Homophobia [Archive]

AnonymousOne

21st August 2011, 07:39

I agree that Homophobia is probably connected to capitalism. If you look at the DPRK there is a very progressive view towards homosexuality, people are not openly homosexual but the government also does not discriminate against it. I think this is the correct socialist stance.

"Due to tradition in Korean culture, it is not customary for individuals of any sexual orientation to engage in public displays of affection. As a country that has embraced science and rationalism, the DPRK recognizes that many individuals are born with homosexuality as a genetic trait and treats them with due respect.

Homosexuals in the DPRK have never been subject to repression, as in many capitalist regimes around the world. However, North Koreans also place a lot of emphasis on social harmony and morals. Therefore, the DPRK rejects many characteristics of the popular gay culture in the West, which many perceive to embrace consumerism, classism and promiscuity."

You seem to be implying that there is something about being gay/gay culture that is negative for society at large. That's fairly homophobic, especially considering that what you view as being so progressive is essentially a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the entire society.

Not to mention of course, I don't see what's wrong with promiscuity. Safe sex != no sex/little sex.

Also, you should be banned for homophobia.

RevLeft By Birth

21st August 2011, 07:45

You seem to be implying that there is something about being gay/gay culture that is negative for society at large. That's fairly homophobic, especially considering that what you view as being so progressive is essentially a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for the entire society.

Not to mention of course, I don't see what's wrong with promiscuity. Safe sex != no sex/little sex.

Also, you should be banned for homophobia.

No I don't think there is anything wrong with being gay, just that Korean society looks down on open display of affection, and the western gay culture which seeks to openly flaunt homosexuality. These kind of displays are not accepted in Korean culture, or for that matter Chinese. The most that you would see is perhaps a heterosexual couple holding hands in public.

AnonymousOne

21st August 2011, 08:05

The most that you would see is perhaps a heterosexual couple holding hands in public.

Right, because homosexual couples shouldn't display affection because it would disintegrate social harmony and morals. You're really failing to explain, to me at least, how these views aren't reactionary. You create a different standard for gay couples, than you do for heterosexual ones.

RichardAWilson

21st August 2011, 08:23

RevLeft By Birth

21st August 2011, 08:48

I do agree he's regressive. However, I don't think he's being homophobic. He's stating that not even heterosexuals show affection in China and Korea (I.e. Asian Culture is different than Western Culture.) Nonetheless, North Korea's approach is, in effect, a Don't Ask, Don't Tell Method.

Exactly, the only kind of public affection you see in Korea is couples holding hands in public, and even that is not often seen. North Koreans simply don't welcome the kind of in your face homosexuality sometimes seen in the west.

hatzel

21st August 2011, 09:24

Hatred and fear of homosexuality in the West stems from religion, specifically; the Abrahamic faiths.

That would almost be convincing if it weren't for the fact that European homophobia predates the spread of Christianity. The Vikings, for example, used forced male-to-male intercourse as a means to 'humiliate' enemies, including opponents in battle, by 'emasculating' (sp?) them. And they weren't Christian, but still, for some reason or another, found homosexuality humiliating.

An interesting comparison I point out is that, in Judaic literature, the way of Sodom is 'what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine,' namely, greed. The fact that 'sodomy' refers to something rather different, namely, 'deviant' sexual practices, suggests that pre-Christian society carried certain prejudices into Christianity, in arbitrarily picking one of the countless 'sins of Sodom' to elevate above the rest as 'sodomy.'

It is true, however, that pre-Christian Europe was perhaps more tolerant of homosexuality, inasmuch as in some/many cultures (both inside and outside Europe), only the receiving party would be considered 'effeminate' and thenceforth ridiculed, as the giver would still be considered to be fulfilling a 'masculine' sexual role. I am not immediately aware of ANY European culture that traditionally accepted playing the 'passive' role in homosexual intercourse without, at the very least, the loss of honour. But if that's your idea of a non-homophobic society, then...well...

Sasha

21st August 2011, 09:25

forced closeting is homophobia and since you are already on probabtion being restricted i'm not going to bother with a infraction, banned

Rooster

21st August 2011, 09:27

So it's okay to suppress religious beliefs but it's not okay to suppress cultural views on sexuality and expression? :confused:

Sasha

21st August 2011, 09:37

contrary to homosexuality religion is a lifestyle choice ;)

(and no, as expressed numerous times i in fact don't approve of repression of personal religion)

Jimmie Higgins

21st August 2011, 10:15

Some people (foolishly) believe that homophobia is so intimately tied up with capitalism and/or class society that socialism will automatically ensure its total disappearance. We should be careful to avoid this trap when considering the relationship between capitalism and homophobia, assuming any such relationship exists...

I think this relationship definitely exists, in fact like with women's lib, in many ways capitalism (or at least industrial capitalism) freed people to live outside of productive peasant families and so people could (potentially) live with whomever they want and however they want. Bringing women into factories also in a way potentially freed women because they could earn a wage and be independent (within the context of wage slavery of course).

But capitalism also acts on a fetter on these developments because of the class nature of the system: while capitalism doesn't need families to directly produce like in peasant systems, the capitalists did realize they needed family units in order to ensure their workforce and to take care of social needs. So, men's wages increased a bit and women who were often the first industrial workers were pushed into the homes; child labor was abolished and now women took care of these duties. So at the same time that homosexuality is begining to be defined as a whole seperate kind of sexual being (rather than an act which is generally how it was seen before - often laws restricting buggery were both for hetero- and homosexual couples and it was grouped with other non-reproductive forms of sex) the whole idea of masculinity and femininity were being redefined to suit the capitalist status quo.

In this time women began to be seen as "innocent dopes" with some kind of inherent purity and singular urge to nurture children and care for their "breadwinner". Take away the capitalist mythology and bullshit and what do you get: men work, they have time for little else, so women are there to raise the next generation of workers while also taking care of their working husbands so they can show up to work the next day. So women were told to be quiet, nurturing and emotional, not logical. Men on the other hand were taught to have a stiff upper lip (i.e. don't complain if you have to work 10 hours), competitive, and unemotional. None of these traits are inherent as much as 99% of people in the US and Europe and Latin America today probably think they are - in fact, just read some Chaucer or Dante and see how much norms have changed. Women were once thought of as naturally lusty where as for most of industrial capitalism, women were thought to be practically non-sexual when it came to their own desires.

Anyway, within this context of trying to enforce a new code for families and sexual definitions, homosexuality began to be examined and defined by psychologists. Often it was thought of as a "third sex" either mentally or physically. So the idea of what men are inherently like, what women are like, etc are constructed "norms" and it's in this context that homosexuality is also defined and categorized. Since bosses and capitalists wanted to enforce behaviors of all kinds (tea-time was introduced at this time also as a way to promote increased work ethic and to demonize alcohol consumption) and so some were promoted and things that fell outside of behaviors useful for keeping industrial society going were moralized against. So prostitution (only in working class areas of course), alcohol use (again, in working class pubs and halls), homosexuality, were all "bad morals" and the cause of inequality and poverty and if you wanted to live a better life, the only way to go was through the Victorian family.

The punishments actually began to be enforced for the first time (previously when homosexuality was lumped in with adultery and anal and oral sex, the punishments were severe - even death - and so they were hardly enforced because all these acts were well-know secrets). Why? I think to penalize anyone for living outside these ridged family and gender constructions. Homosexuality among men was rampant in the settling of the west IMO just for lack of other options if nothing else. So if a bunch of guys bunked together in logging camps and if some were happy enough with same-sex relationships, the logical demand arises about who is going to do laundry for the camp, who will cook, etc if everyone is working all day. Well people might demand that the company provide them with an extra worker or two who does this sort of job... but if the idea that the "natural" way to live is to have a wife and have her unemployable for the most part so she does the cooking and cleaning, then the bosses will just say, "why should we do this for you, get a wife". This is a very crude example and it never literally went down this way, but if you've seen "Salt of the Earth", that's a good example of a "women's role" in company-towns.

