I’m wiped out from grading, but I wanted to note that on this day in 1954, the Supreme Court handed down the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, decision, declaring racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. A unanimous court decided that segregation denied Black children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 in the wake of the Civil War. Brown v. Board was a turning point in establishing the principle of racial equality in modern America.
This description grabbed me more than any of HCR's previous writings:
"Once you have replaced the principle of equality with the idea that humans are unequal, you have granted your approval to the idea of rulers and servants. At that point, all you can do is to hope that no one in power decides that you belong in one of the lesser groups."
A system of rulers and servants contradicts what many of us in this community have stated before: We the people -- this time, all of us.
My thoughts wandered this morning and I started writing......
When you think about what "Equality" means one understands that effectively equality is not necessarily an absolute but rather it must be seen as a polarity covering 2 extremes and the distance and various gradations between them. Equality of opportunity and equality of results, whether it be at birth, in school, at work or in life, are the 2 absolutes, the ends of the range of possibilities and we organize society somewhere along the divide between them.
Implementing "Total Equality of Opportunity" would necessarily entail the denial and confiscation of the work of previous generations to improve their lot and pass on the fruits of their hard labour...or inherited advantages...to their descendants and thus making the starting point at birth evidently unequal. It would require societal or governmental control of genetics, reproduction and upbringing of children and the removal of basic parental rights to ensure that all children start on equal terms. It would require also that each child be taught the same material, fed the same foods and play the same games until such a time as "natural talents" emerge which then could be examined to ensure that they are in no way influenced by exogenous or biological factors. Sounds a bit like some futurist SF movie which makes one shudder to think of...a truly undemocratic state of affaires.
Implementing "Total Equality of Results" would possibly look very much like the "polar opportunity scenario" above in which "emerging talents" are not remunerated higher than the non-talents OR would effectively be the famous "socialism" of which the trumplings are accusing the Dems of targeting. It would be a world, without private property, in which, if harmonious, all gave willingly according to their abilities and all received according to their needs. The needs of the "one" however would not be allowed to differ effectively from the needs of the "other". All inequalities of results would be taken away by tax or other means so that none can raise a nose higher than his neighbour....all are in the same government or society determined hole.
We actually live somewhere in between these two poles and slide marginaly towards one end or the other to try to balance....or unbalance....society according to the will of the people or the power of minorities to impose their preference on the majority. The Voting Rights/John Lewis Bills are pitched at moving the median point along the polarity towards greater equality of opportunity with the obvious intention of producing indirectly thereby a greater equality results.
The trumpling Republicans on are saying very clearly with their "voter restricting bills" that they feel that Equality of Results has gone too far and is already excessively dominant in this existing society and this "unbalanced" position is stiffling the development of society, does not justly remunerate their "natural talents and hard work" and denies the work of their forbears in "creating"America....as if they were alone! They are "redressing" the balance and are wanting to move the median point away from what they see as this overweaning equality of results towards their definition of equality of opportunity where money, private property, inherited advantages, family status and networks are acceptable as part and parcel of "innate talents" that must be justly rewarded...alongside hard work of course..... which is an "opportunity" apparently open to all!
The obvious innanity of the extremes is one thing and the difficulties of trying to turn, nostalgically, the clock back to days when we had "Gentlemen" and their lessers another....both are undesireable in a reasonable, democratic society. How we achieve the balance and thereby harmony is not obvious as forces pull in both directions. Society evolves and with it its median point moves between the Equality's opposing poles.
A little "reality" and "oxygen" needs to be introduced into the debate and in terms of "voting rights" in a democratic society people have both rights and obligations...and both must be respected. Each has a right to vote but being served the voting papers with your tea at home or through your car window on the way to the store is perhaps not the best way of meeting your obligations in this democracy...a little effort should be required if at all possible. The requirement of that effort by society imposes an obligation on that society to educate all citizens to a level in which they fully understand and are capable of exercising the rights and meeting the encumbant obligations of being a citizen. That effort, those rights and obligations and the resulting electoral decisions must be protected by society by an absolute neutrality of the policing and judicial system. Without equality in the voting booth and of education, neutrality before the law and a great respect for the obligations that society requires of its citzens we are not living in a democracy.
