Sundown Towns and Trump's America

by Doctor Science

Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism by historian James Loewen is one of the two books I think are most necessary to understand the 2016 election results (the other, as I've said before, is Sady Doyle's Trainwreck: The Women We Love to Hate, Mock, and Fear... and Why). It's necessary because Trump's America is Sundown America: areas that are white because everyone else[1] has been excluded. They've been cleansed, you might say.

Strictly speaking, "Sundown Towns" were towns where signs were posted warning African-Americans to leave by sundown. "When I began this research," Loewen says on his Sundown Towns website, "I expected to find about 10 sundown towns in Illinois (my home state) and perhaps 50 across the country. Instead, I have found about 507 in Illinois and thousands across the United States."

This is one of the few documented sundown town signs that did *not* use "the N-word". It may be from Connecticut.

Not all of these towns had warning signs: Loewen defines a Sundown Town as "any organized jurisdiction that for decades kept African-Americans or other groups from living in it and was thus "all-white"[2] on purpose." Although Loewen (like me!) started out assuming that many places are "lily-white" because of happenstance or diffuse economic forces, he discovered that this basically never happens. Any time you see a place in America with more than a few hundred people that's 95% white or more, it's because white people made a choice and an effort to keep it that way. It is never an accident or happenstance.

How do we know it wasn't an accident? Because there used to be fewer lily-white places in the US, even in the North and West. At Orcinus, Sara Robinson summarized Loewen's research:

After the Civil War, newly-freed black families spread out across the country, looking for places to start over. By 1890, there was hardly a town in America that didn't have at least a small community of black tradesmen or farmers -- aspiring families putting down roots and planning better futures. There was no town too small, no corner so remote, that a handful of African-Americans didn't take refuge there -- hoping against hope they'd finally found a place that was far enough away from Jim Crow.

But Loewen noticed something else. Starting in the 1890 census -- and continuing up until the 1950 one -- these communities started to vanish from the census figures. Towns that had 50 or 60 African-Americans in one census had exactly zero in the next. It was like watching these small lights just wink out, as these communities one by one went sundown.

As I said: if you live in a predominantly white town or suburb, the odds are overwhelming that one of them was yours. It wasn't an accident. It didn't happen just because the houses were too expensive, or the winters were too cold, or they just never got around to moving there. Loewen's research shows that black families settled absolutely everywhere -- almost certainly including where you are. The reason they're not there now is that somebody in your community, at some point in the past, decided to force them out.

Sometimes places were "racially cleansed" with terrible violence, sometimes it was "mere" threats. Along with the violence, towns wrote ordinances barring African-Americans from being in town after dark, or from renting or owning property. These ordinances were common as new towns were established, places where black people would never be allowed to live.

By the 1930s, and especially in the East, it was common to have restrictive covenants to prevent African-Americans (and/or Jews, Asians, or Native Americans) from living in "lily-white" areas. The Federal Housing Administration, which was a major force encouraging homeownership and the growth of suburbs (especially after WWII), was explicitly discriminatory and segregationist, denying mortgages to African-Americans and to white people who might have been willing to live in their neighborhoods. Loewen calls the result "Sundown Suburbs", where non-whites were excluded by more subtle means than violence (usually).

Loewen concluded:

Outside the traditional South—states historically dominated by slavery, where sundown towns are rare—probably a majority of all incorporated places kept out African Americans. ... Illinois, for example, had 671 towns and cities with more than 1,000 people in 1970, of which 475—71%—were all-white in census after census. ... almost all of these 475 were sundown towns. There is reason to believe that more than half of all towns in Oregon, Indiana, Ohio, the Cumberlands, the Ozarks, and diverse other areas were also all-white on purpose. Sundown suburbs are found from Darien, Connecticut, to La Jolla, California, and are even more prevalent; indeed, most suburbs began life as sundown towns.

Loewen has a Sundown Towns website including a database of known or suspected sundown towns and guides to researching sundown towns.

Look up places you've lived in that database. Every time you see another article about "understanding Trump voters", look up the history of the place they're talking about. If it's not in the database, look up its demographics (Wikipedia usually has it). What percentage of the population is African-American? If it's less than 2%, some type of exclusion went on in the past, and the effects are still there.

White Americans have been brought up not to notice racial exclusion, not to think of lily-white communities as something that needs to be explained. African-Americans, of course, have had no such luxury. Every black American I know over the age of 40 recalls childhood car trips where they heard the grown-ups discussing what places would be safe to stop--for the night, for a meal, or just to use the bathroom. The Negro Motorist Green Book compiled such information, and the 1956 edition has been put on a Google map. This database is basically the inverse of the Sundown Towns database, and it can be equally eye-opening for a White person, to look around your state and see how few islands of safety it contained.

What does this mean for the election?

It means that the pattern we see of a Red Sea with Blue Islands and coasts (and the archipelago of the Black Belt):

Vote for Donald Trump (red) and Hillary Clinton (blue), 2016 Presidential election. From Mark Newman, U. of Michigan.

is one chosen and constructed by White people. Blue America (made up of almost all non-White voters, plus a minority of Whites) is concentrated into fewer, denser locations than Red because they weren't welcome elsewhere. It's not just Black Americans who were excluded or "cleansed" from much of the country, after all: Hispanics, Asians, all kinds of immigrants, Jews (historically, at least)--not to mention sexual minorities.