At any rate, I probably made things less clear, but in short, the family, sexism, homophobia, and political repression (which is also very closely connected with homophobia and used by the US/USSR/and many other countries to blackmail activists into keeping their politics as well as sexuality in the closes) all go hand-in-hand. For that reason I think not only is it NOT a given that oppression such as this will automatically disappear when capitalist is taken on, but that capitalism can't even really be challenged by the working class unless the class begins to fight to end these divisions and oppressions of members of our class.

It's the 10% of the population who identify as homosexual or transgender that fact the DIRECT oppression and repression (definitely the worst of it), but all workers are effected by these norms that are designed to force workers to live in ways that help capitalism.

DarkPast

21st August 2011, 19:31

It is true, however, that pre-Christian Europe was perhaps more tolerant of homosexuality, inasmuch as in some/many cultures (both inside and outside Europe), only the receiving party would be considered 'effeminate' and thenceforth ridiculed, as the giver would still be considered to be fulfilling a 'masculine' sexual role. I am not immediately aware of ANY European culture that traditionally accepted playing the 'passive' role in homosexual intercourse without, at the very least, the loss of honour. But if that's your idea of a non-homophobic society, then...well...

Note that the loss of honour only happened if the person playing the "passive" role was a social superior to the one playing the "active" role. Also, the "passive" role was considered more appropriate to the younger party.

Basically, it was much more about power and control than about a disdain for gay people.

But yeah, you're right to say that we shouldn't look to ancient Europe as an example regarding LGBT issues.

NGNM85

22nd August 2011, 22:40

That would almost be convincing if it weren't for the fact that European homophobia predates the spread of Christianity...etc.

Good. Great. Highly informative. However; this has absolutely nothing to do with gay bashing, or DOMA. This has nothing to do with the pervasive fear and hatred of homosexuality we see in America, today. The pervasive fear and hatred of homosexuals in American culture comes straight out of the Bible. It comes from generations of Americans being raised to believe that homosexuality is an abomination. It's that simple. This also a perfect example of why confronting religious fanatcism is a worthy cause, in it's own right.

RadioRaheem84

22nd August 2011, 23:42

The pervasive fear and hatred of homosexuals in American culture comes straight out of the Bible.

The Bible is not the source of homophobia in the United States.

Being an atheist crusader will not bring the US closer to socialism.

hatzel

23rd August 2011, 00:52

Good. Great. Highly informative. However; this has absolutely nothing to do with gay bashing, or DOMA. This has nothing to do with the pervasive fear and hatred of homosexuality we see in America, today. The pervasive fear and hatred of homosexuals in American culture comes straight out of the Bible. It comes from generations of Americans being raised to believe that homosexuality is an abomination. It's that simple. This also a perfect example of why confronting religious fanatcism is a worthy cause, in it's own right.

As said, homophobia in American culture (if we are to consider contemporary American culture to be a mere 'extension' of European culture, which would perhaps be most sensible, though it's not necessarily as clear-cut as that) predates the adoption of Christianity, so it's rather tenuous to claim that the two are as intimately linked as you seem to want them to be. The fact that the prohibition on homosexual intercourse is elevated above, for example, the prohibition on usury, which (unlike much of the Old Testament law, such as those concerning diet) was not abandoned on Christianity's transition from Judaic sect to independent religion, is a clear sign that it is a socio-cultural prejudice, rather than one which is reliant on the prevalent religion. That is to say, the wholesale abandonment of Christianity in America today would do little if anything to change these engrained prejudices; the accentuation of homophobic elements of Christian doctrine comes from an external, independently existing prejudice prevalent in society, not only amongst Christians, but even amongst the irreligious.

Unless, of course, you feel like explaining why the example I picked, the charging of interest, is widely accepted amongst even the most fundamentalist Christians of our era (despite being roundly condemned in earlier centuries), whilst homosexuality is considered so repulsive. Why are other Biblical 'abominations' (as you used that word, though the nuances of this particular word would be the subject of a wholly different discussion), like eating crab, lying or making little Jesus statues for Church not considered particularly 'abominable,' if we are to believe that American homophobia is an exclusive result of Christian doctrine? How can the suggestion that American homophobia is a direct result of Christianity and Christianity alone be at all reconcilable with the salient reality that it is the already-existing homophobia which has historically, and continues to lead to the accentuation of anti-homosexual elements of Christian doctrine? And why is this opinion not universal, there being a number of LGBTQ-friendly denominations and churches?

The efforts of American homophobic Christians to find justification for their positions in their religion (an effort which is not reciprocated, insofar as their religion needn't influence their positions, as I've outlined above) do not point to the conclusion that the removal of this religion would eliminate the positions; justification would merely be sought elsewhere, if at all. Combatting homophobia comes through combatting homophobia, not through combatting some abstract boogieman which is drawn in to excuse it.

NGNM85

23rd August 2011, 07:39

As said, homophobia in American culture (if we are to consider contemporary American culture to be a mere 'extension' of European culture, which would perhaps be most sensible, though it's not necessarily as clear-cut as that) predates the adoption of Christianity, so it's rather tenuous to claim that the two are as intimately linked as you seem to want them to be.
No, you cited one, debatable, example of homophobia, or possible homophobia, in Medieval Europe. Like I said before; that has absolutely nothing to do with DOMA, or gay bashing, today, in the United States.

The fact that the prohibition on homosexual intercourse is elevated above, for example, the prohibition on usury, which (unlike much of the Old Testament law, such as those concerning diet) was not abandoned on Christianity's transition from Judaic sect to independent religion, is a clear sign that it is a socio-cultural prejudice, rather than one which is reliant on the prevalent religion. …Unless, of course, you feel like explaining why the example I picked, the charging of interest, is widely accepted amongst even the most fundamentalist Christians of our era (despite being roundly condemned in earlier centuries), whilst homosexuality is considered so repulsive. Why are other Biblical 'abominations' (as you used that word, though the nuances of this particular word would be the subject of a wholly different discussion), like eating crab, lying or making little Jesus statues for Church not considered particularly 'abominable,' if we are to believe that American homophobia is an exclusive result of Christian doctrine? How can the suggestion that American homophobia is a direct result of Christianity and Christianity alone be at all reconcilable with the salient reality that it is the already-existing homophobia which has historically, and continues to lead to the accentuation of anti-homosexual elements of Christian doctrine?
I annexed these together as they are part of the same argument. I don’t argue that the present interpretation of these passages is based on occasionally inaccurate translations, and is probably different in significant ways from what the authors of these texts intended. However, the translation of 1st Corinthians that is being drilled into the minds of millions of Americans, from when before they can even read, does explicitly state that homosexuality is the fast track to hell. Even if you could prove that homophobia is entirely inconsistent with the scripture, which is impossible given the numerous suggestive passages, not to mention the pathological demonization of sexuality that fills almost every corner of this book, and the fact that this book is also, fundamentally, incoherent and riddled with contradictions. This god, which, millions of Americans have been raised, since birth, to believe in, absolutely hates homosexuality. The scriptural accuracy or lack thereof, does not change the fact that this is a religious belief.

That is to say, the wholesale abandonment of Christianity in America today would do little if anything to change these engrained prejudices;
This is a radical claim, which, as far as I can see, is wholly without justification.

the accentuation of homophobic elements of Christian doctrine comes from an external, independently existing prejudice prevalent in society, not only amongst Christians, but even amongst the irreligious.
Really? Where are the Atheists fulminating against homosexuality? I’ve never met one. Where were the Atheists raising money to overturn Proposition 8? Where are the Atheists dragging homosexuals to death behind pickup trucks?

And why is this opinion not universal, there being a number of LGBTQ-friendly denominations and churches?
These are a minor, and statistically irrelevant exception. The overwhelming majority of Christian denominations teach that homosexuality is a crime against god, with more or less emphasis, including a minor organization known as the Roman Catholic Church.

