The Politics of Respectability, and other things

Gabby Douglas and her hair.  When this incredible athlete won her first gold medal, the twitterverse was filled with critical comments ... about her hair! We wondered about that for the longest time until discovering there are minimum standards for respectability. 

Depending on our class, ethnicity, and culture, there are various rules; e.g.,

• don't go out looking like that ...
• polish your shoes, do your nails, fix your hair ...
• clean up a bit before you go to the store where folks will see you ...
• at least wear a shirt with a collar ...
• it's Sunday, so you have to look nice ...
• I'll be ready in a minute; I've got to do my makeup before we go out in public ...
• we need a nicer house and a better neighborhood if we're going to be anything.

"A … core intuition of the politics of respectability is that, for a stigmatized racial minority, successful efforts to move upward in society must be accompanied at every step by a keen attentiveness to the morality of means, the reputation of the group, and the need to be extra-careful in order to avoid the derogatory charges lying in wait in a hostile environment." ~Randall Kennedy; Race, Crime, and the Law

The persistence of such rules impacts minorities rather dramatically.  They extend inclusively beyond race and class to everyone else, of course, and most play by the rules without a thought.  Culture is rife with such content, not necessarily to its benefit.

Historically, there are times where new rules get added to the existing list.  Following the turmoil, cultures adjust and adapt.  Rule-changing content emerges and circles the globe in ensuing years. Some recent additions:

• The Politics of Respectability - 1880-1920 up to today, ... still seeking to overcome the legacies of the nation’s original sins, continuing as minorities attempt to fit in
• The Green Revolution - 1940's through the 60's and continuing today as environmental science
• The Hippie counterculture movement - 1960's - the drug culture and casual relationships
• The Jesus revolution - 1960's into the 80's and beyond with radical changes for the church

• Neomaterialism - 1980's and '90's - the 'me & mine' or 'yuppie' years of consumerist growth and corporate bottom-line prioritization
• Hyper-consumerism - 1990's to today - the culture of 'more' rather than 'enough'

The fact that such figures exist is troubling, along with the fact that
after a decade, the issue has yet to reach the public forum.

The various effects of each continue visibly today, having seeped into every facet of our lives; many conflict and are incompatible.  Some are troublesome, especially when we, like lemmings, just go along with the common thought.

Do we need to think differently about some things, perhaps radically different?  Is it important enough to be worth the fight?  Will we waste years of life if we get it wrong?

You might want to see:  Class and the absence thereof or perhaps Gabby Douglas and her hair or The Politics of Respectability

Abou Ben Adhem

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:—
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the Presence in the room he said
"What writest thou?"—The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still, and said "I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men."

The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.

~ James Henry Leigh Hunt

I remember first reading this when I was quite young. The poem thoughtfully opens the question of how someone might please God.  Is it a religious question or a life question.  Does one please Him by perfect faith and religious practice?  Or, might God encourage something more relevant to real life, a genuine reflection of His heart in those who hope to do what is right and good with the opportunity they have?

In today's widespread quasi-religious turmoil, much is revealed from the hearts of those who harm others while claiming God's approval.  While no political argument is pristine, that one is particularly toxic.  It has been twenty years since the Bosnian massacre, and the trouble continues today in Syria, in Afghanistan, and elsewhere.  Everywhere, actually.

Enemies of Peace

~ FDR 1936 ~  We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace - business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering. 

~ They had begun to consider the government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.  

~Eisenhower 1961~  "... this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the Federal Government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." 

~ G.W. Bush~  Beginning in 2001, the Bush administration began pressing congress to regulate Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. "The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities ...."" Both the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and he Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) formally identified the risks, and Treasury Secretary John Snow testified to the need for immediate reform.

Congress ignored the repeated warnings, accusing the president of creating an "artificial issue". In 2007, Senate Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd attacks the President's warnings and calls on him to "immediately reconsider his ill-advised" position. The crash followed shortly thereafter, generally as was formally presented to Congress on eleven separate occasions.

