Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sociology. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 02, 2020

Did closing the churches contribute to the chaos?

Still thinking about two of the videos I saw on Tucker last night. One was a young white man who was standing alone beaten senseless by a group of young black men, and from the position of his body, I'd guess both arms and legs and maybe his neck were broken. Bystanders did nothing to protect him or stop his assailants. (Sound familiar?) They used ladders, pieces of lumber to bash him. It looked like he was just in the wrong place, perhaps separated from his friends, or maybe he lived in the area. There were many white people in these protest groups who had gone along to get along, thinking they'd show solidarity. All he had done was pull out his phone and supposedly was trying to call the police.

The other was an Asian woman, standing her ground, maybe Korean American, in front of her small grocery. I think she was trying to salvage some produce--her livelihood. Maybe it was paying the tuition for her son who was in medical school. The men beating her were twice her size and half her age. Her husband, or some other man, rushed out and they beat him too.

After the shock of seeing such inhumanity and lust for killing, I began to wonder if declaring churches, libraries, and museums as "non-essential services" had encouraged the greed, hate and thirst for revenge and blood. None of those young men knew George Floyd, and the main threat to their lives up to yesterday has been other black men, not the police, despite what grandma told them, unless they are part of a criminal element like a gang. If it weren't for the schools and TV reminding them daily they are victims of racism, they probably were leading fairly normal lives, until the last two months.

Was it smart for mayors and governors to close sports and entertainment venues? While maybe not essential for spiritual health, they do bind certain groups in society together. Competition and aggression are played out on teams, and aside from the occasional broken bone or brain injury, most just watch the aggression. Men could always talk about sports if they had nothing else in common.

I did see some young women bashing in car windows and harassing the helpless drivers, and maybe they were looting those high end stores in Santa Monica. But for the most part, the blood thirst was 16-30 year old men. Testosterone and youth, not race. Antifa, which is white, both genders and privileged had probably been a little more cagey--placed the bricks and lumber around. They arrived with a plan--anarchy.

And I know that's not an original thought, because I believe I first learned it in a "Sociology of Education" class when I was a sophomore in college. All societies have glue and shared interests, which schools need to encourage, we were told then in the 1950s, which educators promote in the form of athletics, clubs and special interest groups.

Perhaps our political leaders educated in the last 40 years never learned that there is more to creating a function society than race and gender. Unfortunately for us, our enemies knew.

Friday, April 04, 2008

Stuckert on race

I watched a program the other day where the topic, "What is race," was presented to teenagers. One question they were asked was, "What is the race of Barack Obama." I wondered that when I saw photos of him next to Jeremiah Wright, who appears to be whiter than I am (I'm German and Scots-Irish ancestry). The light skinned Wright made a reputation and followers with hate speech against whites; Obama, the darker one, was raised in Hawaii by white grandparents.

If research published in the Ohio Journal of Science 50 years ago is credible, then Obama apparently isn't the first African American who might become President of the United States. We've probably already had a few, if Robert P. Stuckert's research is correct (because the research was done in the 1950s, the immigration statistics or assumptions about Europeans made in his article would no longer be correct). I tracked the piece forward and see that Time Magazine picked it up in June 1958, and then others cited this work (usually not the original journal article, which probably wasn't held in many libraries, but others who had cited it) in the 1960s and 1970s and later. After leaving Ohio State, Stuckert later became Professor of Sociology of Berea College, 1975-1992, and also wrote on blacks in Appalachia.

Here's what he said in that 1958 article to point out that the idea held in the 1950s of racial purity was a myth. It was just recently added to Knowledge Bank at OSU.
    "The data presented in this study indicate that the popular belief in the non-African background of white persons is invalid. Over 28 million white persons are descendants of persons of African origin. Furthermore, the majority of the persons with African ancestry are classified as white."
In 1950 he estimated that 21% of white people had African ancestry and 73% of American blacks had non-African ancestry.

The citation is, "African Ancestry of the White American population," by Robert P. Stuckert, Ohio Journal of Science, 58(3):155, May 1958. It was a revision of a paper given a year earlier.