White self-segregation is where the pronounced urban/rural divide in the election came from. Combined with the disproportionate power rural areas get in the Electoral College, and we're looking at President Donald Trump.

May God have mercy upon us all.

---

[1] Loewen -- and I -- focus on exclusion of Black Americans because it's comparatively easy to document, has a long track record, and other types of exclusion act as add-ons: it's extremely rare to find a community that excludes Hispanics, Asians, or Jews that does not also (or first) exclude Blacks. Towns that advertised themselves as "Christian Communities" (many did, before the 1970s) and excluded Jews somehow overlooked including African-American Christians, for instance.

[2] "All-white" is in quotes because sundown towns often had one black family, or a small group of servants, who were permitted to live there while all others were excluded.

Comments

[liberal japonicus]

states historically dominated by slavery, where sundown towns are rare

This is an point worth noting. The US has a tendency to connect extreme racism with the South, but sundown towns are prevalent in places outside the Deep South. (the website lists only 8 towns in Mississippi) This is not to claim some sort of prize, just to note that ability to see the sins of folks far away and not acknowledge them when they are next door...

[Nombrilisme Vide]

I've heard the argument put forth that the north, not being used to being an integrated society, found it more difficult to handle internal immigration, while the south had worked out a(n unfavorable) place for slaves (and subsequently freemen) in their social order and thus had little problem accepting their simple presence (so long as they stay within the role assigned to them).

[Matt McIrvin]

Dick Gregory: "In the South they don't care how close I get as long as I don't get too big. In the North, they don't care how big I get as long as I don't get too close."

[russell]

dick gregory nails it

[john (not mccain)]

And the number one reason conservatives want to make sure non-white Americans never have real political power is because they think they will be treated the same way. I hope they're right. It's long past time they learned what real fear is like.

[Doctor Science]

If you look through Loewen's database you'll see that there are, in fact, a number of sundown counties in northern GA & AL.

In most of the South, blacks *couldn't* be excluded because their labor was too necessary.

[Yama]

So is it racism, or the the Russians?

Maybe the SJ left could take a step back and look at just how repulsive they have become. Or you could keep making enemies out of everyone else.

[liberal japonicus]

Doc,
17 for Alabama, 15 for Georgia. You quote Loewen saying that there were 475 for Illinois.

Again, I'm not saying that the South somehow comes out better, it just underlines the problem is a national one, rather than something confined to the deep South.

[Nigel]

Maybe the SJ left could take a step back

I like the liberals in San Jose. Civilised people.

And maybe you could take your own step back ?

[Nigel]

Meanwhile, Star Trek: Discovery....
https://www.wired.com/2016/12/star-trek-discovery-casts-black-female-lead/

[McKinneyTexas]

So is it racism, or the the Russians?

Maybe the SJ left could take a step back and look at just how repulsive they have become. Or you could keep making enemies out of everyone else.

No kidding. You'd think people who know so much history from 75 years ago might have a clue about history in the last 30 years. Apparently not. The moral preening really gets old. Every time my IPhone helpfully tells me what's "trending" it's the same old shit about how it's the end of life as we know it because Trump/Racism blah, blah blah.

And, HRC was freaking flawless. Not to mention inspirational, a natural leader and totally credible. And there was no federal over-reach under Obama. And everyone loves ACA. And that Russian reset was a smash hit.

Back to work. Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, Happy Festivus for the Restofus, etc.

[sapient]

So is it racism, or the the Russians?

Or do the two things go together like a horse and carriage?

And it's so lovely to welcome Dick Cheney back.

GftNC, where are you to defend McTexas's decency? I'm certainly not the one to try.

[russell]

it's the same old shit about how it's the end of life as we know it because Trump/Racism

I figure it's the end of life as we know it because of Trump + regulatory capture + plain old greed.

But mostly just Trump, because he's just the kind of flaming asshole to Tweet us into WWIII.

FWIW, everybody's got their own bucket of same old shit. Nobody makes anybody read anything they don't want to read.

[byomtov]

You'd think people who know so much history from 75 years ago might have a clue about history in the last 30 years. Apparently not. The moral preening really gets old.

I have no idea what you are getting at here.

As for Trump, well, all those neverTrumpers seem to be falling all over themselves kowtowing to the guy, as he appoints a Clown Cabinet, and a NSC head who wants the country Muslimrein, a likely CEA head (Kudlow) who is an economic ignoramus, etc. So yes. There is very serious reason for concern about Trump. Sometimes "the same old shit" is accurate.

[jack lecou]

There's also the guy defending attempted purges of DoE staffers by 'splaining that global warming might not be a thing, 'cause people have gotten things wrong sometimes over the course of Earth's 5500 year history.

Makes sense. I mean, that's a real long time.

[McKinneyTexas]

I'll spot you that Trump is everything Russell and BY say he is. My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.

[hairshirthedonist]

And, HRC was freaking flawless. Not to mention inspirational, a natural leader and totally credible. And there was no federal over-reach under Obama. And everyone loves ACA. And that Russian reset was a smash hit.

