Actually, it feels as if it has been the elections season forever already!  But we still have over 3 months during which we will be bombarded with reasons to favor one candidate over another and why one of the candidates is just the worst example of humanity ever.

Already we hear and read arguments that center on race, gender and ideology...and, strangely enough, honesty.  That last one often confuses me because I have always expected that those elected to high office would be, for the most part, honest and truthful.  But the other day I watched in amazement as an interviewer asked our current President of the United States if "honesty was overrated!"

Can you believe that such a question would even be asked?  I was astounded.  Has our country, that once presumed honesty on the part of each of us and, when it was found wanting would exile the liar from any contact with our children or ourselves, sunk so low that we now accept dishonesty and lack of trustworthiness and truthfulness in our politicians and elect them knowing that they possess those traits?

As to the other elements being raised, I find them superfluous.  Competence should always be the criteria for holding the office of the Presidency: competence and trustworthiness also.  In the upcoming election, my examination of the performance record of Ms. Clinton in public office reveals a lack of both.  She has lied.  She has failed to protect her people from danger as Sec./State.  She has failed to protect secret information properly, knowing that she was putting information at risk.

The performance record of Ms. Clinton disqualifies her as a trustworthy, competent candidate for the office of the Presidency for anyone who examines her record with an objective mind.

Her gender and race are immaterial.  Currently there are 106 women holding elective office with a record that invites consideration for holding the office of the President of the United States (6 Governors, 20 Senators, and 81 members of the U.S. House of Representatives), plus others holding positions as CEOs in private industry.  While it is foolish to place gender as the top tier requisite for holding any office, elected or not, no one can convince me that one or more of these women would not be the equal of any man currently showing interest in holding office of President.

I have worked for women who were not only the equal of, but superior to, most of the men for whom I have labored...so I know there are qualified women who should be considered and ultimately elected.  But not one the basis that "I have waited and now its my turn," but rather, "I have a proven track record that reveals the competency, the honesty and the trustworthiness needed to perform the duties of President of the United States, and I invite an examination of my record.

It is competence, honesty and trustworthiness that should be foremost.  Placing any other criteria above these simply invites the presumption of corruption of purpose.

Tracking Race promotes Racism!

How would we all feel if on every application we were obligated to denote our family's country of Origin?  If your family had been American-born since the early 1800's but you still had to enter "England"...or "Italian", "Danish", "Dutch", "Spain", or "Egypt", among many others...would you think of yourself as American?  Or would you feel more attuned to the differences between you and others with different countries of origin?  How would you feel if getting a job, or being admitted to a College or University...or to a club or organization...were affected by your entry?  Would you feel "different?"

I would.  And I suspect that our preoccupation with tracking race on all manner of application and operational forms supports a sensitivity to race that it does not deserve.  After all, if two people (one black and one "white" [whatever that means these days]) from the same educational background apply to one school or for one job, why should race enter into it...there is no difference in the experiential background offered by the two.  If you want to use grades and a personal essay, doesn't that provide insights into the benefit that a student or new hire will bring to the school or the workplace?

Wouldn't eliminating pictures and race designations on applications, and race reporting on governmental forms actually encourage assimilation and reduced sensitivity to consider Race as important?  And...in America...isn't our goal to unify us all without regard to country of origin, race, or gender?  As long as we use Race to differentiate among us...to divide us...we will have that used as a means of supporting a continued divide.

This country would be better off, both actually and perceptually, if we all saw the government as not being interested in Race at all.  That is NOT to suggest that discrimination be made either acceptable or lawful, but rather that this country and its resident acts in the expectation and assumption that race is a non-starter in selecting friends, applicants or neighbors.  What should be important, and judged individually, is if a person is civil, respectful of others and is truthful.  These characteristics have nothing at all to do with Race.

We all would be better off if we insisted that Race never be a factor in how we live or who we live with and what records are kept.  Those who seem most anxious to support continued "tracking" of Race are all making money or gaining power through the continuing use of Race as either an excuse for bad behavior (which is demeaning to whatever race it being applied to) or to bully acceptance of some who's abilities are below standard (which injures those who have a need for the best performers that they can afford).  And we all demean ourselves by allowing these charlatans to practice their bad behavior.

Is President Obama right?

I read recently, with dismay, that President Obama has declared that race relations in the country have improved, even as polls show people believe the contrary.  But...after some quiet reflection, I have concluded that there is at least a reasonable argument to be made that he is correct.

Consider that if a person, a group, or a race feel at risk, they will tend to work at "flying under the radar", so to speak, to avoid problems in their lives.  If one can exist peacefully for the most part, even if not possessed of total equality, it is hard to make a decision to put your sustainable life style at risk without a guarantee of improvement.  If this is Mr. Obama's belief, then he could be arguing that the current crop of demonstrations and the ongoing out-cry by black and other minorities is proof of an improved self-image that not only allows, but requires, the demand for further improvement.