The efforts of American homophobic Christians to find justification for their positions in their religion (an effort which is not reciprocated, insofar as their religion needn't influence their positions, as I've outlined above) do not point to the conclusion that the removal of this religion would eliminate the positions; justification would merely be sought elsewhere, if at all. Combatting homophobia comes through combatting homophobia, not through combatting some abstract boogieman which is drawn in to excuse it.
There is no evidence to support this conclusion, in fact, the available evidence contradicts it.

NGNM85

23rd August 2011, 07:54

The Bible is not the source of homophobia in the United States
Again; you can argue the accuracy of the interpretation. I think it’s pretty difficult to argue, decisively, that the Christian god does not condemn homosexuality. At best this comes down to interpretation. However; most Americans are getting the former interpretation. They are being told, in no uncertain terms, that homosexuality is evil, by their preacher, by their parents, etc. That’s the interpretation they are getting.

Being an atheist crusader will not bring the US closer to socialism.
I don’t see how the fact that over 60%, just shy of two-thirds of the population completely reject evolution, (Because they believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis,) is conducive to establishing a thriving Libertarian Socialist society.

Jimmie Higgins

23rd August 2011, 10:19

Really? Where are the Atheists fulminating against homosexuality? I’ve never met one. Where were the Atheists raising money to overturn Proposition 8? Where are the Atheists dragging homosexuals to death behind pickup trucks?

Enjoy the waky world of FreeRepublic:
THE SECULAR CASE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts)

And apparently atheist bigots are in positions of power in some places too.

So color me surprised when it comes to Australia's new Prime Minister (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65N00120100624), Julia Gillard. She's an atheist. She also lives with a man she's not married to. But she doesn't like gay marriage. In fact, she's made it crystal clear that as long as she's Prime Minister of Australia, gays and lesbians will never see the wedding aisle.

In the US most of Islamophobia takes on an evangelical flavor - "they are at odds with our Christian values" - yet France makes many of the same type of arguments but rather than Christian it's "secular values" that Islam will supposedly destroy. Evangelical Christinaity in the US is just a vehicle for these ideas, they come from the people who have power and use these church networks to promote their pro-corporate and pro-imperialist goals.

One final example is that two generations ago all these same types of churches frequently had anti-Semitic strains of thought and rhetoric and now when you watch the 500 Club or any of that stuff these right-wingers are 110% supporters of Zionism in Israel. They make religious arguments about it, but why the switch? It's because the US needs Israel in the region for US imperialism.

RGacky3

23rd August 2011, 10:21

Religion is just another tool to justify bigotry, without it they'll find something else.

RadioRaheem84

24th August 2011, 22:44

Again; you can argue the accuracy of the interpretation. I think it’s pretty difficult to argue, decisively, that the Christian god does not condemn homosexuality. At best this comes down to interpretation. However; most Americans are getting the former interpretation. They are being told, in no uncertain terms, that homosexuality is evil, by their preacher, by their parents, etc. That’s the interpretation they are getting.

Religion is not independent of the class analysis though. It's not some seperate independent motivator that changes things.

If it was the prime motivator for many struggles then we would all be fighting religion, not capitalism.

The religious extremism out there is a reaction to the social conditions created by imperialism and capitalism. Whether it's a pentacostal family that is hostile toward a gay couple, is wanting more Christians in government or an Islamic radical in Afghanistan throwing acid in a woman's face. These are horrible factors created under capitalism.

Focusing on religion as the main problem is like focusing on poverty or racism without addressing capitalism.

CommieTroll

24th August 2011, 23:01

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm

The Old Man from Scene 24

28th August 2011, 00:47

Seems that it was in human nature to be afraid of things that were not common. Maybe as evolution took course, we changed to be more open minded as a part of increasing intelligence.

RichardAWilson

28th August 2011, 04:15

Homosexuality is nothing new though. It was rather normal among the Ancient Greeks. It's biological and can be found in every species. The "fear of homosexuality" is an abnormality.

DinodudeEpic

28th August 2011, 05:06

RichardAWilson

28th August 2011, 05:19

I think it has something to do with how an economic system influences our culture and our worldview.

Jimmie Higgins

28th August 2011, 12:49

Why do we attribute non-economic aspects to economic systems?

Capitalism is just ownership of the means of production by a private individual over other private individuals, nothing more nothing less.

Slavery in the US South was also just an economic relationship. But in order for a tiny minority to keep that rotten system going, they had to create justifications for slavery and make it so that only certain people were slaves (i.e. black people) and then that that group of people "deserve" to be slaves (i.e. that they were inferior and needed white plantation owners support to be productive and survive). They also needed laws to keep slaves from being able to read, communicate with people outside the plantation, organizing together, etc. So a whole ideology about culture and human nature and the "correct order of society" were all created to maintain this economic system.

Capitalism, feudalism, ancient slave-societies, all employ(ed) these secondary measures in order to make it seem like that economic organization of society is the most reasonable and logical of all possible worlds.

DinodudeEpic

28th August 2011, 16:59

I don't actually see slave-society as an exclusive economic order like captialism or socialism. It is merely a sign of authoritarianism in the country's government and culture. It is always accompanied by feudalism or capitalism. I'm not justifying it, I'm just saying that almost all feudalistic societies had slavery, even widespread slavery, and there are many examples of capitalistic slave owning societies. Racist slavery was made because people actually thought that people of other races should be enslaved. Not capitalism, as racial slavery existed before the capitalist age.

Harsh treatment of slaves is part of slavery itself, not homophobia. Homophobia existed before the first states were founded. It was made from a fear of the different, and tribal religions. Not economic systems.

Homophobia is not some sort of capitalist con thing, as homophobia existed for thousands of years before the first capitalist ever existed. It is a sign of increasing authoritarianism in the area it is in.

Society's questions are not ONLY about economic systems. Just having a worker's controlled economy won't end all of the world's problems. (It would however be a lot of help.) This is where political liberalism (A more free and democratic government.) or anarchism (No state. Free and democratic voluntary association) comes in.

RichardAWilson

28th August 2011, 17:41

Racial slavery was economic in nature because it was much easier (cheaper) to enslave the blacks than other races.

Homophobia was around before capitalism. However, capitalism promoted homophobia by strengthening the hetero-macho attitude and worldview. At least that's how I see it as happening. I'm still researching this issue.

Bud Struggle

28th August 2011, 18:09

I don't see how there is a Capitalist bent to homophobia. FWIW it seems that it's the Capitalists that are leading the fight against homophobia. For the Capitalists ti's just another market to be exploited. As a matter of fact it has been the loosening up of restrictions on gays in the USA that has gotten places like Cuba to take similar measures.

And while there's a case to be made for sating Capitalism supported racism while slavery existed--it don't hold water after slavery was abolished. Blacks are a market like any other and you would think that Capitalism would try let Blacks make as much money in order to spend it for Capitalist goods and services.

I think we tend to make Economics the focal point of too many of todays problems--it is the cause of some, maybe most problems, but not all of them.

ComradeMan

28th August 2011, 18:11

I think we tend to make Economics the ocal point of too many of todays problems--it is the cause of some, maybe most problems, but not all of them.

It's called economism or economic reductionism and I agree with you, at least on that point.

RichardAWilson

28th August 2011, 18:19

Bud Struggle

28th August 2011, 18:36

With the blacks, such isn't the case.

Black neighborhoods (in areas like Detroit), which have been decimated by free trade, suffer with substandard housing, substandard schools, etc.

Children in those neighborhoods often grow up to become criminals, after which they're thrown in a prison where they're subjected to violence, rape and even more drugs.

The racial issue is almost entirely economic.

This breeds racism: I.e. Blacks are criminals, blacks are dumb, blacks choose to be poor, etc.

If that isn't economic, I don't know what is.

But it's not good Capitalism. Good Capitalism needs markets not sarving poor people. Capitalism (not Socialism or Religion) is the driving force behind the advancement of gays. Logically it should do the same for Blacks.

The Black problem is cultural--now Capitalism isn't in the business of making Black's lives better--but it has no direct interest in holding Blacks down.

RichardAWilson

28th August 2011, 20:07

True. However, it has held blacks down in practice. The same holds true for crime and pollution. In theory, capitalism should be opposed to crime and pollution. In practice, capitalism contributes to crime and pollution.