That's a crap-ton of straw, at least as far as this blog goes. I'm not sure if anyone here believes a single one of these things, and I'm almost certain no one believes all of them.

Maybe this was supposed to be funny?

[hairshirthedonist]

My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.

Maybe a quote demonstrating this would help.

[jack lecou]

I'll spot you that Trump is everything Russell and BY say he is. My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.

Harping on racism in one's country is kind of like harping on feces in one's sandwich.

It's probably true that there's a bit less of it in there than there was in 1935, or at least maybe the sauce covers up the smell a bit better.

That doesn't necessarily suggest less harping is called for.

[Nous]

Just because minorities face fewer obstacles today (legally and socially) than in the past does not mean that there aren't serious structural and institutional practices that are still blocking them (disproportionately) from equal access to economic and social mobility.

Not that economic and social mobility is what it used to be .

Hooray that we've made things better. Doesn't mean that we can stop for a quick round of paternalistic self-congratulation when there are still so many areas that need improvement.

[Girl from the North Country]

GftNC, where are you to defend McTexas's decency? I'm certainly not the one to try.

I'm still reeling from Yama's post. This whole polarisation thing between the so-called "SJ left" (presumably McKinney's "moral preening") and just-plain-folks, with the implication that it is illegitimate/paranoid to focus on issues of racism, sexism etc, is very hard to counter effectively, when the concommitant implication is that racism, sexism etc either don't exist, or are so minimal that they need no consideration. Personally, I never claimed that HRC was "freaking flawless", or any of the other exaggerated, sarcastic strawman stuff McK adduces, but by God when he minimises the coming situation "because Trump/Racism blah, blah blah" he exemplifies how little the concerns of the majority of the people who voted in the election are understood by the people who voted Trump, or the by the righwingers like McKinney and Marty who abstained, and this is terrifying for the future of the country. Of course, Trump/Authoritarianism blah blah blah, Trump/Ignorance blah blah blah, combined with Trump/Impulsiveness blah blah blah, bode ill not just for the USA, but for the world.

[byomtov]

My point is the endless, nuance-free harping on racism as if today is no different than 1935.

I didn't read the OP as complaining about racism today at all. Rather I see it as an attempt to point out that historical racist practices still have their effects - that a part of what we see in residential patterns is a consequence of those practices.

FWIW, while there certainly have been places with real estate covenants that excluded Jews, I think that did not much affect where Jews live today. I think the patterns are mostly due to the initial concentration of Jewish immigrants in the northeast - especially NY of course - to the desire to seek communities of co-religionists, and to a general tendency to live in urban areas. (In 1939 Jews were about 10% of the population of Poland, and 30% of the population of Warsaw.) The latter, of course, stemmed heavily from restrictions on land ownership and other anti-Semitic laws, but that was Europe.

[McKinneyTexas]

Maybe this was supposed to be funny?

Sarcasm--in response to the recurring theme that HRC lost because of racism, as in absurd statements like this:

"It's necessary because Trump's America is Sundown America: areas that are white because everyone else[1] has been excluded. They've been cleansed, you might say.".

That doesn't necessarily suggest less harping is called for.

Have at it. It's been so endlessly and unjustifiably repeated and used as an excuse/accusation for any and everything that it's lost all impact and credibility.

Hooray that we've made things better. Doesn't mean that we can stop for a quick round of paternalistic self-congratulation when there are still so many areas that need improvement.

So, is it racism, as in the quote above from Doc's post or something else?

Which is not a discussion I can have right now due to other stuff.

So, for all of my friends and acquaintances here, I'm calling out the racism/bigotry default that seems to be the first and last answer of progressives to most of what ails America. That's all. Not saying the Donald is great or anything. He can be a clown and bigotry can still not be the last and final answer to every question.

[sapient]

Of course, Trump/Authoritarianism blah blah blah, Trump/Ignorance blah blah blah, combined with Trump/Impulsiveness blah blah blah, bode ill not just for the USA, but for the world.

Thank you. I am confused by anyone who isn't terrified right now. I wish that "principled" Republicans would resist what's unfolding here, but they seem to be right on board.

[wj]

It's probably true that there's a bit less of it in there than there was in 1935, or at least maybe the sauce covers up the smell a bit better.

That doesn't necessarily suggest less harping is called for.

Actually, there's rather a lot less racism. A lot less than even in the early 1960s, which I can remember personally. Everywhere in the country.

I think perhaps that it is hard for those who didn't live thru it to even imagine what it was like. Books like Sundown Towns just give you a hint. For example, can you imagine a family (not just in California but in San Francisco) totally cutting all ties with a daughter who had the bad taste to marry a black man? (A man who was first a star NFL player, and then long time head of the Players' Association -- i.e. not just a dumb jock.) But it happened; President Obama's family, and the way they handled his mother's marriage, was really quite exceptional.

There is a reason not to "harp" on racism, even while continuing to call it out when it occurs. Those who harp on it tend to act like it is not only as bad as ever, but that anyone who disagrees with them at all is irredeemably racist. Which, even if it were somewhat correct (which it is not) is a really terrible way to change the minds of those who disagree with you.

Witness only, on a different topic, sapient's comments here. Nobody here is a fan of Trump. But proclaiming the end of the world and blaming those, like Marty and McKinney, who disagree with you about anything of being guilty of it happening? Not helpful. And however bad the pain, and I don't discount that pain at all, eventually we need to take a deep breath and start working on changing minds.