I do feel that without exception, 10 votes simply won't happen under the current climate of Republicans doubling down on voter suppression. The filibuster is the nail in the coffin.
Regarding the fact that people are indeed unequal, I can personally attest to that . It's not about race, but class. Decades ago, my partner and I bought an 1820's house on the outskirts of a high-end neighborhood. Barely enough money to scrape together, but somehow we did. We bought the "worst house" in the neighborhood. It actually was the farmhouse whose original owners owned all the land to dividing line of to the next village. As what happens with farmland, it gets sold, divided and so on. What that land eventually became were lots for very expensive homes. My point is about the people that lived in the house that sit on that very land. That said, we worked very hard to rehab that house. When he and I would be working outside, the neighbors either walking or driving by would make a point of saying "you are doing a wonderful job with that house." One day, my neighbor from down the road stopped by to chat. Dave was a retired Professor who I just loved. I mentioned that I thought it was nice that the neighbors were acknowledging our hard work. He paused and said, "your work is wonderful, but they are only thanking you for making their homes look better and bumping up their assessed value." Dave was right. After the exterior of the house was finished and the landscaping was done those same people wouldn't even acknowledge us. We lived there for 15 years. When we sold the house and were moving, the only person to say goodbye was Dave.
As Lincoln said, "when will it stop?". I don't know that it ever will.
I'm afraid that I haven't received today's letter (even after your second try), but not to worry, the good thing is that we can always double-check with fb and substack. Besides, I'd rather that you take time to rest and replenish your energy!
Even with your exhaustion, you came up with this beauty which remains with me:
"But here’s the thing: Once you give up the principle of equality before the law, you have given up the whole game. You have admitted the principle that people are unequal, and that some people are better than others. Once you have replaced the principle of equality with the idea that humans are unequal, you have granted your approval to the idea of rulers and servants. At that point, all you can do is to hope that no one in power decides that you belong in one of the lesser groups."
Many among the GOP, its blinkered followers, and even non-GOPers consider all BIPOC people and non-European immigrants personae non gratae. As a result, I was a target of micro-aggressions in my place of employment as recently as three weeks ago. Having stood up for my rights didn't win me a popularity medal, but such is life. At my age, silence is not an option. LOL!😂
"...At that point, all you can do is to hope that no one in power decides that you belong in one of the lesser groups.". Wow! This one was shared in my regular Facebook feed.
Good morning all! I can empathize with HCR: wiped out from grading is my state of being at the moment as well. Posted grades yesterday but waiting on the students who have not turned in all their work to do so in order to get their grades changed. Sigh. Since none of us got her daily posting via email, I suspect she forgot to tick that box in her fatigue. I know my brain is mostly muzz and chocolate at this point.
He has outlined in a succinct way the many ways in which the "Gaslighters on Parade" (I told him I am stealing this!) have created the current situation by permitting the Orange Menace to lie, lie, and lie again (and again . . .) without any challenge. It is def worth reading.
I really enjoyed today's letter, even as hard as it was for you to get it out; not to mention your grading fatigue. Please rest and take good care of yourself.
Mentioning Brown v. Board of Education today, in the context of the Voting Right Act and the subsequent attacks on it leading to the SCOTUS decision in Shelby Co. v. Holder is a reminder that not all history happened in the 19th century, or even the 20th. What my huge takeaway is this paragraph from you:
" But here’s the thing: Once you give up the principle of equality before the law, you have given up the whole game. You have admitted the principle that people are unequal, and that some people are better than others. Once you have replaced the principle of equality with the idea that humans are unequal, you have granted your approval to the idea of rulers and servants. At that point, all you can do is to hope that no one in power decides that you belong in one of the lesser groups."
One of my "talking points" on the restriction of voting rights is this: If your individual right to vote was not granted via amendment to the constitution, then you do not get to vote on the ability to restrict the right to vote.