It should be noted that there are myriad black and minority families that have succeeded and achieved great position in our country.  I would argue that the vast majority see only occasional challenges that could even be remotely assigned to race...and those could just as easily be written off as individuals just able to get along.  That happens among all groups and has nothing to do with race.

So, on reflection it would seem that if there is any credence to Mr. Obama's assertion, then it only applies to a select group...a minority of a minority, as it were...that now wants to be treated with respect, regardless of their behavior.  Only time will tell if their claims resonate with the vast majority.  And it would help if their claims were clarified and not related to or based on distorted views of events.

Do Sharpton, Holder and Mr. Obama want to return to "separate but equal?"

It is tough to understand just what the most recent class of demonstrators really want.  They shout for "justice" and for "dead policemen."  But then the media says that they don't really want that.  So...when will the demonstrators speak for themselves and say what they truly want?

Are we to accept that the triumvirate of  President Obama, Al Sharpton, and Eric Holder...and their acolyte, Mayor deBlasio...speak for the group as a whole?  I wonder.  None of that group seems truly dedicated to the plight of black neighborhoods except as it fits and advances their own purposes.  So...what, indeed, is the desire of the unhappy resident of a black community.

The one thing I have heard and read that repeats itself is that they want the police force to be "representative."  In Ferguson that meant that almost all the police were white and didn't understand how to police a black neighborhood.  That does sound reasonable.  It certainly made sense to me.  But then the question is raised just how to accomplish that.  Because, if you do get the desired percentage of black officers, you would still have some percent of white officers continuing to police the black neighborhood.

Ah, I hear, but those white police can be trained to understand how to police the black community "properly."  Oh, really?

I have had black acquaintances and friends tell be that it is impossible for any white person to understand the attitude of any black man or women; that without experiencing it, you just cannot know what it is like.  Well, that sounds accurate too.  Although I think we can all try a bit more to understand those who come from different backgrounds.

Consider the facts that underlie the recent minority (make that "black) deaths in conflict with the police:  first, the (white) policeman in Ferguson was undeniably being attacked and the dead (black) teen would undeniably faced felony charges of attacking a police officer if he had survived;  second, in NYC, the supervising police officer of that arrest was black and there is absolutely no evidence that suggests that there was any racially-based "misunderstanding" of the circumstances of the arrest. (And, let it be noted that there was in fact no actual "choke-hold"; that the deceased died because of the combination of being held down and his own respiratory issues.)

So each of these events were fact based...not racially oriented at all, except by those who wished to promote anarchy, violence, looting and burning.  And those people were honored by comments by President Obama, and the additional gift of the presence of both Eric Holder and Al Sharpton, the President's "go-to guy" on racial issues (although, since he himself is black, one wonders why the President should have to have any assistance in understanding the black community and the nuances of their feelings and desires...but perhaps that is a subject for further discussion another day).

The recurring theme is "we want to be policed by black police officers because they will "understand."

That seems to suggest that they want to segregate the police force so that they can have justice.  They will feel less "threatened" if they have black men in blue in their community.

Do any of you have any suspicions as to what the general populace, and the media in particular, might have to say about such a suggestion if it were made by people in a white community suggesting that they only wanted "white" police officers protecting their interests because only "white" officers "understood" them?  Think that one would fly?  Even get off the ground?  Yet...that is what is the base of the desire of Mr. Obama, Mr. Holder and Mr. Sharpton (No one quite knows what Mayor deBlasio wants or thinks...and no expects to understand that anytime soon.)  They don't use, of course, the phrase "separate but equal" but they refer to "representational" numbers of minority officers.

For some reason, I have always thought that the laws of this country were not "nuanced" by the culture of those who broke a law; that if you were rich or poor, it was still wrong to steal, kill and hurt people.  I believe(d) that one spoke civilly to others, obeyed directions given to you by an officer of the law and, if disturbed by it, argue the propriety about the order later...in a court of law.  You didn't talk back to your parents, your boss or a policeman.  Perhaps I am wrong, but I do not recall any indication that those absolutes were colored ( no pun intended) by the race, nationality, skin pigment, or social position of either the policeman (or other person of authority) of the person being directed to behave in a certain way.  Did I miss that?  I don't think so.

Should be come to accept that black, and other minority communities should be policed by people of their own race, background and gender, it will not be long before those minorities will demand that their teachers by of the same race; that they have bankers of their own race; that all of their political representative be of their own race.