This is how things have played out over time.  How much influence does corporate money have in government today? Are decisions and policy really up for sale?

The financial industry pressed for (or purchased) repeal of the separation between savings and investment banking over a two decade period.  The repeal of Glass-Steagall gave us the derivatives marketplace (including mortgage backed security derivatives) and triggered the Great Recession.  Trillions were lost as the nation and the world recoiled; related deaths exceed one million, but the industry continues with little change.

Assets of the U.S. banking industry have risen to $15.3 TRILLION.  Together, JPMorgan and Bank of America hold 23% of the total.  Each is financially larger than most countries in the world.  Taken together they're larger than the 80 countries at the bottom of the list, combined.  Cross reference that comparison in fiscal size to one of political influence, and you begin to see cause for concern.

On the upside, the U.S. leads the world in the financial services industry.  The downside is that the U.S. leads the world in the financial services industry, and in doing so, we carry responsibility for our impact on the entire world and on each individual.  Much has perhaps been good, of course, but globalization is a new realm and not entirely predictable.

Four Freedoms

A typically thoughtless response to the

minimum wage discussion.

Discussion about assistance efforts often ends in judgement and criticism.  The unaddressed issue:  why bother with assistance efforts in the first place?

Why might government behave as though they had a responsibility to those in need?

As an individual, am I responsible for others in the community who are less fortunate than I?  Should that which I've earned be given without my consent to others who didn't earn it?  No, of course not.

I've given my consent, however, so there's no problem as long as I remember that.  As a nation, we've acknowledged that our participation in this country's community and benefits includes support for basic human rights which include freedom from want.  I am my brother's keeper.

One of the historical threads:

In the recovery years after the Great Depression when millions had suffered so severely at the hands of the wealthy, President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his state of the union address declared four fundamental freedoms that everyone should enjoy.

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

• The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.
• The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.
• The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.
• The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb." ~ FDR 1941 State of the Union Address

This declaration of the four freedoms was echoed through the war years and emerged in the international community through the United Nations universal declaration of human rights.

Underneath the formalities, we find the basic purpose of human existence; not just the survival of the strongest, but that we would live graciously together, that we would care for one another and do as we ourselves hope would be done for us.  Sound familiar?

Roosevelt's declaration of freedom was not without substance.  He lists the benefits of democracy, including economic opportunity, employment, social security, and the promise of "adequate health care".  The first two freedoms, of speech and worship, are protected by the First Amendment in the United States Constitution.  His inclusion of the latter two freedoms went beyond the traditional values protected by the U.S. Bill of Rights. Roosevelt endorsed a broader human right to economic security and anticipated what would become known decades later as the "human security" paradigm in social science and economic development. He also included the "freedom from fear" against national aggression before the idea of a United Nations for this protection was envisioned or discussed by world leaders and allied nations.

The essential addition to today's debate is regarding how we might effectively accomplish these goals.  Or, as a culture and nation, we might abandon such humanitarian intent entirely; that's on the table as well.

Survey says ....!

... mostly nonsense (i.e., without sensibile content).

Public opinion, as offered by the media, gives some insight, but little validity beyond the casual conversation level.  Few inquiries, even among independent surveyors, are truly unbiased.

See The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of Public Opinion Polls

The announcement an opinion poll is of itself propaganda, raising the subject in public awareness and offering 'popular' positions on a subject without including much in the way of serious thought or consideration in depth.  That's deliberate, of course.

What's the result?  Often, we're left with polarization based on little thought, science, or history; more on feelings than facts.

Along that line; consider the history and purpose of the marketplace.  It is either for competition or cooperation, for individual or for mutual benefit, success for all or for one at the expense of others.

    The marketplace began as a place where we could sell to

    each other and go home at the end of the day with the things

    we needed. That was the idea, anyway.

