In response to my 28 Questions For Republicans Because Your Policies Make No Damned Sense To Me, a Republican offers 20 questions of his own.
Thank you, Kurt. I doubt we’ll ever agree on much, but I appreciate your taking the time to respond. I’ve listed your 20 questions and my responses below.
20 questions from a Republican, followed by my liberal responses.
1. If the Democrats are no longer racist, why do they insist on excluding white men from affirmative action, regardless of how poor the man is?
Affirmative action is meant to help people from groups that are behind the eight ball because of our long history of discriminating against them. These groups include blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, women, and people with disabilities. In general, white men are the most advantaged group who’ve faced the fewest barriers on the ladder of success in terms of education, hiring, and the neighborhoods they grow up in. With that all said, I — along with many other progressives — believe that affirmative action has sorely neglected low-income white people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, especially in rural and exurban areas across the U.S.
“White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America” by Nancy Isenberg talks about how generations of poor whites have been relegated to the bottom rungs of our class hierarchy, often barely above the black slaves whose free forced labor depressed their earning power. FDR and LBJ seem to have understood this dynamic and made great efforts to fight rural poverty. Modern Democrats seem to have forgotten.
2. Why do we even need affirmative action? Aren’t minorities capable of success on their own merits?
It’s not because minorities are less capable of success on their own merits. It’s because our system has deliberately put them at a disadvantage and discriminated against them for hundreds of years…And we still do it.
We need affirmative action and/or other anti-poverty programs because disadvantaged groups have faced centuries of discrimination that have held them down and they have not been able to accumulate wealth at the rate that white middle class and wealthy people have. Unfairly discriminatory housing laws have forced urban minorities and rural poor whites into worse neighborhoods with fewer amenities, that are “redlined” so people can’t get mortgages to buy homes or take out loans to launch small businesses. Until the 1960s and 70s, minorities and women couldn’t even get into the top colleges where you don’t just get educated, you also make contacts. Perhaps affirmative action is a blunt instrument, but in my experience, those who oppose it also tend to not acknowledge that these disadvantages not only exist but are deeply entrenched.
For example, the black unemployment rate is still consistently twice that of white people and a typical white household STILL has 16 times the wealth of a black household.
If you’re not racist and assume that black people are born every bit as motivated, capable, and hardworking as white people, then we have to also assume there’s something wrong with our system. The same goes for poor whites who also get stuck in cycles of poverty.
3. If it is the responsibility of the wealthy to share with the poor, why are so many Democrats millionaires? Shouldn’t they be sharing the wealth?
A lot of Republicans are also millionaires. But the Democrats are the ones who support policies that “share the wealth” and strive to level the playing field. With that all said, both the Democrats and the Republicans have contributed to policies that have increased income inequality and hollowed out the middle class.
4. If socialism works, what happened to Venezuela?
Venezuela’s economy — and its oil assets — have been poorly managed, which left them poorly prepared for the drop in oil prices. On the other hand, there are plenty of thriving and innovative socialist economies, including Germany, Norway, and Sweden. And strangely, Bolivia’s economy is also performing well despite being as militantly socialist as Venezuela’s.
5. If gun control works, why are the most violent cities in America the ones with the strictest gun laws?
It’s complicated…and for starters, it’s still too easy for criminals to buy guns illegally. In Europe you rarely hear about the kind of mass shootings and gun violence we have in the U.S. Furthermore, Switzerland has a thriving gun culture with a high percentage of people who own guns. Yet they also have a much stronger culture of safety, civic responsibility, discipline, and support. “If people have a responsible, disciplined and organized introduction into an activity like shooting, there will be less risk of gun violence,” a criminologist told TIME.
6. If illegal immigrants are good for the economy, why didn’t they improve the economy of where they came from?
Because individuals have no more power to improve economies in other countries than they do here. Also the economies of many former European colonies remain crippled after being ruthlessly exploited.
7. Do you think it’s wise to reward people for breaking the law?
Do you think it’s wise to have immigration laws that are unfair, inconsistent, and ridiculously difficult to navigate? After all, Mexico is our neighbor and an ally. Their people come here to pursue economic opportunities like our own ancestors did back in the day (with the exception of native peoples). [CORRECTION NOTICE: As a reader pointed out, I should have said: “with the exception of native peoples, African-American descendants of slaves, and descendants of the many servants, sex workers, and convicts.” I deeply apologize for this and don’t know what the hell I was thinking.]