Will the occasional white resident in a black community then have the right to demonstrate, damage, hurt and burn down the community while demanding that a white person hear their grievance?

And I finish with the observation that a large portion of responsibility for the ongoing unrest lies with the media.  They have allowed and helped to spread false claims and comments about the triggering events that only serve to artificially support those who make a living in the Race Industry, fomenting unrest and gaining notoriety for themselves.  Even as they claim "with hands up" that they are only reporting the "news" they are remarkably selective in their reporting, so the claim of innocence rings hollow indeed.

If the black demonstrators get what they seem to be asking for, I suspect that in the end they will rue the day that they allowed some people to "lead" them down this path.  They will not be better off for traveling that directions.

Did "White Privilege" elect Mr. Obama?

It is difficult to get my head around exactly what people mean by the term, "white Privilege."  And worth a separate discussion in depth, but suffice it to say that right now I understand that it means that the lighter your skin...the more "white" you are...the more you are likely to succeed.

President Obama is half "white."  At least that is what I have read and been told.  So...do these people that espouse "white privilege" intend to indicate that it was the white half of Mr. Obama's lineage that got him elected, and not his striving and his accomplishments?  Because general statements that are proven to be true also hold up when brought down to the specific...and that is what we are talking about in this case: did, in fact, "white privilege" predestine that Mr. Obama would win the Presidency.  That seems absurd on the face of it:  his opponent was much lighter complexioned...although with a healthy tan, and in contrast Mr. Obama was darker.  If "White Privilege" is such an element of the failure of African-Americans to make more progress than so far accomplished, why and how is it explained in the face of Mr. Obama's election victories?

I must admit that this thought is NOT original with me; I heard the subject raised last night on "Red Eye Radio" and the concept leapt out into my brain, slept and broke out again this morning, yearning for release.

Another twist on this whole subject: suppose two African Americans are vying for the same position...private industry or public office...are we being told that automatically the lighter skinned one will get the job or be elected?  It seems to me that is what is being argued by those who claim every white person in America benefits improperly from "white privilege."

Also...does tanning count?  I mean, if one person has a deeper tan than another, does that mean that the pale one will win in an election for public office?

And...how does this concept account for the original proclamation that President Clinton was our first "black President?"  Does that mean that President Obama is now left with the historical footnote of being our first Muslim President?  The concept of guilt by skin complexion is murky at best...it would seem that letter grading wouldn't work...that we would have to make it a numerical system based on pigment density.  And...what would be the base line?  Do we need different base lines for different races, since they clearly do not start out equal.

Perhaps we can get the Global Climate Change folks investigating this...providing grant and government funding is available...

Why are Black communitys' violence ignored?

Ferguson has become some sort of rallying cry for the Race Industry.  Seems illogical on the facts: a very large, strong person strong-handed and stole from a store, walked down the middle of a street, interfering with traffic, with a friend, was told by a police officer to get out of the street and onto the sidewalk.  That person then hit the police officer, tried to get hold of gun, ignored commands to stop, then ran at the police officer to attack him and ended up being shot and killed by that police officer.  The behavior of that person was foolish at best and inviting just the result that he suffered at worst.  Yet he is seen as a "victim"?  I don't see a victim.  I see a thug and a danger to society at large.

But because this person was Black, and a teenager, and did not carry a "weapon" (although when a person is well over 6 ft. tall and 300 plus pounds I consider such a person a weapon in their own right) the attacked officer is supposed to not shoot?  The person could have been a Buddhist Monk and I would have shot to protect myself.  This is supposed to be a "Race" matter?  How illogical is that?

Perhaps we could more helpfully look at behavior of Black toward other Blacks; maybe we could consider behavior in the Black communities.  Please?

Ever been in a Black neighborhood and listen to their conversations?  Even in a mixed neighborhood, when 3 or 4 Black males of any age get together (eliminating the older mothers, grandmothers and grandfathers, here) their conversation is almost hidden in insults and obscenities.  Even their greetings of each other are clearly insulting and...in any other group would constitute "fighting" words.

When will the "leaders" of the Black community...no, not the Race Baiters or the rich members of the Race Industry...put their foot down and demand that Blacks respect Blacks?  The leaders I am talking about are the Grandmothers and older mothers who are the only shot at "parents" that so many young children growing up in those communities will ever have.  When will they demand that their children show respect to THEM as well as to all others, regardless of race.  After all, what is happening now is that members of the Black Community are teaching each other disrespect for each other.  And that invites disrespect for everything outside your community...and that leads to both tragedy and poverty.