I'm going to wander a bit here, and report on the county election that has today as its Election Day. In Oregon, I got my ballot by mail about 3 weeks ago, and the election pamphlet about 4 days later. We have as contested races: 4J (Eugene) school board and the Lane Community College Board of Directors. Local measures include approving money for the OSU Extension Service, which includes county 4H programs and the master gardener program. There is also a Lane Rural Fire Levy to expand its ambulance service. (In Lane County, all the ambulances (ambuli?) are managed by fire departments. Our two larger cities merged into "Eugene Springfield Fire", there are rural districts that include South Lane, covering Creswell and Cottage Grove, and smaller municipal districts Oakridge and Florence).
I voted last night, and will drop off my ballot in one of 8 drop boxes later today. My ballot was filled out by hand, with black ink, placed in its "secrecy sleeve" and placed in its envelope. I had to sign the back of the envelope that attested to the following: I am a US Citizen; I am the person to whom this ballot was issued; I am legally qualified to vote this ballot; This is the only ballot I have voted this election. There are several other notices: Failure to sign will invalidate the ballot and it must be received by 8:00 p.m. on election day (postmarked is not sufficient), and signing another person's name is a Class C felony. There is no postage required. I read in the paper that less than 20% of the ballots had been returned county wide. If we see a 25% turnout, I will be surprised.
I'm sorry you are so taxed from grading, and I appreciate your letter very much!
We must stop dithering around because the Retrumplicans are very dangerous in so many ways to the very fabric of our society. I appreciate the effort of the two senators today, but it will not come to fruition unless we get rid of the filibuster. AS you wrote,"Today, Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) begged their colleagues to reinstate the Voting Rights Act. In 2006 a routine reauthorization of the law got through the Senate with a vote of 98-0; now it is not clear it can get even the ten Republican votes it will need to get through the Senate, so long as the filibuster remains intact."
"Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples."
Many people have posted about not getting the email and having to find it on FB. But there is an easy way as well. If you keep Heather’s emails for a few days, go to the previous email. At the bottom is a link “Letters from an American”. Click on that link and it beings you to her Substack page and the current day’s letter is at the top. Choose that and you’re in.
In case you are keeping track, Heather, I didn’t receive either of your May 17 posts in my email. Lots of challenges with Substack shutting me out of my account lately, requiring me to log in repeatedly, even when I am in the middle of typing a comment. With the large number of subscribers that you alone have added to Substack’s readership, the company should have ample funds to hire some advanced IT specialists to make the discussion forum more user friendly.
Thank you so much for your longstanding commitment to sharing your insights and wisdom with us every day, Heather. I’ll keep coming back for you.
This is the first time that I have read one of Lincoln's debates (yes, I looked up the whole transcript at Political Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas, https://www.bartleby.com/251/pages/page43.html.) I had not realized HOW strongly Lincoln spoke against slavery. Even though his backdrop was the all men (not women) were created equal, he spoke clearly and articulately about the inequality between black and white.
I also think about the word equality. In my mind, this means that everyone receives the same resources. While this might extend to opportunity, I have taken up the word equity as the word to level the playing field between those who have and those who have not. Is this just semantics? Maybe yes, maybe no. However, I firmly believe that no matter what your status, ethnicity, gender, etc., each person should have the access to opportunities when they arise.
Is that what the framer's of the Declarence of Independence were aiming for, albeit for men only? Is this what Lincoln was aiming for almost 100 years later? I would like to think so.
At any rate, after reading this debate, I see clearly the battles that Lincoln fought politically and why John Wilkes Booth, a fierce anti-abolitionist, murdered Lincoln. At the time, the country was not ready to welcome the formerly enslaved into "their society." Sadly, it seems that for some folks in the US today, this remains the same.
This description grabbed me more than any of HCR's previous writings:
"Once you have replaced the principle of equality with the idea that humans are unequal, you have granted your approval to the idea of rulers and servants. At that point, all you can do is to hope that no one in power decides that you belong in one of the lesser groups."
A system of rulers and servants contradicts what many of us in this community have stated before: We the people -- this time, all of us.
My thoughts wandered this morning and I started writing......