People also cross the border in both directions because of family ties. For example, the Tohono O’odham Nation‘s tribal lands have straddled the border along the U.S. state of Arizona and the Mexican state of Sonora since long before that border existed.
In any case, do you think only undocumented immigrants should be punished and not the employers who exploit their cheap labor and get away with driving down all of our wages? The reason our system works this way is because these employers benefit from having a docile labor force with no legal rights. The quickest way to discourage illegal immigration would be to force their employers to pay US wages.
Also, when it comes to Central America, part of why people in these countries suffer from poverty and rampant gang violence is because of our meddling and toxic foreign policy. The least we can do is grant our neighbors asylum.
8. If the police are violent racists, why do you want them to be the only ones with guns?
I don’t want police to always have guns either. Especially the ones who are violent racists. Also, I don’t think all of our police officers are racist, but they are charged with enforcing the laws of an inherently racist system. They’re also put at great risk by our lax gun laws, which is why many (though not all) oppose the radical expansion of gun rights in recent years. Police in other countries somehow manage to enforce the law without arming themselves to the teeth and constantly firing on their fellow citizens. That’s also partly why I support gun safety laws: Because our police officers shouldn’t have to fear for their lives while patrolling our communities.
9. How is blocking a highway improving black lives?
Because black communities keep trying to tell us that we are treating them unfairly and we refuse to listen or address their complaints. Blocking highways is how Black Lives Matters protesters employ their constitutional right to free speech, This seems to be one of the few ways they can get any media coverage, other than having another unarmed black teenager get murdered. After all, freedom of speech is no use if no one can hear you.
I think it’s sad that we’re more outraged by having our white privilege interrupted occasionally while commuting than by the fact that we’ve been allowing our police forces to terrorize communities of color.
10. Where was your outrage when the Obama administration sold weapons-grade uranium to Russia?
The Obama administration didn’t sell weapons-grade uranium to Russia. However, plenty of Democrats vehemently objected to the Iran deal including Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y., Obama’s U.S. Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), Rep. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.), and Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.)
Democrats have frequently objected on principle to President Barack Obama’s positions on various issues like prosecuting Wall Street bankers, drone warfare, and NSA spying. Many liberals have also cried foul on Hillary Clinton’s email server and ties to Wall Street.
Meanwhile, we’ve barely heard a peep about the Trump administration’s Russian ties, conflicts of interest, and rampant corruption. This feeds into the perception that the GOP puts party over country.
11. If Christians are evil for not celebrating gay weddings, what are Muslims who throw gay people off of buildings?
Fundamentalists of any Religion are intolerant, cruel, and dangerous. Christians are no exception.
It’s not just that Christians don’t “celebrate gay weddings.” They torture their own children by subjecting them to “conversion therapy.” This barbaric practice includes various forms of interrogation, psychological abuse, and electroshock “therapy” that often drives victims to suicide. In fact, conversion “therapy” is widely seen as a form of child abuse and has been outlawed in eight states.
Right-wing “Christian” churches across the U.S.also constantly preach hate and violence against LGBT people. It’s unclear how many would throw gay people off the tops of buildings because that practice is still illegal in this country.
The things I hear come out of some of these preachers mouths make me seriously doubt we’d be any better off under “Christian” theocratic rule than people are under Sharia law.
12. If Christians are evil for not supporting abortion, what are Muslims who stone women to death for having one?
Both are cruel and intolerant and interfering in something that’s none of their goddamn business. A free and just society is one that allows women to decide when and whether or not they want to have children.
13. If conservatives are anti- woman for expecting them to buy their own birth control, what are Muslims who don’t even allow women to drive a car?
Both US conservatives AND the Muslims are anti-woman because they are restricting women’s freedom for no other reason than because they’re women. As for “expecting them to buy their own birth control,” I do expect women to buy their own birth control. Through their health insurance and our healthcare system, because birth control is an integral part of women’s healthcare, and access to healthcare is a basic human right.
14. Why does it cost over 40,000 dollars to adopt a child, but only 3,000 to kill one?
For starters, adoption through an agency costs from $5,000-$40,000 with the average being $28,000. It costs little to nothing to adopt through the foster care system, but most prospective parents want infants.
Adoptions can be expensive partly because birth and prenatal care cost a lot of money — given our unnecessarily expensive healthcare system — to ensure that the birth mother and her baby stay healthy during and immediately after the mother’s pregnancy. It’s also expensive because of all the legal, counseling, and other services involved.