The nature of capitalism led to a massive emigration of blacks from the South to the Northern Industrial Cities during the Post-War Boom. The introduction of free trade has since ruined those industrial centers, leaving African Americans to suffer from substandard schools, infrastructure, economic conditions and housing.

There's the law of unintended consequences for you. Furthermore, to the degree the Welfare State has contributed to generational poverty, it has done so as an invention of capitalism to maintain social peace. Since capitalists have been unable to provide those men and women with jobs and opportunities, they've chosen to pacify them with welfare checks and food stamps.

There's no such thing as "Good Capitalism." There's capitalism and then there's reformed capitalism (I.e. Liberalism, Social-Democracy). America adheres to the Anglo-Saxon Model (along with Australia, Britain and Ireland). The Anglo-Saxon Model is much closer to "pure capitalism" than the European Social Market Model.

DinodudeEpic

28th August 2011, 21:10

I think the shutting down of industrial centers has more to do with America deindustrializing then anything else. It is pretty much all of the North that has been hit hard, especially in the rust belt area. (Since, the Northeast was the Industrial center of the USA.)

Of course, it basically started via movement of the population to suburbs and was accelerated via cheap labor. It is an economic problem caused by economic causes.

Note that I'm NOT saying that America is completely not racist. I'm saying that economic systems have little to do with political systems. (Laissez-faire capitalism is a feature of classical liberals who are in my opinion fellow leftists AND far-right populist groups in the style of the Tea Party.)

Bud Struggle

28th August 2011, 21:12

Yea. Capitalism as we know it in this world is imperfect just as Communism (of Stalin and his ilk) as practiced it in this world was imperfect. Even in the best systems it always has come down to the lowest common denominator.

And bad Capitalism has trumped bad Communism at every turn. Each and every time. That is why I despair for Communism.

DinodudeEpic

28th August 2011, 21:24

Well, communism requires democratic ownership of the means of production. The USSR had none of that. Capitalism just requires individual ownership of the means of production. Many countries had already practiced that. That's the difference.

ComradeMan

28th August 2011, 21:24

Bud Struggle

28th August 2011, 21:54

The love of money is the root of all evil. ;)

Indeed Comrade, indeed. On that the Word of God and the Word of Marx are in total agreement. :D

ComradeMan

28th August 2011, 21:56

Indeed Comrade, indeed. On that the Word of God and the Word of Marx are in total agreement. :D

But it's no great honour to be poor either....

Revolution starts with U

28th August 2011, 23:18

I have found that "love of money" is far more of a branch on the tree of supposed "evils" than its root.

RGacky3

29th August 2011, 08:18

But it's not good Capitalism. Good Capitalism needs markets not sarving poor people. Capitalism (not Socialism or Religion) is the driving force behind the advancement of gays. Logically it should do the same for Blacks.

Good Capitalism also needs cheap labor, so it needs starving poor people as well.

You don't see many tea-partiers or wallstreet guys going to gay pride rallies, you do see a lot of socialists though.

And bad Capitalism has trumped bad Communism at every turn. Each and every time. That is why I despair for Communism.

I don't know where there was bad communism .... The USSR was'nt socialist, niether was China. Bad capitalism is practiced exactly how capitalism is supposed to be, the USSR or China was'nt even close.

The Black problem is cultural--now Capitalism isn't in the business of making Black's lives better--but it has no direct interest in holding Blacks down.

Actually it does, its cheap labor, keeping unemployment high to keep the labor cost down.

Depleting markets is an externatily (at least in the short term), labor costs are not.

Jimmie Higgins

29th August 2011, 09:45

I don't actually see slave-society as an exclusive economic order like captialism or socialism. It is merely a sign of authoritarianism in the country's government and culture.You are talking about slavery as a form of labor/exploitation, not as an economic system but in the South it was the way the economic system ran and how the vast majority of wealth was produced (it's the same in ancient societies, but it was handled much differently for a variety of reasons).

If slavery was mearly a topping on an economic salad as you describe, then both northern and southern US would have developed in a relatively parallel way, instead regions that were more or less similar in attitudes and social relationships in the colonial era diverged greatly as the US developed and wage-labor dominated in the north more and more while slave-labor dominated in the South more and more. If wage-labor and slave-labor are just a more or less severe version of each-other and not connected to the economic system, then there would not have been a civil war, there would not have been the KKK in the South and Abolitionist Christians in the North.

There was slavery in the north for a long time, but it was not essential for the way things were produced and so the Northern rulers could do without it in the north as long as trade continued. In the South however, slavery was the main way that the ruling class had power and got wealth and so it essentially took a revolution which smashed the south and then, for a time, enfranchised the old ruling class of slave-owners and tried to replace them with modern capitalists (carpetbaggers).

Racist slavery was made because people actually thought that people of other races should be enslaved. Not capitalism, as racial slavery existed before the capitalist age.This is historically incorrect. Ancient slave societies had NO racial or ethnic component to their slavery despite having quite a bit of bias towards "barbarians" and people from other regions. Slavery was a "job" for people who were defeated in war and not a biologically based position: so people could be born free and sell their unwanted children as slaves, but people were not slaves just because they came from X group and that group were ALL slaves at all times. Slavery in Africa and the Middle East was the same - slaves were people captured in combat and they basically lived as household servants and sometimes just became part of the family. In fact, I've heard that the Latin word family means a house master, his family, and his slaves.

But the slave TRADE was not based on conquering people and taking some of their laborers as war-loot, it was a profit-driven trade enterprise. Already that distinguishes modern slavery from classical and feudal slavery: in fact the new European powers did not take slaves as a side effect of war, but started going to other regions solely to get slaves.

First Native Americans were used as slaves and they weren't that good so the colonial rulers began importing blacks stolen and sold into slavery in Africa as well as European debtors and prisoners who were probably mainly peasants disposessed from their lands and arrested for vagrancy or whatnot. So there is no way that racially based slavery was because people just thought Africans were inferior to Europeans... otherwise, they would have STARTED with black slaves rather than experimenting for a few hundred years. Then why would white indentured servants and black slaves have been treated more or less the same until the last hundred to two-hundred years of slavery?

Racially-based slavery comes out of the the need for labor and a need to justify why some people had to be slaves. Ancient slavery needed no such racial justification because they had caste systems and so if, under feudalism, you were a serf or slave or noble or whatnot, it was simply because God wanted you to be and it was all part of the great chain of being.

But then what happens when ideology and world-views switch to say that "God created all equally"? Well now you can't say, "you're a slave because you are" - justifications needed to be created and so racism was the major justification for slavery among other things (such as white man's burden and colonialism).

Harsh treatment of slaves is part of slavery itselfEven under modern slavery the treatment of slaves varied greatly - the point is being even a well treated slave is still being a slave.

Homophobia is not some sort of capitalist con thing, as homophobia existed for thousands of years before the first capitalist ever existed. It is a sign of increasing authoritarianism in the area it is in. This just doesn't hold up historically. First, while homosexual acts have been around since humans have been around, the concept of a separate sexual identity based on same-sex preference has only existed in a real way since the late 1800s.

Second, there were many many different cultures who treated homosexual acts and relationships in many different ways: from seeing it as the ideal relationship (many ancient societies) to seeing it as a practical form of birth-control, a practical way to keep large all-male armies happy, to demonetization and repression.

Society's questions are not ONLY about economic systems. Just having a worker's controlled economy won't end all of the world's problems. (It would however be a lot of help.) This is where political liberalism (A more free and democratic government.) or anarchism (No state. Free and democratic voluntary association) comes in.No doubt that revolution is not a magic wand and many people will hold onto prejudices along-after they have any material basis or support, but ask yourself, why are modern prejudices that are common different from ones a few decades ago and vastly different from ones in other kinds of economic systems? Why is modern anti-semitism based on "blood and race" whereas feudal anti-Judaism based only on religion and people who converted were not subject to pogroms and restrictions etc?