When you think about what "Equality" means one understands that effectively equality is not necessarily an absolute but rather it must be seen as a polarity covering 2 extremes and the distance and various gradations between them. Equality of opportunity and equality of results, whether it be at birth, in school, at work or in life, are the 2 absolutes, the ends of the range of possibilities and we organize society somewhere along the divide between them.
Implementing "Total Equality of Opportunity" would necessarily entail the denial and confiscation of the work of previous generations to improve their lot and pass on the fruits of their hard labour...or inherited advantages...to their descendants and thus making the starting point at birth evidently unequal. It would require societal or governmental control of genetics, reproduction and upbringing of children and the removal of basic parental rights to ensure that all children start on equal terms. It would require also that each child be taught the same material, fed the same foods and play the same games until such a time as "natural talents" emerge which then could be examined to ensure that they are in no way influenced by exogenous or biological factors. Sounds a bit like some futurist SF movie which makes one shudder to think of...a truly undemocratic state of affaires.
Implementing "Total Equality of Results" would possibly look very much like the "polar opportunity scenario" above in which "emerging talents" are not remunerated higher than the non-talents OR would effectively be the famous "socialism" of which the trumplings are accusing the Dems of targeting. It would be a world, without private property, in which, if harmonious, all gave willingly according to their abilities and all received according to their needs. The needs of the "one" however would not be allowed to differ effectively from the needs of the "other". All inequalities of results would be taken away by tax or other means so that none can raise a nose higher than his neighbour....all are in the same government or society determined hole.
We actually live somewhere in between these two poles and slide marginaly towards one end or the other to try to balance....or unbalance....society according to the will of the people or the power of minorities to impose their preference on the majority. The Voting Rights/John Lewis Bills are pitched at moving the median point along the polarity towards greater equality of opportunity with the obvious intention of producing indirectly thereby a greater equality results.
The trumpling Republicans on are saying very clearly with their "voter restricting bills" that they feel that Equality of Results has gone too far and is already excessively dominant in this existing society and this "unbalanced" position is stiffling the development of society, does not justly remunerate their "natural talents and hard work" and denies the work of their forbears in "creating"America....as if they were alone! They are "redressing" the balance and are wanting to move the median point away from what they see as this overweaning equality of results towards their definition of equality of opportunity where money, private property, inherited advantages, family status and networks are acceptable as part and parcel of "innate talents" that must be justly rewarded...alongside hard work of course..... which is an "opportunity" apparently open to all!
The obvious innanity of the extremes is one thing and the difficulties of trying to turn, nostalgically, the clock back to days when we had "Gentlemen" and their lessers another....both are undesireable in a reasonable, democratic society. How we achieve the balance and thereby harmony is not obvious as forces pull in both directions. Society evolves and with it its median point moves between the Equality's opposing poles.
A little "reality" and "oxygen" needs to be introduced into the debate and in terms of "voting rights" in a democratic society people have both rights and obligations...and both must be respected. Each has a right to vote but being served the voting papers with your tea at home or through your car window on the way to the store is perhaps not the best way of meeting your obligations in this democracy...a little effort should be required if at all possible. The requirement of that effort by society imposes an obligation on that society to educate all citizens to a level in which they fully understand and are capable of exercising the rights and meeting the encumbant obligations of being a citizen. That effort, those rights and obligations and the resulting electoral decisions must be protected by society by an absolute neutrality of the policing and judicial system. Without equality in the voting booth and of education, neutrality before the law and a great respect for the obligations that society requires of its citzens we are not living in a democracy.
What do you think?
Like many others, I didn't receive today's "Letters" post. Happy to find it online. It always starts my day!
Thank you Heather.
I do feel that without exception, 10 votes simply won't happen under the current climate of Republicans doubling down on voter suppression. The filibuster is the nail in the coffin.