When will the majority of Blacks turn away from the racist "Race Industry" leaders, like Sharpton and his ilk, and start to follow the example set by so many church congregations in the Black community...no, not the "do-gooders" from white churches who seek to help the "down-trodden" but those within the community who shed tears over the lost potential within, knowing that their children and residents are so much more able than they give themselves credit for.  When they will inspire a turning away from hand-outs but look for opportunities to achieve, not receive.  To succeed, not survive.  The ability is there...it is within.  And it is time that Blacks give themselves the respect that they already deserve.  THEN some ignorant comment by another black or, heaven forbid, a white person will have no meaning...they will be secure in the knowledge of their own worth and achievements.

I sure would like to see them take their shot.  I think we all would be pleasantly amazed at the accomplishments that would result.

Today's America leaves me exhausted

I had to stop writing blogs for awhile.  Focusing on the idiocy of the political and the educational world in particular left me depressed and drained.  There are real problems.  None of them are incapable of being solved.  But no one wants to eliminate them unless they can garner some personal or ideological gain...and under no circumstances do they want to "fix" anything if it involves diminishing in any combination their power or wealth.

Today I read that the SAT scores hit a new low this past year.  And the first comment by the testers was that no one should worry because it was due to more "students" (whatever that means these days) were taking the test than ever before and to the increased "diversity" of the pool taking the test.  Huh?  Right...and it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summertime.

Our Government is to blame for this idiocy.  The entire Federal Government, including Congress, every President, and the Supreme Court.  Because it all goes back to an unwillingness (or inability) to accurately evaluate and then design a way to correct the results of racial prejudice.

Rather than recognize that the in-equality of the past needed to be corrected substantively, the Government forces determined instead to institute the appearance of equality, rather than make it a fact.

For the most part, life has consequences...at least it used to.  It was results that counted, not excuses.  If you failed a test, you flunked.  If you did that enough, you got "left back a grade" and some actually left school at the earliest permissible age because they just didn't want to study...or couldn't.  Schools were for learning.  So were Colleges and Universities.  Your performance got you entrance and progress and a degree.  The degree meant something...it vouched for your achievement.

But, instead of focusing on the opportunity for all to learn and thus achieve according to that achievement, the Government dictated that minorities were now to be granted entrance, and degrees because of their minority status rather than their competitive achievement.  The decision was to make the world look as if all was well and, in fact, guarantee that minorities would have the appearance of success whether it was earned...or not.

This has had enormous consequences to our nation...well, actually, no longer a nation but a country.  Because the damage is multifaceted.  First, minorities have not been helped by the program.  Everyone, including the minorities, knows that the "achievements" are bogus...or at the very least, are suspect...regardless of the piece of paper.  The same goes for hiring, due to Federal requirements that once again throw out achievement in favor of appearances.  If people want all to strive for knowledge and achievement, you must make the opportunity equal...but you must require the equal achievement of learning and ability on an equal basis as well.  To act as the Government has done is to subtly (well, maybe not so much) suggest that minorities actually cannot compete...at least not on an equal basis.  How totally insulting, demeaning...and stupid.

But that is only the start of the damage.  All who have grown up in this atmosphere of selective granting of artificial status see that it ISN'T achievement that is rewarded...and hard work and study is not the key to a better life.  They have watched as consequences of non-performance or under-performance have been either eliminated or lowered.  So...they demand the same.  And, in the prevailing sense of "equality" they have been granted the same "pass" to avoid being left back in school, or denied admission to college, or denied their diploma just because they didn't do the work.

Students today will, it appears, not have to learn how to write cursive because, I am told, they all use computers or "text" or some such.  I have no idea what they will do if the power fails, or someone sets of a neutron bomb that takes out all the cell towers and crashes the power grid.  I suppose it will inspire a whole new set of cave paintings.  And I refuse to even consider how they will sign their names to any legal documents...I suppose there wont be any need for them, as no one will be held to whatever "thought" was a binding agreement.

Young people coming out of school at any level today already can't add or subtract without a calculator or some sort.  If a scanner breakes in a store, the clerks cannot tell you what to pay if you are buying more than two items...and if the scanner malfunctions, have no concept from the illogic of the inaccurate total that it is, in fact, inaccurate.  No wonder people find it hard to get jobs...they think their piece of paper means something while they are functionally both illiterate and untrainable except for the most mundane of tasks.  Yet they insist on benefits, pay, and treatment as "entitled."

So of course the SAT scores are down.  Why bother to work to learn all those things that get you higher scores; they don't matter.  These poor disillusioned souls have been led, trained and indoctrinated to expect that achievement not only doesn't matter...it isn't even to be considered.

The Government, the Educational (so-called) community, and all forms of authority have determined that thou shall not say "no" to anyone...even parents are prevented from requiring and enforcing their own children's upbringing.

No wonder the United States is populated in this century by narcissists.  It is how they have been raised.