[McKinneyTexas]

I didn't read the OP as complaining about racism today at all.

See my quote from the Doc's post at 12:49.

GFTNC, we can have a conversation about Trump being bad for the country for a variety of reasons. I'd probably agree (although I'm nowhere near the high dudgeon I see here and elsewhere) there is real risk with the Mad Tweeter in the Oval Office (if he was actually there and not Trump Tower). What I'm not going to swallow is this endless pretending as if the last 30-40 years didn't happen. Or that, "ok, it happened but it really hasn't done all that much". Or pretending that people who drop out of high school and can't read are being discriminated against because they, what, can't get into and out of college? Can't get a good job? Or ignoring the hard fact that we have a broad range of ethnicities in the US and many do quite well and are improving all the time, so what are we talking about really? Some kind of metered, relative bigotry where whites exclude X percentage of blacks, Y percentage of Hispanics but, in many areas, zero percentage of Asians. Interesting specie of bigotry, if you ask me. Maybe it's more complicated--is that even a remote possibility?

[McKinneyTexas]

WJ said at 12:57 what I would have said if I wasn't chock full of Holiday Snark.

[wj]

Re Nigel at 10:53:
I think part of the greatness of Star Trek is that it didn't preach about diversity. It just assumed it. And in doing so, it made a significant contribution to changing attitudes, in a way preaching never would have. Changing them on women in positions of authority. Changing them on race, and on minorities in positions of authority. And on and on.

Sometimes, the most effective way to make a point is to not make it (overtly) at all. Just treat it as so obviously correct to not need mention.

[sapient]

What I'm not going to swallow is this endless pretending as if the last 30-40 years didn't happen.

Nobody's saying that progress wasn't made regarding racism in recent decades. That's why a majority of voters rejected Donald Trump. Unfortunately, it was not enough, and Republicans are pretending his policies are normal, when actually he represents Vladimir Putin and the white nationalist movement in this country. The fact that you, Marty and Republicans generally are ignoring this doesn't put y'all in the "progress over the past 30 years" camp. It puts you on his side. Own it.

[sapient]

Sometimes, the most effective way to make a point is to not make it (overtly) at all. Just treat it as so obviously correct to not need mention.

Ummm, not when Jefferson Beauregard Sessions will be running the Justice Department. Please get real wj.

[Nous]

So, is it racism, as in the quote above from Doc's post or something else?

Not either/or, but both/and.

Racism is undoubtedly one of the factors. Banking and policing practices are also factors, and those exacerbate the problems related to race. Education funding is another and, again, it disproportionately affects minorities.

And racism is not always a matter of personal animus. How we frame problems of economics, education, and law enforcement in terms of personal choice and responsibility can be racist even when the individuals seeing the world through these frames have no ill feelings towards any individuals.

[Girl from the North Country]

Actually, I pretty much agree with wj at 12.57 too.

[jack lecou]

Interesting specie of bigotry, if you ask me. Maybe it's more complicated--is that even a remote possibility?

Yes, it is more complicated. Those nasty SJWs have been saying so for a long time.

I just can't... Like, I guess you've literally never bothered to try to understand how systemic racism works?

[sapient]

But proclaiming the end of the world and blaming those, like Marty and McKinney, who disagree with you about anything of being guilty of it happening?

What if the shoe fits?

[hairshirthedonist]

See my quote from the Doc's post at 12:49.

I took that quote to mean that the places that went most strongly for Trump are mostly the places that have been "cleansed." They are bastions of whiteness, established years ago. I didn't take it to mean that the people who voted for Trump did the cleansing, but that their worldview is informed in part by where they've lived (like everyone else, probably, just with different particulars).

And, to further some of the other comment, the fight against racism, bigotry, homophobia or whatever forms of discrimination will be never ending. There appears to be a propensity for these things that is a basic part of human nature. Some people accept and even embrace it. Some people fight against it. Others seem not to notice much.

We, meaning humanity, will never be entirely free of these things, like so many other evils. But if some number of us don't fight against them, they will only grow. It has to be beaten back, even if it will never be completely defeated.

You can be on board with that or not. You choose.

[jack lecou]

There is a reason not to "harp" on racism, even while continuing to call it out when it occurs. Those who harp on it tend to act like it is not only as bad as ever, but that anyone who disagrees with them at all is irredeemably racist. Which, even if it were somewhat correct (which it is not) is a really terrible way to change the minds of those who disagree with you.

The problem with this isn't that you're wrong per se, it's that in Trumpistan, even calling it out when you see it is harping. As well as basically any other conversation about race, no matter how nuanced. (And furthermore, it's the real racism!)

So, yeah, don't harp, folks. But let's not start up the circular firing squad yet either. An article about how the overtly racist policies of the past shaped the less visibly racist landscape of today is actually pretty far over on the 'correct' side of the harp/nuance spectrum.

[byomtov]

Actually, there's rather a lot less racism. A lot less than even in the early 1960s, which I can remember personally. Everywhere in the country.

I absolutely agree with this. I can remember the early 60's also, and even the late 1950's. We are miles from there.