I'm not arguing that some capitalists sit around and make shit up and try and figure out ways to trick the whole working class - no ruling class ever really works that way - concocting social prejudices from scratch. But they do have a lot of means to project their ideas and their needs onto people - enough that it can convince black people themselves that they are inferior or gay people that they are diseased and need shock-treatment. These prejudices aren't inherent or "natural", they are a reflection of material history which means a reflection of past class struggles and the clashes between what the rulers want and what the ruled have demanded or fought for.

Jimmie Higgins

29th August 2011, 10:14

But it's not good Capitalism. Good Capitalism needs markets not sarving poor people. Capitalism (not Socialism or Religion) is the driving force behind the advancement of gays. Logically it should do the same for Blacks.Wrong. Capitalism allowed people to live away from family framing units and created space where people labored independently for wages and so could live with or fuck whoever they wanted (in theory).

But as I said earlier, this creates all sorts of problems for running society because people began demanding more services and childcare and liberals organized because there were gangs of street-kids etc. Some blamed immigrants, some blamed "lack of morals", some blamed the effects of Catholicism in eroding Anglo virtues... but ultimately it led to a lot of middle class reforms and the creation of a bourgeois moral code. So in the UK, afternoon beers were discouraged for laborers and tea-time came about. Public schools began to become more common so that Irish and German immigrants in the US could be taught "proper values" and wages went up and women were encouraged to become home-makers to serve the needs of their "breadwinning" men. In the US there were even alcohol proabitions that were only applied to German or Irish immigrants (i.e. a big chunck of laborers). This is the same time that homosexuality became defined and was defined as morally wrong like alcohol and prostitution... all things that lead away from being a "proper" and "prosperous" laborer.

In short all these social measures were to imprint values onto workers that would help bring stability and conformity that benefited smoothly running profit-driven societies.

The Black problem is cultural--nowNot saying that you are, but THIS argument is the modern argument of choice for racism (one that Obama sometimes echoes in fact). It's common and the "acceptable" version of "blacks are just an inferior race and that's why they get treated so bad".

Fuck culture, that has NOTHING to do with banks targeting blacks and latinos for bad loans, for racial profiling, for higher unemployment, for decades of politicians myths about black "welfare queens" (most people on welfare were white and rural) or about sociopathic black youth, etc. And what is "black culture" that is so universal... I think, living in Oakland, that it's idiotic to say "black culture" when there are dozens of different ways that people identify themselves. Was it "black culture" that led the jive-talking hip-hop fashion wearing Prof. Gates to be arrested in his home... or was it a perception by the cop based on Gate's race that maybe he didn't actually belong to that yuppie neighborhood?

Blaming black culture for systemic racism that crosses class and cultural lines among black people is idiotic and simply victim-blaming. It's like saying that dancing with your arms at your sides is the reason that Irish people in 1880 faced "no Irish need apply" signs when looking for work.

Capitalism isn't in the business of making Black's lives better--but it has no direct interest in holding Blacks down.Sure it does, it has an interest in keeping us all down, and playable, and obedient to our rulers and feeling helpless to change things.

DinodudeEpic

29th August 2011, 16:51

Xenophobia and ethnocentrism are really common in ancient and medieval times. Racism based on the color of someone's skin was mostly formed when the feudal Spainish kicked the Moors out of the Peninsula, and when those very Spainish start to explore the world. The Crusades also have a parallel version of racism. So, countries would generally take slaves in the past for ethnic reasons during conquest.

The thing is most european countries just aren't in contact with the people who will be parts of some sort of 'race' in the future. Only when European explorers start to actually see the people who would be the 'other race' is racism is going to form.

Racism has existed for a long time, just not based on 'whites', 'blacks', or such. But, based on 'Franks', 'Saracens', 'Germans', 'Venetians', and basically ethnicities. Sort of like how Americans hated German and Italian immigrants. Please don't justify feudalism as somehow better then capitalism. Especially, since Fascism did take a part of their economic ideology from feudalism. And, racist reactionaries who want to return to feudalism existed throughout the 19th century. And, that the colonial times was actually mostly feudalistic in terms of economics, and yet there was still racism.

Racial profiling, discrimination against blacks, and such are caused by an authoritarian right-wing attitude towards race.

Various cultures (not all though) hated homosexuals for being 'different' or 'wimpy'. It's just that society was so closed back then that all the homosexuals would hide in the closet.

Jimmie Higgins

29th August 2011, 18:10

I just don't think that's backed up in history. Europeans had contact with people from other regions for much longer than there's been a concept of race like we know it today. In fact, many of the early accounts of Native Americans glorified them as living like people in Eden. Europeans before colonialism were in awe of Arab science and goods, lusted after Asian and South Asian riches. It was only much later that suddenly these groups were right for slavery or conquest because they were inferior and didn't know how to run their societies. Sure before the modern era they had xenophobia and lots of other kinds of oppression in past societies of all parts of the world, the point is that racism today and many of the FORMS that oppression take are relatively recent and IMO reflections of the economic organization of society (just as antiquated forms of prejudice and oppression were connected to past ways that society was organized).

When you have a society divided into castes, then people's position needs no special justification, it's simply "divine will" most often. Or, as in ancient societies, it was simply "might makes right" and so if X city-state beat you, well then they get the spoils and you have to grow their olives for them. Not that they weren't brutal - often worse than today... what does it matter to the victim if they are being lynched by the KKK or killed in an anti-Jewish pogrom 600 years ago?

But for trying to understand where this kind of thing comes from and how it operates and hopefully how to smash it, I think it does matter to know the difference. In the middle ages it wasn't race that was the main justification for crusades, it was God and religion - Constantinople was not attacked on racial justifications, it wouldn't have made any sense to them... they were "driving out the heathens".

Spain is a good example because they were granted the right to murder Native Americans and take their lands why... because of God. But when they moves out of the taking land and looking for loot phase and needed laborers, first they set up missions to "convert" the "heathens" over to the church (but really to work). But then when natives provided too weak a labor supply (because they could easily run away and were dying in large numbers due to disease) labor was imported (poor white debtors and prisoners and African slaves). Religion as the justification couldn't be used for a stable labor force which were soon converted and so more and more of a racial justification was created, but it took a while. If racism of Europeans was the reason for slavery, then it is hard to explain all the inter-racial relationships that went on in the early period or why the North American colonies, when installing their racial codes, had to create laws to prevent black slaves and white servants from socializing or marrying.

All of these historical developments revolve around labor and MODERN racism is the result of the contradictions of capitalist ideology: labor needs to be controlled at certain times when there are too few laborers (like in colonies), yet this is a system of "free-labor" where people are not born into laboring castes. So how, then is a unfree-labor force reconciled in this kind of society... well some men must be created more equal than others.

And it's not just the right-wing that is the cause of this, liberals are often complicit in racism and even Obama blames black people for their own poverty by saying that education inequality is due to black dads watching too much TV (and not the result of all the cuts to budgets and fetters on tax revenue in urban cities etc).

ComradeMan

29th August 2011, 20:15

Spain is a good example because they were granted the right to murder Native Americans and take their lands why... because of God.

Not really true, the Jesuits ended up being expelled for protecting the natives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuit_Reductions

Bud Struggle

30th August 2011, 00:03

Wrong. Capitalism allowed people to live away from family framing units and created space where people labored independently for wages and so could live with or fuck whoever they wanted (in theory). Gays pere persecuted just as vigorously by Fuedal and Communist rulers. The USA and Europe relaxed laws against Homosexuals before Cuba ever did. The proto-Communist countries of the past were very homophobic. (Not always, but most of the time. I wonder if Socialists in the USA and Europe haven't picked up their pro gay stance from their Liberal and Libertarian brothers.

Not saying that you are, but THIS argument is the modern argument of choice for racism (one that Obama sometimes echoes in fact). It's common and the "acceptable" version of "blacks are just an inferior race and that's why they get treated so bad". I didn't mean to say that there was anything wrong with Black culture but rather it is the culture of America to look down on Blacks as being inferior. There's a major difference there. I don't believe that business has any interest in keeping Blacks down--it's American culture that does so.

