1/ Folks always want to know how to talk to difficult relatives about politics during the holidays. If you must there are a few things to know.
First, know what not to do--don't debate with facts and data and academic "book learnin." Your uncle doesn't care...
2/ Second, ask *why* questions rather than *what* questions. In other words, discuss why you see things the way you both do, rather than what you believe. This allows us to explore the subjectivity of our views--all of our views...How to do that?...
3/ Start by discussing sports. I'm serious, and I give examples in this piece...
4/ As you'll see from the piece, making the conversation less about what we think and more about why we think it, allows us to humanize one another. Because the answer to why is rooted in our personal experiences, upbringing, etc.
5/ And that conversation leads to a degree of humility, which in turn lowers the temperature, makes for a better holiday, lowers blood pressure all around, and MIGHT if replicated enough help preserve democracy itself. No seriously, give it a read.
I mean it. If you would have opposed the Civil Rights Movement, or if your parents or grandparents did, this means you, your parents or grandparents, are (or were) evil. No matter how you remember them. They were monsters. If you would have opposed the movement, you are too.
There are no exceptions to this rule. None. Your relatives who opposed the movement were horrible human beings who should be remembered as such, forever. No fond memories about how they treated you at holidays. They were awful
Only when we admit to the evil on our ancestry dot com walls will be really address the legacy of inequity in this country
1/ I wish conservatives would have the guts to admit they would have opposed the MLK-led civil rights movement. I mean, what policy goal of the movement would they have supported, honestly?...
2/ Banning discrimination by private businesses? No, they support that in the name of property rights. They would have opposed the sit-ins on those grounds...
3/ Expanded protection for Black voting? We know they would have opposed that because they oppose it now. The right wants fewer voters and admits as much...they would have opposed the voting right act...
1/ We need to be clear about what the attack on anti-racist education is really about. It's not about history lessons or even schools. It's "border control." The right is patrolling and guarding the border -- not of the physical nation, but the narrative one...
2/ Just as they seek to control the actual borders and "protect" them from invasion by outsiders of color, so too have they committed to policing the boundaries of the story we tell as a nation...
3/ Because how we understand our past will determine the country's future...
1/ So, in his attempt to dissuade Starbucks employees in Buffalo from unionizing, former CEO Howard Schultz made a Holocaust analogy. Um, yeah, it was about as awful (and just plain stupid) as you're thinking...
2/ I mean, Holocaust analogies never go well. Like, no one ever makes one, and then those who hear it think "holy hell that was one brilliant Holocaust analogy, I think I'll use that one some time." Never. Not once...
3/ Plus, in the analogy the company is pretty much the bad guy, so it's not even smart when you're trying to block unionization. I mean, whoever said billionaires are smart never met Howard Schultz I guess...Anyway, here's my mocking take on all this:
1/ Critics of anti-racist curriculum say educators are trying to make whites feel guilt or shame. But this is nonsense. Encouraging social responsibility is not the same as promoting racial guilt. We often take responsibility for things even when we aren't to blame for them
2/ We take responsibility for breaking cycles of dysfunction in our families, even though we didn't set those cycles in motion but merely became the inheritors of them...We take responsibility for cleaning up pollution even if we didn't dump the toxic waste ourselves...
3/ If you became CEO of a company that had taken out bad loans you would have to cover those debts (well, barring some legal chicanery) even though you weren't responsible for them...that would be the morally proper thing to do, owing nothing to personal guilt on your part...
If you believe not striking your child is tantamount to "hating them" and that striking them is proof of your love for them you are sick. You should have your children taken from you. This guy deserves to be removed from his family, and society.
And please, no nonsense about how "I was whooped as a kid and turned out ok..." Did ya? Did ya really? You sure about that? You got no unresolved issues or anger or pain? Bullshit...
Additionally, literally every person in prison today was likely whooped as a kid. None were re-directed or given time out or offered creative discipline. NONE...But people keep saying physical violence against children works. It does not. It normalizes brutality...