[wj]

when Jefferson Beauregard Sessions will be running the Justice Department. Please get real wj.

OK, trying to "get real."

What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions? (Who I agree is a horrible choice for DoJ. Not to mention the scum of the earth IMHO.) Or on the whole Trump administration?

Maybe stock up on guns and try to start a violent revolution? Which I raise not because I think you would propose that, nor because I think it might be anything but a disastrous failure. But because I think it would not be any less successful than anything I recall having seen you suggest so far.

[jack lecou]

Actually, there's rather a lot less racism. A lot less than even in the early 1960s, which I can remember personally. Everywhere in the country.

And yet this is probably small comfort to a young man named, say, DeShawn Brown who makes the mistake of the putting that name on his resume, and can't understand (or, rather, understands all too well) why he never gets called for any interviews.

It's absolutely true the racism used to be packed into that sandwich in great big, hard, highly visible logs. Now it's just the more liquid kind, mixed in small quantities into the mayonnaise. Occasionally there's a police bullet in there too.

This still isn't so great.

[wj]

I can remember the early 60's also, and even the late 1950's. We are miles from there.

In fairness I think we should acknowledge that, inn some ways, we are worse off. At that time, we had a Republican President who would sent the US Army into a state capital to enforce a Supreme Court ruling against racial discrimination. Followed by a Democratic administration which pushed thru the Civil Rights Act.

Today, we have one of the of major parties which would do neither. And as far as I can see, has zero national level leaders who would even consider suggesting that either might be (or might have been) a good idea and the right thing to do.

So socially, we have made big progress. But politically, not so much.

[Nous]

Following up on my 1:07:

It seems as if McKinney and WJ are thinking the left sees racism as the underlying cause of our problems -- that racial animus drives political choices in some manner.

What I think is closer to the truth is that what the left calls racism in large part is not a cause, but rather a result of the political choices that we make when tackling collective problems.

Big difference.

[Nombrilisme Vide]

So, for all of my friends and acquaintances here, I'm calling out the racism/bigotry default that seems to be the first and last answer of progressives to most of what ails America.

If it makes you feel any better (and really, how could it not?!?!?), there are still more than a few stubborn pockets that think that class warfare is the underlying fundamental issue. We're not necessarily as noisy, though.

[jack lecou]

So socially, we have made big progress. But politically, not so much.

We've also gone backwards on policies like desegregating schools - the only policy that's ever really been shown to work long term to improve outcomes for minority students.

[sapient]

What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions? (Who I agree is a horrible choice for DoJ. Not to mention the scum of the earth IMHO.) Or on the whole Trump administration?

I would suggest that "principled" Republicans (oxymoron) join Democrats in flooding the phones of Congress to reject these nominees. I've been making roughly a phone call every weekday since the election. Then they can report back here to let us all know how it went. Also, byomtov's 11:55.

[Girl from the North Country]

OK, trying to "get real."

What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions? (Who I agree is a horrible choice for DoJ. Not to mention the scum of the earth IMHO.)Or on the whole Trump administration?

I've posted this on another thread, so apologies, but it seems to me this (from hilzoy's twitter feed) is the absolute best suggestion/manual about what realistically to do, as a constructive action:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5UsN7Lj8X8/preview

[sapient]

I've posted this on another thread, so apologies, but it seems to me this (from hilzoy's twitter feed) is the absolute best suggestion/manual about what realistically to do, as a constructive action:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DzOz3Y6D8g_MNXHNMJYAz1b41_cn535aU5Us

It is constructive, and thanks for posting it. I'm on twitter and subscribe to Hilzoy's feed, and she's an inspiring resource.

I'd like to see some action on the part of Republicans who've claimed to oppose Trump and, before that, Cheney. If they don't want to be called collaborators, what actions are they taking?

By the way, I've committed to an action a day, including making phone calls, looking into advocacy groups to join, and doing some other preparation which will help me to be more effective moving forward.

[russell]

I agree both with wj's 12:57, and with sapient's 1:06.

Racism is no longer countenanced as a de jure practice. That's as of about 50 years ago. That's a great thing.

Racism has become socially unacceptable, mostly. That's probably as of about 40 years ago. Also a great thing.

Racism generally - perceiving and treating people differently because of the color of their skin - is, as far as I can tell, still an every day reality, everywhere in this country.

Do people cop morally superior attitudes about it? Yes they do. Do people overstate its prevalence and effect? Maybe, although I'm not so sure about that.

My operating assumption is that, if you live in the US, you respond to people with dark skin differently than you do to people who don't have dark skin.

If that doesn't describe you, you are an extraordinary person. It sure as hell describes me.

Viewing black people, specifically - people with discernable African heritage - differently than you view other people, consciously or not, is, as far as I can tell, baked into the experience of being American. Probably some other folks too, I'm just speaking for my own country.

When people say it's not a factor, I just assume they're living in a state of denial about it.

I'm not pointing fingers about it, because I think it's basically universal. It's nothing to be defensive about, neither is it anything to be all that judgemental about, because it infects us all.

Personally, I can say that I have ancestors who were slave owners, and quite recent forbears - people I knew, who were alive in my own lifetime - who participated in acts of terror toward black people and who kept black people's body parts as trophies.