But in any case, the cost has nothing to do with a woman’s right to choose. Women and teenage girls should not be forced to bear children so someone else can adopt them.
When push comes to shove, the problem with any anti-choice argument is that whether or not you consider an embryo or a fetus to be a human life in its own right depends on your religious views. And in this country, it’s unconstitutional to impose our religious views on others.
15. If marriage is slavery, why do you support it for homosexuals?
Um, no one is saying that any marriage entered into of free will by two consenting adults is slavery. I don’t know where you’re getting it from.
16. If there are so many genders why are there only 2 different genitals?
Because our identities do not reside in our genitalia.
17. If guns cause crime, why do we surround the president with armed men? Aren’t we putting him in danger by doing so?
Guns don’t cause crime. Unregulated guns cause crime…And mass shootings.
18. If Republican states are so poor, why do we have the most retirees?
Because retirees have fixed incomes that don’t depend on the proximity of well-paying jobs for that income. Nor do they need good public schools, because they’ve already raised their children. It’s great that Republican-run states are more livable for retirees, but attracting people on fixed incomes is not an ideal strategy for economic growth.
19. If Democratic states are so rich, why are they always borrowing money?
I don’t know where you got that information, a link would be helpful. In the meantime, here are the total state debt rankings (as a percentage of GSP, from lowest to highest) from the non-partisan States Project:
The 10 states with the least debt are GOP-run states. But otherwise, both red and blue states are scattered throughout the rankings. Only two of the top 10 states — Hawaii and New Mexico — are solid blue.
Oh, and by the way…Most Republican states take more money from the federal government than they put in, though this is slightly less true than it was in 2008. But as of 2017, red states remain far more dependent on federal funds than blue states.
Also, please note: Our national debt has historically grown higher under Republican presidents than under Democratic presidents. So Republicans should stop pretending they’re brutally slashing public services and handing tax cuts to the rich for the sake of fiscal prudence.
20. If socialism works so well, why are over 2/3 of the asylum seekers applying for refuge in the United States from socialist countries? Shouldn’t we be fleeing to them?
I don’t see anyone from Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Iceland, or France fleeing to the U.S. But I’ll bet a lot of Americans who are about to lose their health insurance or who are sick of our pathetically low wages and lack of vacation time would gladly move to a socialist country.
Featured image: Public Domain via the Clipart Library.
Without taking time myself to tweak the answers a bit, I think this is a darned good start at constructive dialog. taking the key questions, and coming up with concise answers, all in one place, rather than scattershot.
The only thing that I thought of right off the bat was question #4 … while it’s true that Venezuela mis-managed its economy, I think it should be pointed out that one of the reasons for the country’s failure was too much dependence on a single source of revenue, which was oil. This left the country fatally vulnerable to the drastic drop in oil prices, not a failure of socialism as an economic system.
did you get answers to your 28 questions from “Kurt”?
Not yet. But I’m working on one about the answers I received from others.
Well said. Although I’d like to remind the Rs that social welfare does not negate a desire for a free market economy, but rather wishes a limit of unnecessary abuses of that freedom destroying options for “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.”
I am truly saddened by the person who asked these questions. Utterly moronic questions with little to no merit. I also feel bad for the author who had to respond to this, as they had to take time out of their life to explain the workings of the world to a person several mental levels below them.
Apparently Elisabeth is a nice person. Or at least she has to be nice while doing the job for which she’s paid. Fortunately for me, I’m not bound by those constraints.
These 20 questions are stupid. Kurt is a right-wing extremist nut job, and a fool. He won’t answer Elisabeth’s questions. He doesn’t know how. In fact, that’s why he wrote these questions. He was exposed to a little too much inconvenient truth. His world view was shaken. That scared him, and that in turn, made him angry. So he whipped out is list of things his Republican heroes tell him about Democrats and formulated 20 stupid questions that are not even loosely anchored by facts.
Oh. And the first two question prove Kurt is also a racist.
Actually, I get paid a lot more for being a mean and “nasty woman,” because rabid anger porn as well as genuine heartfelt rage get way more page views and hence more ad revenue than being nice and trying to start a conversation. But I’m trying to get away from that in my writing because the fact that Donald Trump “won” the White House proves it’s not working. And I do find the same old talking points that often seem to have no basis in fact. But, as I said, I’m hoping to start a conversation and have to give Kurt points for trying. I try not to be too smug and set in my ways, though I do find it concerning that we, alone among nations, have not advanced beyond these points of view.
