Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on Google+

In his column entitled “I have a dream” published in the Sept. 29 Signal, Steve Lunetta discusses “the plight of the black segment of our population.”

Unfortunately, I think he reaches some wrong conclusions in his discussion of the issue.

He wrote: “What would happen if we assigned SpaceX and Bank of America to work with Black Lives Matter. “

How are you going to “assign” any company to work with anyone in a free society? Why would it?

On top of that, the idea of BofA and BLM “working with” each other flies in the face of human nature. One’s a hierarchical institution, and the other’s anarchical in nature. You may as well wish for water and oil to mix.

“We would insist that a respectful tone be maintained. If anyone can’t comply, they get a timeout. Yep, just like a little kid.”

How do you plan to enforce that? Particularly with groups who have no interest in maintaining decorum (Yes, I’m looking at you, BLM and Occupy). You’re not talking about people who want a place at the table; they want to overturn the table, throw the silverware at the walls, and track mud all over the carpets.

But let’s broaden the context for comparison purposes.

Asians, particularly Chinese, were also brought to this country as, essentially, “slave labor” to build the railroads. Japanese-Americans were stuck in concentration camps during WWII. Both groups suffered under racial bigotry.

Yet both groups have successfully assimilated into American society. Why? Because they recognized the rules of the game, played by those rules, worked hard, educated themselves, and made a success of their efforts.

More than anything else, they didn’t demand that society change to accommodate them. They weren’t the tail trying to wag the dog.

Blacks were moving in the right direction and achieving a lot of success through the MLK era. But then LBJ and his acolytes hit the scene, and it all came to a grinding halt with the Great Society boondoggle, which encouraged a breakdown in traditional societal advancement by rewarding out-of-wedlock births, educational sloth, and other rips in the societal fabric of the black community.

In the LBJ era we had the left encouraging this group of people to ignore the societal norms of this country and now we’re seeing the result, aggravated by a president who thrives on sowing racial discord.

True success depends on mainstreaming into the parent society, not creating “sub-cultures” that balkanize and disrupt the social contract. That’s just the way it is – part part of human nature.

“E Pluribus Unum.” Out of many, one. Our national motto. But that’ll never work when it’s reversed.

Reversed, it’s a description of national entropy, and ultimately destruction.

Brian Baker is a Saugus resident.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePrint this pageShare on RedditShare on Google+
Comments
By commenting, you agree to our terms and conditions.
  • Once again, spot on. Thomas Sowell has been saying for years and years that the destruction of the nuclear family over time and government intrusion have destroyed the mindset that you make your own luck. I was told yesterday that my race had its privileges and simply by decree, judged to BE racist. Human nature is the one thing people leave out when pretending that everything any of these “groups” does is solving a problem. It only leads to chest pounding of people who truly believe they are entitled to what others “luck” has built.
    Rewarding all of the behaviors that were once taboo or the things that used to have great stigmas attached as Brian states- is the single detraction to personal responsibility and accountability. To also claim that things that have happened over 200 years ago is the reason some communities are “oppressed” is to buy into the lies perpetrated by the current administration and blindly accept it.
    A home run, BB.

    • Brian Baker

      Thanks, Nee.

  • indy

    It’s unfortunate the Op-ed writer ‘baths’ us in his religious conservative ideology recitals and misses completely the point of the Black Lives Matter movement.

    Most Americans have ‘seen’ the videos of police ‘executing’ black Americans for the most insignificant circumstances from just ‘walking down the street’ to ‘minor traffic stops’.

    And while it’s true that many Chinese and Japanese Americans were treated unfairly in the past, I would advise the Op-ed writer to grasp the nature of ‘slavery’ as instituted by the Founding Fathers as a ‘compromise’ to get all 13 colonies to accept the ‘Constitution’.

    And while the Constitution promoted the ‘liberty’ for all, it certainly didn’t address people forcibly removed from the native lands and ‘enslaved’ here in the US even by Thomas Jefferson.

    It took a ‘civil war’ to address the removal of slavery that has existed in the US for over 100 years . . . and to introduce ‘equal protection under the law’ for black Americans who were enslaved.

    It took yet another 100 years or so for the ‘civil rights’ movement to address the discrimination of black Americans who were abused with the ‘separate but equal’ belief to the point that black Americans had to use separate facilities like bathrooms in their daily lives.

    So the ‘false’ equivalence by the Op-ed writer in no way excuses the abuse by some of our police toward people of color ‘today’ in America.

    In any event, the Op-ed writer’s assertions to ‘play by the rules’ is insulting to many people of color who do exactly that but are ‘harassed and humbled’ by police.

    I’ve known people of color subjected to this type of practice and recently heard of a black ‘teacher’ whose been ‘pulled over’ tens of times just going to his school!

    So the assertions put forth by the Op-ed writer about ‘mainstreaming’ . . . I would suggest he contact the various police departments being found guilty of harassing people of color and get them to grasp the simple reality that the color of your skin doesn’t make you a ‘suspect’ any more than the Op-ed writer.