Most likely some other folks reading this have that same experience - on one side of it or the other - in their own family histories, whether they know it or not.

That - the weight of it, the emotional and psychic valence of it - is not something that just goes away after 50, or 75, or 100 years.

If you find all of this just too far out for words, I will re-direct your attention to sapient's 1:06. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. For AG. WT bloody F. In my opinion, the man should not even be welcome in polite company.

We ain't in the promised land quite yet.

That's my take on the racism thing.

[jack lecou]

Sarcasm--in response to the recurring theme that HRC lost because of racism, as in absurd statements like this:

"It's necessary because Trump's America is Sundown America: areas that are white because everyone else[1] has been excluded. They've been cleansed, you might say.".

What in the world is absurd about that? It's completely straightforward. The overt policies are gone, but the landscape they created obviously persists. The perspectives -- and voting habits -- of those who live in it can't help but be shaped by that fact.

[russell]

What do you propose as constructive actions, either in the specific case of Sessions?

Call your Senators and let them know you find him to be an unacceptable candidate for AG.

Or on the whole Trump administration?

Same advice.

Maybe stock up on guns and try to start a violent revolution?

Unlikely to be useful in countering any issue discussed on this thread.

[Girl from the North Country]

Aha, the old "if they're not with us they're against us" trope, eh?

[McKinneyTexas]

We, meaning humanity, will never be entirely free of these things, like so many other evils. But if some number of us don't fight against them, they will only grow. It has to be beaten back, even if it will never be completely defeated.

You can be on board with that or not.

I agree with this, as a general statement of affairs, up to a point. I believe that, in time, racism in the US will be a *relatively negligible functional impediment*. It will be an acquired, not a forced, outcome. I say two maybe three generations downstream, with continued improvement from now until then.

We will always have parents who want their children to marry within the tribe (race, religion, whatever), people who are more comfortable around others of the same hue or religion or political persuasion. That is not fixable nor in a free society is a fix desirable.
This:

If it makes you feel any better (and really, how could it not?!?!?), there are still more than a few stubborn pockets that think that class warfare is the underlying fundamental issue. We're not necessarily as noisy, though.

And this:

What I think is closer to the truth is that what the left calls racism in large part is not a cause, but rather a result of the political choices that we make when tackling collective problems.

Are worthy topics on their own. And, yes, NV, I feel much better.

Personal question: you still thinking about law school?

[sapient]

Aha, the old "if they're not with us they're against us" trope, eh?

That is absolutely necessary for this fight. (By the way, I'm not advocating torturing our enemies.)

[jeff]

I purchased a home in my town that was built in 1921 and I was flabbergasted by the racist exclusions language in the CCR's. Don't recall seeing the addendum pointing out that such restrictions were illegal . Later I purchased a home built in 1956 and although the CCR language may have been a bit more polite the exclusions were still there. The hood i live in now is smoothly diversified and It appears to work well from my perspective. Here in the city of Sacramento we have come along way since 1935. However most of the outer burbs remain pretty much lily white (with a sprinkle of asian). That was all built after 1970 so not sure how to blame sundown towns.

[Girl from the North Country]

In all seriousness, sapient, I think that is profoundly mistaken. We (or at any rate the American people and their friends) are divided enough already, without forcing people into corners they didn't choose. I can state it no better than wj did:

And however bad the pain, and I don't discount that pain at all, eventually we need to take a deep breath and start working on changing minds.

[sapient]

changing minds.

Perhaps that's your job. I've posted a lot of support for my views over the years, including in this thread. People choose to ignore the truth. Maybe you can kill this problem with kindness, but somehow I think they'll ignore all but the good will, and then they'll that it to justify themselves.

[sapient]

Correction: They'll use your goodwill to justify themselves.

[McKinneyTexas]

People choose to ignore the truth.

Well, when you put it that way . . .

[Girl from the North Country]

changing minds.

Perhaps that's your job.

This is the job of everyone who wants to mitigate the disaster of a Trump presidency, and to avoid a second Trump term. "Maybe you can kill this problem with kindness" once more caricatures my/this approach: you have to understand your opponent, and then talk to him/her, in order to change attitudes and then decisions. You can ridicule this attitude as much as you like, but it was an important element in for example the South African situation: Nelson Mandela understood this, immersed himself (in prison) in understanding Afrikaner culture and mentality and, the importance of BDS notwithstanding, brought about a change that looked impossible without war and more violence.

[sapient]

Well, when you put it that way . . .

Deny the racism of having chosen Jeff Sessions, please, McKinney. Not a problem for you, apparently.

[hairshirthedonist]

Well, you could make the argument that Sessions is more of a homophobe than a racist, so there's that.

[Nigel]

I believe that, in time, racism in the US will be a *relatively negligible functional impediment*. It will be an acquired, not a forced, outcome. I say two maybe three generations downstream, with continued improvement from now until then...

And you regard the election of Trump as part of that 'continued improvement' ?
With respect, that's more ridiculous than the SJ attitudes you ridicule in return.

[wj]

For a look at what a positive call to resistance might look at, consider the speech California Governor Jerry Brown gave recently. The speech itself is worth listening to, but I'm linking to James Fallows commentary, with is both worth reading in its own right and has a link to Brown's speech.
https://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2016/12/this-is-what-the-resistance-sounds-like/510899/

[McKinneyTexas]

And you regard the election of Trump as part of that 'continued improvement' ?
With respect, that's more ridiculous than the SJ attitudes you ridicule in return.