Miles, as to the first two questions, why is it racist to ask why someone on the left why they think so lowly of certain minorities by skin color? Is it perhaps that it shines a light on the leftist mindset, that it is racist according to the definition of racist/ism?
What wasn’t mentioned, is that all sorts of people were discriminated against terribly over the centuries, and yet they aren’t listed in the affirmative action groups. I wonder why? Asians, Irish, Italians, Catholics, Jews (big time), all suffered discrimination or enslavement – or worse.
In all honesty, Affirmative Action is by definition, racism. Other things, like saying voter ID is racist, is actually a racist statement, due to claiming such minorities are incapable of getting an ID. An example of this, was a reporter asking liberal college students if voter ID was unfair and racist (all of them white btw), for which they answered yes. Then the same reporter went and asked minorities (mostly black) if they thought voter ID was a problem for them. None of them said it was, then they were shown the video of liberals saying so, and it made the minorities mad/shocked.
Leftists are in their own bubble of reality. That’s the truth. If someone can’t see past their own bubble of reality, such as all the answers given by Elisabeth, then there really is no way share an understanding. The only way, is for a leftist to go outside their bubble, and visit others who live in reality.
As a person who grew up around a lot of “White trash” I also believe based on what I have seen that there needs to be more done to help those who live in generational poverty. I have seen the descendants of Irish Catholics who live in multi-generational households with rampant alcoholism and the majority of income coming from welfare and social security, and those kids needed help. I have seen those kids whose parents never helped them with homework and who were never taught to self advocate and don’t know how to fill out a resume and don’t know how to dress or talk for a job interview and who enter adulthood and lose all hope of making anything out of themselves. I went to school with the white boys who fell through the cracks of society. Just because the majority of people in power are white men doesn’t mean there aren’t little white boys sleeping on the street to get away from their alcoholic family members. It’s not racist to recognize reality.
I agree that we need to do more for people disadvantaged by poverty as well as by racial and gender discrimination. And I believe the failure of Democrats in recent decades to help them like FDR and LBJ did has assisted the GOP in its exploitation of racial resentments.
For an outstanding gun control example, look to Australia. The problem with US gun laws is that unless the ENTIRE continental US has the same gun laws, there will always be a location that has less strict gun laws that a place that has strict gun laws. I don’t recall the website off the top of my head, but many guns flow from places with lax laws to cities with strict laws.
I’d leave Alaska to make their own gun laws, because of the bears.
In regards to #9, here is some more background; in short, it is symbolic: https://thinkprogress.org/top-infrastructure-official-explains-how-america-used-highways-to-destroy-black-neighborhoods-96c1460d1962
From number seven:
“Their people come here to pursue economic opportunities like our own ancestors did back in the day (with the exception of native peoples).”
The assumption that everyone reading this is white and European and comes from ancestors who came willingly and not in bondage, as slaves, as a sex worker, or servant is pretty telling.
Not all of my ancestors came over to “pursue economic opportunities.”
Other than that, it’s fairly well-balances, but that phrase sticks out as particularly egregious.
Who is “our”, exactly? Way to alienate your base and only appeal to white people.
Good grief! I apologize and will fix that. Obviously, African-American slaves, along with white servants and sex workers, did not come here of their own free will to better themselves economically. This is what happen when I try to get inside of white Conservatives’ heads.
This is some of the dumbest shit Ive read in awhile… This is exactly why you guys will be over thrown in 2018 and 2020. Please keep it up.
Regarding #5 – If gun control works, why are the most violent cities in America the ones with the strictest gun laws? I live in Chicago and can tell you that the guns do not come from the city, they come from straw buyers in adjacent states with much more lax gun laws (Indiana and Wisconsin). Read about it here: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/05/27/everytown-using-cop-killings-to-push-for-more-background-checks-n2004562
Thanks for the clarification, I — along with many others — have long suspected that to be the case.
Question 16 falls apart when you realize that there aren’t just two types of genitalia and just keeps falling further and further apart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
It is laughably incorrect to suggest that Germany, Sweden, France or any of the other countries you list are socialist. Socialism is a system by which the means of production are under democratic social ownership and control. That is not true in any European country at this time. Productive property remains almost entirely in private hands and the surplus value produced by people’s labor accumulates to a small number of idle owners and shareholders.