    It worked among the villages along the Niger River for 

    sixteen centuries.  When times were tough, they flexed 

    a bit to make sure everyone had enough to get by.

The public discussion could and in fact has been offered as capitalism vs. communism vs. socialism.

Each of the three economic and governmental models is defensible in moderation.  Each is beneficially incorporated to one degree or another in every developed nation.  The negative aspects of each are the result of excess by a few power players, not from the basic concepts.

Public roads and highway systems, municipal utilities, community and state schools and universities, are all expressions of communistic solutions.

Assistance programs fall perhaps into the socialist category as do health departments and law enforcement, product safety standards and oversight of trade practices.

Wall Street and the financial district; the New York Stock Exchange
draped with the American Flag, viewed from Washington's statue.

Competition often gives rise to monopolistic power; the title of 'Robber Baron' rose from just such abuse of the marketplace and the workforce.  Left to compete without restraint, the few would deprive the rest.  Destructive monopolies are constrained in some degree, thanks to socialistic regulation of the capitalist's free market.

Yet, if you ask public opinion, we have a free-market capitalist economy, the quick answer.  If you suggest 'socialist' moderations or 'communist' constraints, of course, you're attacked as un-American, despite the fact that such things have been imbedded in our governance since the earliest days.

Such is the thought process of the public when deliberately provoked by power players for the benefit of their agenda. The product of such a marketplace view is the benefit of some at the expense of many.  Morally considered, that's assault and robbery, yet such is often taught in schools and churches as the right way.  Why might that be, and who would advance such thinking?

Liberty and freedom, our life's blood, are perhaps more noble than can be expressed by Wall Street.

• Freedom is not the power to rise on the backs of others. 
• Freedom is not for getting ahead and leaving others behind any more than humanity's purpose is the survival just of the strongest.  
• The full declaration is a world-changer.

Government's role in ... the course of human events

The 'average' Wall Street salary and bonus package is 
$2033 per day (2015, CNN Money).  Fines levied against 
corporations for criminal misconduct affect corporate 
profits minimally but do not affect compensation.  There
are 167,800 people working in the NY financial district.

 ...  We hold these truths to be evidentiarily established, that the world finance industry in collaboration with governments no longer serves the citizenry, that its demonstrated purpose is a warfare of wealth and resource extraction waged against individual nations and the world to the detriment of humanity and the death of millions.   

Okay, that's pretty harsh. Understandable, but harsh nonetheless.

Forbes, 05/2015 - Five global banks were fined $5.6 billion for five years of exchange benchmark rigging. The settlement involves Barclays, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, Royal Bank of Scotland and UBS being fined variously by the Department of Justice, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and pleading guilty to various criminal charges.

Four of the banks will also plead guilty to criminal conspiracy in manipulating currency exchange rates.

The fine levied against Barclays by the FCA was, at $2.4 billion, the largest in history.  “If you ain't cheating, you ain't trying,” is how a Barclays sales manager summed up their rate rigging crimes. Barclays stock rose 3% on the news, unimpeded by the illegal acts or the fine.

Meanwhile in the U.S., a joint investigation reports that from 2009 through 2014, our six largest banks collectively paid $130 billion in fines, settlements, and the like stemming from the financial crisis. Deutsche Bank paid a total of $1.9 billion. Over the same time period, the U.S. banking industry took in just over $500 billion in profits, and its combined assets are in the vicinity of $6.8 trillion.  The fines are inconsequential.

Nothing has changed.  The fines are paid to governments, not to those who were defrauded, of course.

Understand, this is not about stock shares and businesses, not about savings or investment, and not about entrepreneurship or risk taking.  It's about a corrupted industry in collaboration with government that now does harm to every individual in the world.

You might want to see Never Again, the president's promise, 

or perhaps Grand Larceny on who steals the most, 

or maybe What He Told His Mother for just one story,

or Vegas Street, or Per Person Per Day

or, how about Part III; the Vampire, for an interesting depiction.