Did I say that? Where?

Progress, in the generic, non-ideological sense, is seldom a flawlessly smooth process.

Further, as I've said before, Trump is in office in significant part because of the Dem's substandard candidate. It is not a barometer of prevailing, and changing views on race.

Further still, you are conflating what regular people in general will think and do ten or twenty years with respect to others of different hues with an aberrational vote in an aberrational election last month. If your logic were sound, after 8 years of Obama, we'd all be singing Kumbaya.

[bob mcmanus]

OP quote:

"What does this mean for the election?

It means that the pattern we see of a Red Sea with Blue Islands and coasts (and the archipelago of the Black Belt):is one chosen and constructed by White people. Blue America (made up of almost all non-White voters, plus a minority of Whites) is concentrated into fewer, denser locations than Red because they weren't welcome elsewhere."

Oh, it is all about racism today.

You are saying in the post, and I can hardly paraphrase it, that any area without blacks is currently practicing sundown policies and explicit racism and discrimination. We have red and blue districts because of white racism.

1) Randomly drop black individual all over the map and there will be areas without blacks, they will cluster.

2) But blacks will cluster, boo bob, sometimes I hear they form families even which makes the number of possible accidental red districts even higher.

3) Blacks do move, sometimes even for reasons other than racism. There are at least three migrations of blacks in American history, movements large enough to change demographics in areas significantly.

Blacks have agency, which your post largely denies. Denies because even if you do show that an area is blue, even if you show a history of racism, it actually should be necessary to show a local pattern of current discrimination to justify the conclusion you come.

Checking Nome Alaska. Less than 1% black, can we assume it is institutionally racist and actively discriminatory? Would enough Chicagoans move tomorrow to Nome if...I can't imagine.

I come from one of the worst sundown towns you can imagine, but that was somewhat more than 20k within 5 miles of large black populations and 100% white for generations, and practiced real estate discrimination and did get sued. There are blacks living there now, although I am sure the politics is still red.

The red partisan id, in itself, does not prove ongoing discrimination.

[McKinneyTexas]

The red partisan id, in itself, does not prove ongoing discrimination.

Yep. Nicely put.

[Nigel]

Did I say that? Where?

Sauce for the goose, McT.

[bob mcmanus]

As I said I grew up in a Northern sundown town and moved to my current location near Dallas, where I have been for 35 years. My current town is majority-minority, now up around 70%, maybe 25% black.

I left the North because the factories were closing and I was tired of freezes in May. I moved to my current house from an inner ring because it was time to build a house, and this area was pretty cheap with good schools and services. I am guessing the blacks on my block or elsewhere moved for much the same reasons.

It was like 40% of steelworkers and 30% of autoworkers were black. What did you expect them to do when the factories closed? Why not come on down to Texas, and if that meant that given Michigan districts got hollowed out of blacks, does that mean that district became racist.

The biggest and best explanation of why the US is divided coastal-rural, or urban-rural, is that is where the goodpaying jobs are.

Of course everything interests, and I am not saying that a red politics historical racist area is not still racist.

Why don't the rural whites in Wisconsin also move to LA or Dallas? Some do, but yes, we have towns like mine around that are majority-minority and provide some kinds of support. Do rural Northen whites have something here to move to. Maybe? Something to study.

But my majority-minority town had to come from somewhere, and that places or places will likely be whiter than before.

[Marty]

"even in the North and West"

I don't have much to say about this. There certainly were lots of sundown towns, then there was a greater deal of white flight where the second black family in town would increase the for sale sign business substantially, and then there was the development of the primarily black suburb as black people decided they would like to live in a nice suburb but would prefer a primarily black neighborhood. All ways that contribute(d) to lily white neighborhoods.

Even in the North and West

Which I chuckle at every time I read it. Like that would be a surprise. OMG, REALLY? EVEN IN THE NORTH?

Sorry just hits my funny bone every time I read through the post.

[jack lecou]

Denies because even if you do show that an area is blue, even if you show a history of racism, it actually should be necessary to show a local pattern of current discrimination to justify the conclusion you come.

This depends entirely on the frequency with which people move/diffuse. I don't think they move as fast as is required by your argument.

Because people DO cluster, that part is true. But those clusters are persistent. The more people end up in a place, and the longer they stay there, the more culturally appropriate institutions and infrastructure is going to get built up around them. The more adapted and comfortable a place becomes, the more the tendency toward general diffusion is markedly reduced.

People aren't gas molecules. They stick together more. In, you know, communities.

But you can come along and stir them up. That's what the sundown laws did, and other things. Their existence is a historical fact.

And so people were forced to go off and make new clusters. Elsewhere. And there they tended to stay.

[bob mcmanus]

Sorry for not being briefer.

I understand all the intersections, like the cutting of social policies in Red States being maybe connected to racism.

But damn, Texas has some gawdawful social policies and has attracted enough to become majority-minority, well over 53%. Black population stable for forty years. But you know, not the same blacks in the same places as 1970.

Maybe the SJ left could take a step back and look at just how repulsive they have become.