Those states do however have a strong social safety net that is funded by reducing the amount of wealth those at the top can accumulate and strong protections for the rights of workers.
As for Venezuela, mismanagement of oil resources pales in contrast to the effect of economic sabotage by the wealthy, often foreign owners of factories and stores. Companies are refusing to operate in order to weaken the government. Food is available in abundance in wealthy neighborhoods, while supermarkets refuse to stock shelves in working class neighborhoods. And now the “opposition” has been killing people they suspect of supporting the government, including setting a worker on fire this week because they believed him to be a Chavista. So mismanagement seems like a pretty minor thing here.
First of all, I used the term “socialist” as a shorthand, because here in the U.S. it’s how we commonly refer to European and Scandinavian political systems and economies. You’re ignoring the overall point I made, which is that universal health care, unions, more robust social safety nets, stronger regulations, and other attributes conservatives repeatedly scorn as encroaching “socialism” or “communism” raise their citizens’ quality of life without destroying their economy. Furthermore, it’s perfectly fair for rich people to pay more taxes, because they’re reaping greater benefits from the society that enables them to be rich. It’s our taxes that protect their copyrights, their patents, their physical and intellectual property, the roads and telecommunications infrastructure on which their company’s goods and services are transported, and more. Back in the 1950s — the America so many conservatives seem to want to go back to — the top marginal tax rate was 91 percent and the corporate tax rate was 50 percent. During that time, Americans experienced the biggest boom and the most broadly-shared prosperity the world has ever known. And rich people were STILL fabulously wealthy. Conservatives insist on Milton Friedman’s economics even though (a) we’ve applied these principles for decades and they’ve proven an abject failure; and (b) Milton Friedman ALSO advocated a guaranteed basic income to offset the kind of economic disruption and political unrest we’ve been experiencing. A universal basic income was a crucial part of Milton Friedman’s roadmap for unleashing the “efficiency of free markets,” ending what conservatives call the “welfare trap,” and enabling the kind of charity work that’s socially useful but not inherently profitable. But I haven’t seen any proposals from the US conservatives or the Republican party for replacing the income US workers have lost with a basic income.
#5 and #6 are woefully incomplete. Gun violence in major cities w gun laws, because the problem is in th density of ppl and easy gun availability nearby. The laws passed to address the problem can’t have effect with nearby weapon conduit, only reinforce the lucrative illegal sales.
Immigration needed for our economy bc Americans rarely can do the intensive farm labor st the speed that ppl can who have grown up in agricultural labor. Our system is sick that requires such cheap ag labor to, for instance, make cheap fast food beef products. We need to fix the system and reduce our reliance on meat consumption.
There are more than 2 types of genitalia. 1.7% of the population have sexually ambiguous genitalia.
Good point. In any case, the idea that who a human being is should be determined by the genitalia they’re born with is ridiculous.
5. Most of the countries in Latin America and South America were not founded with practices and principles enabling people to move from indentured servitude to land ownership and upward mobility. They still function for much higher percentages of their populations, from policies that limit opportunities for many minorties here, e.g. native Americans and African Americans.
Um, not to be rude or anything, but there are more than just 2 sets of genitals. Your answer was nice, but it completely over looked intersex people and those with genitalia that doesn’t match the strict ‘penis’ or ‘vagina.’ Maybe consider fixing that?
I can add something but am reading up on it…I know a gait am out about LGBT issues but very little on intersex issues.
Oh Elizabeth, your attempts at creating dialogue using fake questions you think Republicans would ask is laughable at best.
The real dialogue needed is between Freedom and Control, Statism and Libertarianism
While those on the left try to claim the higher mantel of “tolerance”, in reality the most intolerant in society today are the most “Progressive”.
Your complete lack of understanding of the basic tenets of Science, Natural Law, Biology, Economics, and Religion is both laughable and frightening at the same time.
I feel bad that you actually think Socialism is a good thing, and that you believe true Christianity equates with Islamic radicals who throw gays off roofs, rape young girls, and behead those who do not covert.
The fact is that those who are more Libertarian do not want more govt control and regulation from those who are “Progressive” in either party, think they are somehow smarter, more elite, and who wish to impose their Collectivist thought on the rest of us.