Regarding the fact that people are indeed unequal, I can personally attest to that . It's not about race, but class. Decades ago, my partner and I bought an 1820's house on the outskirts of a high-end neighborhood. Barely enough money to scrape together, but somehow we did. We bought the "worst house" in the neighborhood. It actually was the farmhouse whose original owners owned all the land to dividing line of to the next village. As what happens with farmland, it gets sold, divided and so on. What that land eventually became were lots for very expensive homes. My point is about the people that lived in the house that sit on that very land. That said, we worked very hard to rehab that house. When he and I would be working outside, the neighbors either walking or driving by would make a point of saying "you are doing a wonderful job with that house." One day, my neighbor from down the road stopped by to chat. Dave was a retired Professor who I just loved. I mentioned that I thought it was nice that the neighbors were acknowledging our hard work. He paused and said, "your work is wonderful, but they are only thanking you for making their homes look better and bumping up their assessed value." Dave was right. After the exterior of the house was finished and the landscaping was done those same people wouldn't even acknowledge us. We lived there for 15 years. When we sold the house and were moving, the only person to say goodbye was Dave.
As Lincoln said, "when will it stop?". I don't know that it ever will.
Be safe, be well.
I'm afraid that I haven't received today's letter (even after your second try), but not to worry, the good thing is that we can always double-check with fb and substack. Besides, I'd rather that you take time to rest and replenish your energy!
Even with your exhaustion, you came up with this beauty which remains with me:
"But here’s the thing: Once you give up the principle of equality before the law, you have given up the whole game. You have admitted the principle that people are unequal, and that some people are better than others. Once you have replaced the principle of equality with the idea that humans are unequal, you have granted your approval to the idea of rulers and servants. At that point, all you can do is to hope that no one in power decides that you belong in one of the lesser groups."
Many among the GOP, its blinkered followers, and even non-GOPers consider all BIPOC people and non-European immigrants personae non gratae. As a result, I was a target of micro-aggressions in my place of employment as recently as three weeks ago. Having stood up for my rights didn't win me a popularity medal, but such is life. At my age, silence is not an option. LOL!😂
"...At that point, all you can do is to hope that no one in power decides that you belong in one of the lesser groups.". Wow! This one was shared in my regular Facebook feed.
Good morning all! I can empathize with HCR: wiped out from grading is my state of being at the moment as well. Posted grades yesterday but waiting on the students who have not turned in all their work to do so in order to get their grades changed. Sigh. Since none of us got her daily posting via email, I suspect she forgot to tick that box in her fatigue. I know my brain is mostly muzz and chocolate at this point.
For those of you who don't follow Greg Olear, I recommend today's post: https://gregolear.substack.com/p/fables-of-the-insurrection?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjo1ODg1MTQ3LCJwb3N0X2lkIjozNjQ0NDk1NSwiXyI6IkEwSGdpIiwiaWF0IjoxNjIxMzQzMjI3LCJleHAiOjE2MjEzNDY4MjcsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0yMDY5NSIsInN1YiI6InBvc3QtcmVhY3Rpb24ifQ.Wr2eEaMiqHSKLdwklsP2uzqTVCPhCL9HzYChhbDOTGA
He has outlined in a succinct way the many ways in which the "Gaslighters on Parade" (I told him I am stealing this!) have created the current situation by permitting the Orange Menace to lie, lie, and lie again (and again . . .) without any challenge. It is def worth reading.
I really enjoyed today's letter, even as hard as it was for you to get it out; not to mention your grading fatigue. Please rest and take good care of yourself.
Mentioning Brown v. Board of Education today, in the context of the Voting Right Act and the subsequent attacks on it leading to the SCOTUS decision in Shelby Co. v. Holder is a reminder that not all history happened in the 19th century, or even the 20th. What my huge takeaway is this paragraph from you:
" But here’s the thing: Once you give up the principle of equality before the law, you have given up the whole game. You have admitted the principle that people are unequal, and that some people are better than others. Once you have replaced the principle of equality with the idea that humans are unequal, you have granted your approval to the idea of rulers and servants. At that point, all you can do is to hope that no one in power decides that you belong in one of the lesser groups."
One of my "talking points" on the restriction of voting rights is this: If your individual right to vote was not granted via amendment to the constitution, then you do not get to vote on the ability to restrict the right to vote.
