Warum ist Amerika
„das Land der unbegrenzten Möglichkeiten?“
I was asked that question by a fifth-grader in a Kiel
classroom in Northern Germany, when I visited a school where a former teacher
of mine was teaching back in 1961. “Why is America ‘the land of unlimited
opportunity?’”
The question caught me off guard. Where did this 11-year old
kid pick up language like that, I wondered. They were prepared for my visit, so
I imagined a conversation around the breakfast table that morning. “An American
is coming to visit us today and we’re supposed to have questions ready to ask.
What should I ask him?” Maybe mama comes
up with, “Ask him what he likes about Germany” and papa suggests the unlimited
opportunity question. (This was still pre-feminism days, and I’m only 21, so
allow me the unenlightened thought process here.) It didn’t occur to me that
the kid was just a bright kid in a good educational system and maybe he came up
with the question all by himself.
I’ll never know. If the kid is still around, he’s now in his
late 60s and is probably asking questions like, “How is it that what was once a
land of unlimited opportunity could become what it is today?”
I’d have as much trouble answering that question as I did
the first one and would have to fall back and recommend an entire library of
American Studies books on the topic.
I stumbled for an answer and came up with a cowardly dodge. “Why
do you think Germany is not a “land of unlimited opportunity?”
His answer was “because Germany is divided,” and that led me
to believe the kid had a political consciousness beyond his years and, whether
the answer was right or wrong, was on his way to active participation in a
working democracy.
I live in Berkeley, California, just six blocks north of the
Oakland city limits. Many see Berkeley as Oakland’s rich neighbor to the north.
I protest when they say that that we have lots of low income people here, too.
Like myself, for example. I’m living on social security and if you look just at
my income from non-investment sources, I’m well below the poverty line. That
shows you the problem with actuarial and other wealth-measurements, which are
easily manipulated to mask or overlook the big picture. For me, living in a Bay
Area home which I own mortgage-free, to cry poor would be a nasty insult to
those struggling to keep their heads above water, financially.
Complexity in numbers aside, the fact is that America is a
land of opportunity for only some of its citizens and anything but for an ever
increasing portion of the population.
Otis R. Taylor, who writes a column for the East Bay
(Oakland/Berkeley and other towns across the Bay Bridge from San Francisco) in
the San Francisco Chronicle has an article in today’s paper on racial
inequity in Oakland. For starters, 28% of the city’s population is black, but
also black are 70% of its homeless. And that’s only the beginning. The median
income for white households is $110,000. For blacks, it’s $37,500. It’s worth
mentioning that the other two large minority groups are in the middle, with Hispanics
at $65,000 and Asians at $76,600.
It’s also worth mentioning that Oakland was once a major black
population center, but once the housing prices started rising, blacks were
priced out. Between 2000 and 2010 the black population decreased by 25%. In
1980 they were about 47% of the population; today they are down to about 28%.
It’s an open secret that blacks were especially adversely affected by the
housing crisis in 2008, when the rich bankers were bailed out and the black
exodus from Oakland was in full swing.
San Francisco has had a similar drop in its black population. In 1970 they were 13.4% of the population;
today they comprise less than 6%. In San Jose, they are down to 3%. Segregation
is still a problem, and it’s another open secret that blacks were forced by
housing costs to live in high crime areas like Hunter’s Point and the Western
Addition. White people need to remember that any illusion that they gather into
“their own areas” by choice is negated by these statistics on the drop in black
population. Black people have even more reason to escape high crime areas than
white people do. Who wants to raise their kids in places where it’s next to
impossible to keep them from being bullied into gang membership?
There are reasons I’ve been banging on about attacking
head-on the American conviction that socialism is a dirty word. Combining socialism with democracy is, to my way of thinking, just another way of labeling the process of removing the albatross around America's neck that is racism once and for all.
And by that I mean white people need to stop associating the word racism with
individuals and protesting, “I’m not a racist.” We need to use the black lens
and see racism systemically. It’s in our institutions – the fact that our “right
to move freely” often masks the tricks we have for assigning different places for blacks
and whites to live. The fact that the white lady with nine yachts in Orange-Stain’s
cabinet working to promote charter schools at a terrible cost to public schools
– where the black kids go – is part of the story. That kids can’t do well in
school if they are hungry, or frightened or confined to restricted experiences
with the larger world outside of school, and if we want to lift the next
generation out of poverty we have to look at the entire environment kids live in
– and not just their schools and playgrounds. And that's how I see the democratic socialist/social democratic approach differing from the mainstream democratic approach - they focus more clearly and intensely on the big picture, the complete environment a kid grows up in, while the Hillary/Trump mainstream parties still think they can Rube Goldberg the status quo into better government.
Living in a social democracy doesn’t mean robbing the
enterprising rich to toss money at the undeserving poor. We need to recognize
that as Republican bullshit. It means living in a society where those who live
in a community which allows them to make great wealth share enough of that wealth
to assure the best possible policies for enhancing health, welfare and security
for the entire population.
The current administration is killing American society as a national community of shared interests, shared goals and a common fate.
After lowering the personal responsibility of the superrich to look out for the national welfare, and adding trillions to
the national debt, it is now proposing yet another tax cut for the guys at the
top – a billion dollar cut for the superrich which the president can make
happen all by himself, without having to pass the idea through the legislative
branch of government.
It’s like the only game in town is to increase the
outrageous injustice on a daily basis.
And it goes on and on and on, this Republican Party and its reverse
Robin Hood monetary policies.
Come on. We all know we are being jerked around by a bunch
of rich white guys in government doing the bidding of the superrich to the detriment
of everybody else.
Get these guys out!
Vote for the democratic socialist wing of the Democratic
Party. If you can’t get yourself to do that, vote for anybody in the Democratic
Party.
But get these Republican greedy bastard Trump enablers OUT!
photo credit:
-->
1 comment:
Your thoughts on democratic socialism are brought out quite powerfully in George Lakey's "Viking Economics". Denmark, Norway and Sweden, midst twists and turns, have settled on a system which really works for them--and, as Lakey indicates, can work for others as well. Lakey is a longtime activist, teacher, writer and Quaker.
Post a Comment