Fuck culture, that has NOTHING to do with banks targeting blacks and latinos for bad loans, That was the US government forcing banks to make loans in an attempt at affirmative action. The banks (to their suprise) found that the Blacks were paying off those loans--and decided to then let anyone who couldn't afford a loan get one. And that's why the market failed.

for racial profiling, for higher unemployment, for decades of politicians myths about black "welfare queens" (most people on welfare were white and rural) or about sociopathic black youth, etc. And what is "black culture" that is so universal... I think, living in Oakland, that it's idiotic to say "black culture" when there are dozens of different ways that people identify themselves. Was it "black culture" that led the jive-talking hip-hop fashion wearing Prof. Gates to be arrested in his home... or was it a perception by the cop based on Gate's race that maybe he didn't actually belong to that yuppie neighborhood? You are railing against something I didn't say--or intend. I agree with you for the most part here.

Islamosocialist

30th August 2011, 04:47

I don't think capitalism enforces homophobia. I think it's the result of patriarchal cultures.

In the Balkans, for example, we have very patriarchal cultures--and we have a lot of problems with homophobia. Zagreb is really the only city that has managed a safe, decent pride parade. It was attacked in Belgrade by hooligans, it was condemned in Sarajevo by Wahabbis. It's crazy.

And we have a socialist background--we were part of a socialist country until 1992.

It's shameful, but it's not from capitalism. It's from... honestly I think it's fear. Our culture is so much touching. Men hug, walk with their arms around each other's shoulders, kiss cheeks, etc. I think that's why they're so paranoid about gay men.

And women... they just don't understand. A man they can't use their sexuality to control? That's... it might as well be some animal, it's useless to them and, not only that, threatening.

But it is improving. Homosexuality is no longer illegal, for example. And the last poll I read had just over 80% opposed to homosexuality, which is a significant drop from what they were reporting years ago. So hopefully it will get better and better and we can... catch up.

Jimmie Higgins

30th August 2011, 08:44

Gays pere persecuted just as vigorously by Fuedal and Communist rulers.Communist, yes - Feudal, well homosexual acts were just as heterosexual sodomy and oral sex and masturbation were. But again, while awful and repressive, it was not the same as modern homophobia because people weren't repressed for being who they were, but for doing what they did... so in modern homophobia, just being effeminate and male is enough to be bashed, in feudalism, only going to a (same-sex) prostitute or meet-up place was repressed.

The USA and Europe relaxed laws against Homosexuals before Cuba ever did.Homophobia is terrible in Cuba, but you are comparing a country that has repressed homosexuals since the guilded age to a country that didn't even exist until a half century ago. The Russian Revolution did away with laws against sexual minorities almost immediately (and before women in the US had the vote!) and the US, on the other hand is still debating DOMA and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". Of course the USSR beurocracy reversed this years latter when they fully dominated the society (but that's a whole other story as you know from posting on this site), but the point is that the worker's revolution did away with this restrictions in weeks and months when the US didn't confront these issues until a little over fifty years later. In addition, it took riots of gays and lesbians and drag-queens in which the cops got their butts kicked before US politicians were forced to even acknowledge the notion of LGBT people wanting rights!

The proton-Communist countries of the past were very homophobic. (Not always, but most of the time. I wonder if Socialists in the USA and Europe haven't picked up their pro gay stance from their Liberal and Libertarian brothers.No, in fact the first organized gay rights circles were started by ex-CPers (though the CP by that time probably did slavishly adopt whatever homophobic line from Moscow was around at that time). But on the whole, it was the LGBT activists themselves who "taught" Radicals of all kinds in the US about having a pro-LGBT stance. Liberals, meanwhile, supported great emancipators like Bill Clinton who passed the Defense of Marriage Act and created "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

I didn't mean to say that there was anything wrong with Black culture but rather it is the culture of America to look down on Blacks as being inferior. There's a major difference there. I don't believe that business has any interest in keeping Blacks down--it's American culture that does so.OK, I misunderstood. Like I said, I wasn't calling you a racist, I just thought you were using a very common line (for both liberals and conservatives) in the US.

Yes, American culture is anti-black. There is profiling and gentrification and double-standards and all that's just the tip of the ice-berg. But where do these cultural prejudices come from? Is it "natural" and inherent from something, many people say Christianity or just white people themselves. But I think these common ideas very clearly come from the top of society. Gentrifies have a direct interest in ruining poor and low-income urban areas; white flight in the 1970s wasn't just people moving spontaneously, it was again developers creating affordable homes for better-off workers outside of urban areas and then politicians creating tax enclaves which attracted those developers and the effect was a draining of tax money form schools and infrastructure in cities. Add the way that government agencies advised banks to steer home-loans in a segregated way in the 1970s and then banks targeting low income people and latinos and blacks for sub-prime loans a generation later and again, poor people suffer so the banks or developers can keep their profits flowing. On top of all of this is the prison and police system which work with local media (as with the military, newspapers can only get "access" if they maintain the party line more or less) to sensationalize certain kinds of crime. Then politicians working to gut services also play into this and blame poor people for the terrible state of schools or public transportation at the same time that they are eliminating janitors and teacher positions, increasing class sizes, etc.

All of the above is a crude generalization of how things work - each one of these examples could be a post by itself - my point is only that these ideas don't just come from nowhere or whatnot, they change and are emphasized or pushed back depending on what the powerful people in society are trying to accomplish and if they are met with resistance from below or not.

RGacky3

30th August 2011, 11:15

That was the US government forcing banks to make loans in an attempt at affirmative action. The banks (to their suprise) found that the Blacks were paying off those loans--and decided to then let anyone who couldn't afford a loan get one. And that's why the market failed.

Historically thats bullshit, show me the law forcing banks to lend to black people. Payday loan operations and scams, and the large mortgage scams were specifically aimed at latino or black communities who they figured they could get away with screwing with no backlash, and they figured no one would stand up for them, guess what they made a LOT of money doing it (no government needs to FORCE companies to make tons of profit).

There's a major difference there. I don't believe that business has any interest in keeping Blacks down--it's American culture that does so.

Historically it was a tactic to split the labor movement, amung other things. American culture does'nt from in a bubble, you have to take material circumstances into play.

Bud Struggle

30th August 2011, 11:21

Historically thats bullshit, show me the law forcing banks to lend to black people. Payday loan operations and scams, and the large mortgage scams were specifically aimed at latino or black communities who they figured they could get away with screwing with no backlash, and they figured no one would stand up for them, guess what they made a LOT of money doing it (no government needs to FORCE companies to make tons of profit).

There was no law to force banks to lend to Blacks specifically it was done geographically. It was an attempt by the Federal governemnt to get Blacks out of historic ghettos and into suburban communities.

On the other hand no one forced people to take mortages they couldn't afford. Ultimately we don't live in a nanny state and people have to know what their limits are.

RGacky3

30th August 2011, 11:24

It was an attempt by the Federal governemnt to get Blacks out of historic ghettos and into suburban communities.

What legislation ....

On the other hand no one forced people to take mortages they couldn't afford. Ultimately we don't live in a nanny state and people have to know what their limits are.

No state forces people to take mortages.

Bud Struggle

30th August 2011, 11:52

]What legislation .... Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act

No state forces people to take mortages. It's not what I said--now is it? :)

RGacky3

30th August 2011, 11:57

Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act

All that did was ban discrimination, was not affermative action AT ALL, unless you think not allowing discrimination based on color to be affermative actoin.

It's not what I said--now is it? http://www.revleft.com/vb/homophobia-t160010/revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

Yes, but my point is, there is a reason you had a housing crash in the US and not other countries and its not because Americans are some how more irresponsible than other people, (i.e. they just love taking loans they cannot afford).

The point is that the state WAS NOT trying to get black people into the suburbs, nor were they forcing banks to lend to black people.

Bud Struggle

30th August 2011, 12:05

All that did was ban discrimination, was not affermative action AT ALL, unless you think not allowing discrimination based on color to be affermative actoin.

Yes, but my point is, there is a reason you had a housing crash in the US and not other countries and its not because Americans are some how more irresponsible than other people, (i.e. they just love taking loans they cannot afford).

The point is that the state WAS NOT trying to get black people into the suburbs, nor were they forcing banks to lend to black people.

There was no real discrimination. Blacks couldn't afford moorages--for the most part. In order for the banks to follow the law and lend to them they had to lower the lending requirements in certain areas. The banks were very cautions at first, but the advent of the mortage securitization it caution didn't matter so much. Red lining protected poor people as much or more than it protected banks.

There are plenty of Liberals in government that are more than happy to change business practices to effect social change. This kind of stuff isn't the worl of Conservatives or Socialists.

RGacky3

30th August 2011, 12:15

. In order for the banks to follow the law and lend to them they had to lower the lending requirements in certain areas.

No thats bullshit, there was plenty of discrimination, they lowered lending requirements (in the late 90s and early 2000s NOT the 1960s when these laws were passed), because mortgages were being packaged and sold off into credit default swaps and then bet on using CDOs and other derivatives, and those instruments were selling so fast they needed more mortgages to back the bets and the quality was less important to the banks because the real value of the mortgage was impossible to see in a CDS or a CDO.

There is no requirement to lend to black people or poor people in those laws, it just bans discrimination, not based on money or ability to pay, but on race.

The banks were very cautions at first, but the advent of the mortage securitization it caution didn't matter so much.

EXACTLY, it had nothing to do with the law, it was profit,

Red lining protected poor people as much or more than it protected banks.

Obviously it did'nt protect anyone, those 2 laws you talked about was not for poor people, they were for minorities.

There are plenty of Liberals in government that are more than happy to change business practices to effect social change. This kind of stuff isn't the worl of Conservatives or Socialists.

Really? Where are they .... either way, thats not what happened. Nor can you argue that the government was trying to give blacks an advantage forcing banks to lend to them, or force them to get into the suburbs.

Bud Struggle

30th August 2011, 12:27

No thats bullshit, there was plenty of discrimination, they lowered lending requirements (in the late 90s and early 2000s NOT the 1960s when these laws were passed), because mortgages were being packaged and sold off into credit default swaps and then bet on using CDOs and other derivatives, and those instruments were selling so fast they needed more mortgages to back the bets and the quality was less important to the banks because the real value of the mortgage was impossible to see in a CDS or a CDO.

There is no requirement to lend to black people or poor people in those laws, it just bans discrimination, not based on money or ability to pay, but on race.

But it was based on race--it was the Blacks that were poor. The Law forbade Red Lining where banks would not lend to people in certain areas--almost all Black and Hispanic. The banks didn't want bad loans.

EXACTLY, it had nothing to do with the law, it was profit, It had to do with social engineering. It began with government etting involved with business decisions and then business finding a way to profit (as it always does) from the government's rules. That's why the government shouldn't get involved in business practices--at least in the US, what people do in the rest of the world is their business.

Obviously it did'nt protect anyone, those 2 laws you talked about was not for poor people, they were for minorities. Who do you think poor people are in America?

Really? Where are they .... either way, thats not what happened. Nor can you argue that the government was trying to give blacks an advantage forcing banks to lend to them, or force them to get into the suburbs. You don't think that all the social legislation from the 60s to the 90s wasn't the work of Liberals in government?

RGacky3

30th August 2011, 12:34

But it was based on race--it was the Blacks that were poor. The Law forbade Red Lining where banks would not lend to people in certain areas--almost all Black and Hispanic. The banks didn't want bad loans.

.... Yes .... But it did'nt force banks to lent to people that did not meet expectations, nor did it force them to change the expectations or standards.

It had to do with social engineering. It began with government etting involved with business decisions and then business finding a way to profit (as it always does) from the government's rules. That's why the government shouldn't get involved in business practices--at least in the US, what people do in the rest of the world is their business.

No it did not, and I just, unless you think banning racial discrimination is social-engineering.

So you are FOR allowing racial discrimination in buisiness?

What works economically in the US works in the world, the US is not a magical special country that works under different econmic laws.

The securitization of mortgages and the subsequent lending to people that could not afford it and targeting people who could'nt fight back HAD NOTHING TO DO with the anti-discrimination laws of the 1960s, there is NO connection whatsoever.

Who do you think poor people are in America?

Proporitonately more minorities, eitherway, it was banning racial discrimination not economic discrimination (which is necessary for any buisiness).

Meaning proportionately of coarse they will lend to less minorities ANYWAY because they are poor, but if a black person has the economic ability to pay back a loan using the same standards a bank uses for white people, the bank cannot say no just because he is black, THAT was the law.

You don't think that all the social legislation from the 60s to the 90s wasn't the work of Liberals in government?

The social legislation in the 60s was the work of tons and tons of grass roots organizing nad protests and movements, and the legislation was passed by both republicans and democrats.

Bud Struggle

30th August 2011, 12:51

.... Yes .... But it did'nt force banks to lent to people that did not meet expectations, nor did it force them to change the expectations or standards. The legislation was a social engineering structure to move Blacks out of the ghettos and into the suburbs so that America would become integrated.

Believe it or not America is VASTLY segragated to this day. Liberals (and myself) don't particularly like this arangement.

No it did not, and I just, unless you think banning racial discrimination is social-engineering. No using business to solve social problems is social engineering.

So you are FOR allowing racial discrimination in buisiness? I'm against government using business to solve the problems of society.

What works economically in the US works in the world, the US is not a magical special country that works under different econmic laws. People should be allowed to make their own laws as they wish anywhere around the world. If some people are happy with Capitalsim--fine. Others want Socialsim--let they have it.

The securitization of mortgages and the subsequent lending to people that could not afford it and targeting people who could'nt fight back HAD NOTHING TO DO with the anti-discrimination laws of the 1960s, there is NO connection whatsoever. That's something that came later (reverse red lining). It was one of the problems caused as a result of the government trying to change the woes of society by passing laws on how business should operate.

Proporitonately more minorities, eitherway, it was banning racial discrimination not economic discrimination (which is necessary for any buisiness).

Meaning proportionately of coarse they will lend to less minorities ANYWAY because they are poor, but if a black person has the economic ability to pay back a loan using the same standards a bank uses for white people, the bank cannot say no just because he is black, THAT was the law. But the law also said you can't not lend to people that live in certain areas. Thet's where the social engineering came in. People living in ghettos got mortages (especially through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that people outside the gheto didn't get.

The social legislation in the 60s was the work of tons and tons of grass roots organizing nad protests and movements, and the legislation was passed by both republicans and democrats. And there may have been one of two Socialist in there too.

RGacky3

30th August 2011, 13:03

The legislation was a social engineering structure to move Blacks out of the ghettos and into the suburbs so that America would become integrated.

Believe it or not America is VASTLY segragated to this day. Liberals (and myself) don't particularly like this arangement.

How was it social engineering, how was it trying to move blacks out of the ghettoes into the suburbs?

It was anti-discrimination law, do you believe that anti-discrimination is social-engineering?

No using business to solve social problems is social engineering.

Well all those laws did was ban discrimination based on race.

I'm against government using business to solve the problems of society.

Ok fine, but again, all it did was ban racial discrimination, are you against banning racial riscrimination?

People should be allowed to make their own laws as they wish anywhere around the world. If some people are happy with Capitalsim--fine. Others want Socialsim--let they have it.

Ok, but as I said, economics works the same way everywhere.

That's something that came later (reverse red lining). It was one of the problems caused as a result of the government trying to change the woes of society by passing laws on how business should operate.

Redlining still happens all the time, there are tons of loopholes.

Again those 2 laws you mentioned ONLY BANNED RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.

The problem had nothing to do with the government, it was made by the free market finding and opportunity based on the securitization of mortages and and a powerless base to exploit.

But the law also said you can't not lend to people that live in certain areas. Thet's where the social engineering came in. People living in ghettos got mortages (especially through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that people outside the gheto didn't get.

yes you cannot discriminate based on where you live, BUT YOU CAN DISCRIMINATE BASED ON income, wealth, ability to pay and so on.

Poor people were not getting easy credit and fast mortages before securitization of mortages.

Fannie and Freddie were privatized btw, and were just a tiny tiny part of the problem.

Banks were not forced to loan to poor people, they chose to, NO LEGISLATION forced ANYONE to lend to poor people, it took away racial discriminaiton.

Not giving a poor unemployed black person a loan because hes poor and unemployed is not discrimination under the law.

If your theory was correct these mass mortages to poor people would have been happening since the late 1960s, but they ONLY happened after CDOs and CDFs got huge.

RGacky3

30th August 2011, 13:03

Bud, your gonna lose in this one, give it up.

Jimmie Higgins

30th August 2011, 13:07

There was no law to force banks to lend to Blacks specifically it was done geographically. It was an attempt by the Federal governemnt to get Blacks out of historic ghettos and into suburban communities.

Here read a CNN report on Sub-Prime discrimination written way back in 2002:

Subprime lenders target minorities
Study finds African-American, Hispanics pay higher loan rates than whites with similar incomes (http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/01/pf/banking/subprime/)
(http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/01/pf/banking/subprime/)

lower-income African-Americans receive 2.4 times as many subprime loans as lower-income whites, while upper-income African-Americans receive 3 times as many subprime loans as do whites with comparable incomes. At the same time, lower-income Hispanics receive 1.4 times as many subprime loans as do lower-income whites, while upper-income Hispanics receive 2.2 times as many.

Predatory lending occurs when banks and mortgage providers target individuals with a lot of built up equity in their homes, talk them into refinancing their loan and then saddle them higher interest rates and higher monthly bills. When they default on the loan, the banks collect the equity.
Yeah, for a while they can collect that equity.

On the other hand no one forced people to take mortages they couldn't afford.No, but the profit motive pushed banks to favor these kinds of arrangements - it was great for them in the short-term, bad for the capitalist economy in the long run, but if any single bank wasn't getting in on the action then they would have been out-competed and so the market causes these kinds kamikaze schemes. But for workers and the poor, boom/bust, it doesn't matter, as this article from 6 years before the housing bubble burst shows, we get screwed either way.

RGacky3

30th August 2011, 13:12

BTW, if you think those 2 laws ended credit or mortage discrimination or redlining significantly your dreaming, the banks got TONS of loopholes in those laws.

Bud Struggle

30th August 2011, 13:33

Here read a CNN report on Sub-Prime discrimination written way back in 2002:

Subprime lenders target minorities
Study finds African-American, Hispanics pay higher loan rates than whites with similar incomes (http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/01/pf/banking/subprime/)
(http://money.cnn.com/2002/05/01/pf/banking/subprime/)

Yeah, for a while they can collect that equity.

No, but the profit motive pushed banks to favor these kinds of arrangements - it was great for them in the short-term, bad for the capitalist economy in the long run, but if any single bank wasn't getting in on the action then they would have been out-competed and so the market causes these kinds kamikaze schemes. But for workers and the poor, boom/bust, it doesn't matter, as this article from 6 years before the housing bubble burst shows, we get screwed either way.

I agree there. I'm not saying that banks can't make money anyway the law is written.

Bud Struggle

30th August 2011, 13:47

How was it social engineering, how was it trying to move blacks out of the ghettoes into the suburbs?

It was anti-discrimination law, do you believe that anti-discrimination is social-engineering?

Well all those laws did was ban discrimination based on race. But the law as interpreted by the courts outlawed banks from not giving out mortages in certain areas. And guess who lived in those areas? That's where subprime mortages first started. It's wasn't an idea of the banks--it was the government in its social engineering mode that started it all.

Ok, but as I said, economics works the same way everywhere. Different people like different economic systems. People should be allowed to choose what system works best for them. For that matter they should be allowed to choose to move to a place where a different economic system suites them. I have no problem with that.

Redlining still happens all the time, there are tons of loopholes.

Again those 2 laws you mentioned ONLY BANNED RACIAL DISCRIMINATION.

The problem had nothing to do with the government, it was made by the free market finding and opportunity based on the securitization of mortages and and a powerless base to exploit. Look at how those laws were used by the courts to enforce social engineering in the same way that the courts used laws to inforce school desegregation. There were no laws passed that said kids had to be bussed--but the courts mandated to be fair schools should have a particular mix of students. That was social engineering.

yes you cannot discriminate based on where you live, BUT YOU CAN DISCRIMINATE BASED ON income, wealth, ability to pay and so on.

Poor people were not getting easy credit and fast mortages before securitization of mortages. Securitization provided a means for the banks to make loans to blacks. It shared the risk pool.

Banks were not forced to loan to poor people, they chose to, NO LEGISLATION forced ANYONE to lend to poor people, it took away racial discriminaiton.The banks have charters--they have officers that could go to jail--they were put in a situation that if they didn't come up with a subprime loan structure that would lend get loans to blacks they would be in trouble with the courts. Good business me that the bankers are--they found a way to make money from it--but it wasn't the banks idea to begin with.

If your theory was correct these mass mortages to poor people would have been happening since the late 1960s, but they ONLY happened after CDOs and CDFs got huge. The courts only got involved after the bussing adventure proved to be a failure.

ComradeMan

30th August 2011, 13:57

I think we are wandering off topic here....

Homophobia has and has not existed in various times and places, cultural epochs if you like due to a number of reasons.

Whatever. I was still shocked when I saw people with slogans saying "God hates fags" and after watching a Michael Moore documentary where he went somewhere in the US with gay people to confront bigots I was left feeling very depressed.

Is it true that there are still about 20 states where being gay could get you arrested? That's shocking. Not to mention the level of sheer, unadulterated hatred that I saw in those people and also the harrowing story of that poor student who was beaten up and killed and left on barbed wire!

I wonder why these people target homosexuals so much. Surely God hates adulterers, thieves, murderers, coveters and sabbath breakers along with idolators and disrespectful children.... if we are to throw out ideas of not being judgemental and casting stones and also forgiveness (something these people seem to ignore) but anyway.... why is it that they target gay people so much?

RGacky3

30th August 2011, 14:02

But the law as interpreted by the courts outlawed banks from not giving out mortages in certain areas. And guess who lived in those areas? That's where subprime mortages first started. It's wasn't an idea of the banks--it was the government in its social engineering mode that started it all.

No it outlawed redlining, meaning you had to treat lenders on an individual basis, they could absolutely not lend to people in areas if no one there mett the requirements accepted by the bank.

Look at how those laws were used by the courts to enforce social engineering in the same way that the courts used laws to inforce school desegregation. There were no laws passed that said kids had to be bussed--but the courts mandated to be fair schools should have a particular mix of students. That was social engineering.

Well show me how it affected the housing market or credit market ... The bussing thing was a totally different thing.

Show me how it was social engineering, so far you have not, where did the courts force banks to lend to anyone they normally would not (other than racial discrimination)? anti-Redlining only forced banks to consider loans from all areas and accept them or not accept them on the same criteria one would in other areas.

Securitization provided a means for the banks to make loans to blacks. It shared the risk pool.

The loans only started going to poor people when they were desperate for more, its not like they were trying to lend to poor people and were looking for a way to do that, securitization did much more than share the risk, it defered it and changed the incentive structure.

The banks have charters--they have officers that could go to jail--they were put in a situation that if they didn't come up with a subprime loan structure that would lend get loans to blacks they would be in trouble with the courts.

That is utter bullshit, total and utter bullshit, not once was a bank ever threatened or ever in trouble for not giving enough loans to black people.

The subprime loan structure came 100% from institutional banks wanting to buy more and more loans, its supply and demand the demand went sky high.

There was NO federal mandate to do that nor was any banker threatened ever by the state for not giving enough loans to black people.

Total and shameless bullshit.

The courts only got involved after the bussing adventure proved to be a failure.

Nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Sub-primes were the direct result of securitization and had NOTHING to do with civil rights law. There is no evidence supporting your claim, and all the evidence supporting mine, including cuasual, timing, profit and so on.