    • Brian Baker

      What a tool. You haven’t been missed, wIndybag.

      As to “religious conservative”, point out ONE thing at all “religious” in what I wrote.

      The rest of your gibberish is just standard-issue American Marxist BS.

      You need some new talking points, bud. Your shtick is really way beyond boring and tiresome.

  • b nam

    Can you just come out and say it and stop being a coward stop being politically correct? You believe African Americans are inferior. Can you stop dancing around it and just for once really say it? Or are you too afraid of the backlash? I bet a large portion of the readership would agree with you sadly.

    Despite the guise of some call towards a unification via assimilation into a “parent society” (wow “parent society” sounds like a phrase coming out of Mother Russia, I can see grand paintings of Mao Brian Baker smiling and accepting a thousands of children into the great parent society) you seem to fail to recognize not only how bigoted your thinking is but also how unsound the logic. For one, can you even define this term “parent society”? Would a Texan disagree with a New Yorker on this undefined idea you so easily throw out? Is the parent society the same in the rural South as it is in Hawaii? I doubt whatever your definition of what is American society is universal. Perhaps E Unibus Pluram. Secondly, did the groups you mention actually go mainstream and assimilate? Have you ever been to Koreatown? Are there no minority groups who have not fully assimilated yet maintain a great deal of affluence and success or is assimilation a condition of this success? Have the Amish Balkanized Pennsylvania? What about the Hasidic jews in Brooklyn? Do you really see no other reasons why people of color and Blacks specifically have had unique obstacles to overcome? I can give you plenty I’m certain you’ve never considered.

    Here’s one, African Americans were segregated in many places in the United States. They weren’t allowed to both own a house in many neighborhoods and live there. And this was within your lifetime Mr. Baker. This isn’t some far off issue that was solved once segregation was ended. No it’s a reason why many Blacks live in South Central LA for instance, because they weren’t allowed to live many other places in Los Angeles if we were to speak of our own city. The locations many Blacks were allowed to settle had good jobs for a long time, good industrial factory jobs. Very many industries could no longer compete in the world market and many disappeared in the 1970s leaving many Blacks who lived in urban areas (because they weren’t allowed to live anywhere else) and who had depended on such jobs in a dire economic situation. This situation was worsened in the late 1970s and 1980s when the drug trade increased in the United States. The drug trade and loss of good jobs did more to destroy families than anything else other people commenting have suggested. This wasn’t the doing of social safety nets. I could go on and on but I think the point here is that there is a history, one much larger than the small details I provide that contribute towards certain people in our society having far less of a chance of upward mobility than others. And that’s not even really addressing systemic racism that exists in many many areas in our society. But it’s probably pointless to bring this up with you. It seems you’ve decided economically disenfranchised Blacks are somehow unable to help themselves. So why is that Mr. Baker? Why do you really think they’re incapable of mainstreaming into the “parent society”? Oh right because they didn’t work hard, they didn’t educate themselves, they didn’t play by the rules of the game or make a success of their efforts. Can you just be candid and forthright, stop hiding behind political correctness and say what you really think? It apparent what you really think to anyone reading.

    I really wish the signal wouldn’t publish the sort of drivel such as this column. At best it isn’t insightful, it isn’t an informed position, the ideas presented are vague poorly formed generalizations. At worst it’s thinly veiled bigotry. This doesn’t raise for a healthy debate or discourse, this is intellectual rot. This is lazy thinking. This is the result of a lack of intellectual curiosity and intellectual integrity.

    • Brian Baker

      Ah, yes. The typical response of the garden-variety libtard. Scream “R-A-A-A-A-A-CIST!!!” at the top of your lungs in hopes that you’ll intimidate the other person into backing down.

      LOL!

      Bubba, you don’t know me. That kind of stupid blather is just laughable, and I’m immune to it. So feel free to crawl back under your rock.

      • b nam

        What you seem immune to Mr. Baker are cogent clear well formed logical arguments. Racism aside this is just lazy unintelligent swill. What exactly is the claim you’re attempting to make Mr. Baker? Is it baked by evidence?

        • b nam

          *backed by

        • Brian Baker

          I haven’t seen any.

          Oh!… You mean yours?

          LOL!

          • noonan

            Hey Brian, should we remind Nam and Indy that it was there side of the isle that was for slavery and Jim Crow laws and it was their side of the isle that voted against civil rights in the 60’s. Should we remind them that the KKK was born out of the Democrat party? Should we remind them that their side of the isle controls almost all inner cities where crime and poverty exist in huge degrees? Should we remind them that their forefathers KKK is now replaced by inner city politicians but the slavery still exists as evidenced by their lousy schools, lousy ethics, and an adherence to doing the same lousy things over and over without ever showing improvement.

            “I’m black and I live in the inner city where schools suck, crime is rampant, poverty is crushing so what should I do? I know, I’ll vote for the same people we’ve been voting for decades.”

          • Brian Baker

            Naaaah.

            Those are simply facts, and actual facts don’t mean squat to a Dem/socialist.