Perhaps you should go spend some time with the oppressed peoples of the world who live under Authoritarian rule, Sharia Islam, or Utopian Socialsm. The freedoms you enjoy here in the United States are quite rare, and the oppression you think you find against everyone by the “evil white man” in this country is simply is not based in any fact or reality. After you really see oppression, perhaps you’ll stop playing the victim card and start embracing the freedoms and liberties you have been blessed with – and maybe, just maybe, you’ll for once be thankful that you live in a country that doesn’t actually systematically do all the hateful and vile things you seem to have been indoctrinated to believe it does.
You’re wrong. The real dialogue is about whether we want to continue being a first-world country or whether we want to devolve into a third-world, “Christian” theocracy hell hole with people dying and begging on the streets while the top .1 percent greedily hoard all the fruits of U.S. workers’ productivity in offshore bank accounts. Because that’s where we’re headed.
Expecting a rich country to ensure that its citizens enjoy a reasonable standard of living and reward for their hard work is not “socialism.” It’s what every other industrialized nation in the world does except for ours. Especially since Americans wprk harder and longer hours than anyone except for the South Koreans. We are the only modern country in which the average life expectancy is declining and infant mortality is increasing.
Also, the majority of your fellow citizens did not vote for this “united Republican government” that is trying to force all these drastic changes on us. We have every damned right to be angry. If Hillary Clinton or Al Gore had won after losing the popular vote by 2.8 million and 500,000, you people would be up in arms. Some of you could barely even tolerate Barack Obama, who won both the popular vote and the electoral college in a landslide.
Republicans do NOT have a mandate. Your House reps and senators need to compromise. For people who call themselves “conservative,” you’re a bunch of nihilistic radicals. Donald Trump lost by nearly THREE MILLION votes. And your last president lost by 500,000 votes, but saw that as a mandate to get us into an illegal war resulting in death, destruction, and massive amounts of the federal debt you now want to balance on the backs of the middle class and the poor. This is an outrage.
I used to think conservatives were sincere in wanting to balance the budget, but they’re not. If they were, they wouldn’t start wars or keep giving more tax breaks to rich people. I also used to think conservatives loved our country, but if they did, they wouldn’t want to inflict misery and poverty on their fellow citizens while making us an embarrassment to the world.
I also find it fascinating how conservatives always use developing nations as examples of why socialism doesn’t work, when all progressives want is to join the modern world and have the kind of robust safety net, high standard of living, and strong economy countries like Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden have. I suspect that the reason right-wingers never talk about Europe and Scandinavia is because that conversation would expose just how backwards we’ve become and how senselessly barbarous your ideal society really is. It’s time for America to join the 21st century and be bold world leaders again, instead of the backwards, miserly, science-rejecting retrogrades we’ve become.
We are in a new century and we continue to rely on stale labels for goverhments, for economies, and for people. When I go back in my memories, my microcosm of society was not so concerned about labels, but more about laughter and shared enjoyment of life. My family’s connections with other families brought me into contact with kids who were of different religions, ethnicities, etc. I knew that some of the kids were not intellectually adept, but they were still friends, just as they were. I knew that some of the boys did not like girls and some of the girls did like girls, but that wasn’t why they were or were not friends, that was just who they were, we did not need to understand or condemn or condone, we just played together. Some friends had bigger houses and fancier vacations and some friends had small houses and no vacations, but we all had fun in the city pool. Some friends were Asian, or Russian, or Black, or Puerto Rican, or Syrian, or Polish, or German but that is how it is in America, right? But the single one rule you could never break….. If you are going to have a snack when you are playing, you had to have enough to share with everyone, or you did not have it.
I find it fascinating how conservatives talk about “stale labels.” But given how conservatives — through the Republican Party — keep trying to undo all the progress we’ve made since the mid-20th century by trying to wipe out regulatory agencies and eliminate anti-poverty, education, and affirmative action program, the “labels” may be justified. As for the halcyon childhood you describe, that was made possible by Democratic initiatives that lifted many Americans from poverty into the middle class. I had that kind of childhood too, and still live in a place where my daughter has contact with kids from “different religions, ethnicities, etc.” But now, everything’s going backward. Racial injustice is more prominent than ever, more families are poor than when I was growing up, and “middle class” no longer means economically secure. Also, the childhood you and I experienced was still highly privileged. A lot of people at the time still lived in poverty, especially in inner cities and rural parts of the country. This kind of entrenched poverty happens in great part because of redlining, where banks refuse to give home and business loans, as well as inequities in their school systems due to how we fund public education through local property taxes.