I'm going to wander a bit here, and report on the county election that has today as its Election Day. In Oregon, I got my ballot by mail about 3 weeks ago, and the election pamphlet about 4 days later. We have as contested races: 4J (Eugene) school board and the Lane Community College Board of Directors. Local measures include approving money for the OSU Extension Service, which includes county 4H programs and the master gardener program. There is also a Lane Rural Fire Levy to expand its ambulance service. (In Lane County, all the ambulances (ambuli?) are managed by fire departments. Our two larger cities merged into "Eugene Springfield Fire", there are rural districts that include South Lane, covering Creswell and Cottage Grove, and smaller municipal districts Oakridge and Florence).
I voted last night, and will drop off my ballot in one of 8 drop boxes later today. My ballot was filled out by hand, with black ink, placed in its "secrecy sleeve" and placed in its envelope. I had to sign the back of the envelope that attested to the following: I am a US Citizen; I am the person to whom this ballot was issued; I am legally qualified to vote this ballot; This is the only ballot I have voted this election. There are several other notices: Failure to sign will invalidate the ballot and it must be received by 8:00 p.m. on election day (postmarked is not sufficient), and signing another person's name is a Class C felony. There is no postage required. I read in the paper that less than 20% of the ballots had been returned county wide. If we see a 25% turnout, I will be surprised.
The only law that matters to the GOP is the Law of the Jungle. They're so tired tire
of being subjected to the demands of Democracy, Unity, Equality, and Unity.
I'm sorry you are so taxed from grading, and I appreciate your letter very much!
We must stop dithering around because the Retrumplicans are very dangerous in so many ways to the very fabric of our society. I appreciate the effort of the two senators today, but it will not come to fruition unless we get rid of the filibuster. AS you wrote,"Today, Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) begged their colleagues to reinstate the Voting Rights Act. In 2006 a routine reauthorization of the law got through the Senate with a vote of 98-0; now it is not clear it can get even the ten Republican votes it will need to get through the Senate, so long as the filibuster remains intact."
Another significant anniversary, May 17, 2004:
"Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts
I didn’t receive my letter today. And, the very first thing I do in the morning, even before I kiss my husband good morning, I read your letter. 🥲
Many people have posted about not getting the email and having to find it on FB. But there is an easy way as well. If you keep Heather’s emails for a few days, go to the previous email. At the bottom is a link “Letters from an American”. Click on that link and it beings you to her Substack page and the current day’s letter is at the top. Choose that and you’re in.
In case you are keeping track, Heather, I didn’t receive either of your May 17 posts in my email. Lots of challenges with Substack shutting me out of my account lately, requiring me to log in repeatedly, even when I am in the middle of typing a comment. With the large number of subscribers that you alone have added to Substack’s readership, the company should have ample funds to hire some advanced IT specialists to make the discussion forum more user friendly.
Thank you so much for your longstanding commitment to sharing your insights and wisdom with us every day, Heather. I’ll keep coming back for you.
This is the first time that I have read one of Lincoln's debates (yes, I looked up the whole transcript at Political Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas, https://www.bartleby.com/251/pages/page43.html.) I had not realized HOW strongly Lincoln spoke against slavery. Even though his backdrop was the all men (not women) were created equal, he spoke clearly and articulately about the inequality between black and white.
I also think about the word equality. In my mind, this means that everyone receives the same resources. While this might extend to opportunity, I have taken up the word equity as the word to level the playing field between those who have and those who have not. Is this just semantics? Maybe yes, maybe no. However, I firmly believe that no matter what your status, ethnicity, gender, etc., each person should have the access to opportunities when they arise.
Is that what the framer's of the Declarence of Independence were aiming for, albeit for men only? Is this what Lincoln was aiming for almost 100 years later? I would like to think so.
At any rate, after reading this debate, I see clearly the battles that Lincoln fought politically and why John Wilkes Booth, a fierce anti-abolitionist, murdered Lincoln. At the time, the country was not ready to welcome the formerly enslaved into "their society." Sadly, it seems that for some folks in the US today, this remains the same.
This article from today's New York Times points out a very concrete example of what HCR has said over and over again, that the real objection to minority rights is that something gets taken away from honest, hard-working (white) citizens and given to the undeserving. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/18/us/politics/race-inclusion-wasau-wisconsin.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage