This is not the country I thought I grew up in, It wasn't then, either, but the narrative was much smoother - or perhaps I was just younger and more naive.
More and more, as I hear "This is not who we are", and "We are better than this", my brain starts to itch. Not just because of the dissonance it creates, but because it's impossible to solve a problem unless you are willing to see just what the problem is you're trying to solve.
It is useful, nay, necessary, to have a dream of what you wish to become, in order to measure whether what you are doing is bringing you toward it. It is worse than useless, indeed counterproductive, to warp your vision of the present away from the actuality.
It would have been so much simpler if, in writing our Declaration of Independence, a less lofty state of Mankind could have been described. I would have much less trouble if the new nation could have stated a determination to reduce the inequality among its people. If there is any single
less evident statement than "all men are created equal", either then or now, I don't want to know about it.
If you want a simple test of our tendency to inequality, even as progressives, read any dozen articles on this site about Republicans, and watch for the basic message that says "we are better than they are".
Status is important to almost everyone (I'm not sure there are exceptions, but I'm willing to concede the possibility). Within any group, or community, with time and energy to spare, a huge amount of effort goes into competition for status. We call it playing games, and gaming the system, and it goes on incessantly, with every possible topic or viewpoint being seen as a possible basis for scoring points in the overall game.
We are not comfortable unless we hold acceptable status within whatever community we see ourselves as members of. This in no way affects our attempts to gain additional status, in that community or others. Status markers can vary widely across groups, and even the acceptance or rejection of what markers count is made a matter of status. There's nothing like a good argument over why having more money doesn't mean you're better to demonstrate that in all its glory.
Perhaps the whole problem with feminism and black justice with regard to this phenomenon is that there's no time for individual status battles unless you can somehow cut down the competition to a manageable level, so a large part of the preparation for the competition consists of separating the majority of potential opponents out of the competition entirely, through one broad brushstroke or another. By this standard, there might not be actual prejudice against women or blacks on a given person's part, but only the unconscious expectation that they don't belong to the community within which that person is expected to compete for status, and thus are of no importance in that regard. I grant you, the effect is prejudice, but the intent is only efficiency in use of time and energy.
Thanks to James Wells, for his excellent diary, which sparked much of this, and his introduction to the concept of kyriarchy, which I am still trying to integrate.
Also to letitiamcq, whose diary on gaming for the 1% tickled some old thoughts on gaming and status generally.