Right at the start. This will not help.

(Bill Bishop's Big Sort is a must read. No the discrimination and separation was not one-sided, with simple motives. Certain people, certain kinds of people moved to the coasts in droves, especially since 2000)

[hairshirthedonist]

Which I chuckle at every time I read it. Like that would be a surprise. OMG, REALLY? EVEN IN THE NORTH?

There used to be fewer lily-white places in the North and West, which might surprise people who assumed black people generally left the South to head north and west - and not to then leave some of those destinations in the north and west. The "even" means that it wasn't just the South blacks had left from, only to stay wherever it was they went, generally speaking, as many people might otherwise assume.

You (or people generally) would expect fewer lily-white places to have existed in the South before blacks left in large numbers.

[wj]

You are saying in the post, and I can hardly paraphrase it, that any area without blacks is currently practicing sundown policies and explicit racism and discrimination.

I'm not seeing that in the original post at all. What was said, rather explicitly, is that areas with no blacks today were that way because of sundown practices in the past. The results linger, even if the practices have gone.

Not to say, nor did the original post say, that there are not places which still have those practices. Just that there was no suggestion in the OP that they were universal.

[russell]

My issue with the OP is that, when I look at the red and blue map, I'm not seeing a consistent correlation between the colors and the distribution of black people in the US.

Here is a census map of the black population in the US.

There are some areas - the black belt notably - where the blue spots on Doc S's map coincide with a significant black population.

There are lots of other areas where they don't. Like, New England, and the south-west.

The discussion of race in the US seems to fall along one of two lines.

1. Conservatives are racist.
2. Racism is no longer a problem.

I don't think either of these points of view does justice to the reality.

[wj]

Russell, I agree that reality does not fit that binary distinction. And the first place it goes wrong is the assumption in the first item that whites are the only conservatives.

It tends to be true that, overwhelmingly, mostly whites are Republicans these days. Certainly with some highly visible exceptions, but mostly. However, my observation is that the majority of blacks are quite conservative, especially on social issues. And Hispanics even more so.

[hairshirthedonist]

So you don't think blacks and Hispanics can be racist. (I'm kidding - sort of, anyway.)

[jeff]

I purchased a home built in 1921 and was totally shocked by the racist exclusionary language that was in the CCRs.

found this article to be interesting for history data nerds :
https://priceonomics.com/the-great-migration-the-african-american-exodus/

[russell]

However, my observation is that the majority of blacks are quite conservative, especially on social issues. And Hispanics even more so.

That's my observation also.

I'm not particularly interested in doing things that improve (R) outcomes, but as a party they definitely seem to be leaving a lot of votes on the table.

As far as the black community goes, specifically, if they had any sense they'd be reaching out to the churches. Not with the message they usually project, which is "What the hell is wrong with you people, you should be voting for us!". But with some humility and an openness to hearing how they are seen by blacks any why, and a willingness to roll up their sleeves and actually do things that will help that community.

The RNC can forward a consultant's fee to me via the kitty.

In any case, nominating a guy like Trump does not help them, nor does putting a guy like Sessions forward for AG.

[jack lecou]

My issue with the OP is that, when I look at the red and blue map, I'm not seeing a consistent correlation between the colors and the distribution of black people in the US.

I don't know why that should be a problem. There obviously isn't any one factor underlying all of this. It's a layering.

The discussion of race in the US seems to fall along one of two lines.

It's tough to have a discussion of race in the US.

About the best you can hope for is sort of a 90s sitcom PSA level of pablum. "Racism is bad." And, leaving aside some reddit commentators with Pepe the frog avatars or whatever, everyone does seem to agree on that these days. They just don't agree on what racism is. Or where it is. Or isn't. Or how it works. Or what it does.

And of course, AFAICT, white fragility is really a thing. Not just for conservatives. For white people.

So if you try to have a nuanced discussion about something that tries to do justice to the reality, it...doesn't work. At least not outside of specialized fora.

A: "Hey, what is up with the rates of black vs. white imprisonment, huh? This isn't how it should be, right?"

B: "What are you talking about? Those people are obviously criminals. Are you saying they aren't? They need to take personal responsibility. Their communities just don't respect law and order. Anyway, there's no racism anymore, because Obama."

A: "...whu?"

[Nigel]

I've posted this before, but it's a pretty nuanced discussion:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/01/my-president-was-black/508793/

[Nombrilisme Vide]

Personal question: you still thinking about law school?

Yeah. My biggest obstacle to following through with that remains me, though. The joys of depression and anxiety - which yes, would be a lot less significant if I had a clear, fixed goal I was in the process of working towards and momentum built up behind me, sigh. That little bit of self-awareness is more frustrating than useful, but it does promise that if I can get past a handful of foundational obstacles, I'll like as not be able to persevere. I have a fairly clear outline of what I need to do to get the process back on track, and I can still hit rolling application deadlines for next fall if I'm more concerned with competence and completion than pedigree (if I want pedigree, then I'd need to look to fall '18 at this point; I'd probably also want to retake my I-didn't-really-study-for-this 160 LSAT after spending the spring practicing doing the problem solving portion quickly, but if I can stand to go to school in the awful climates of OH or PA, that's passable even if far from ideal).

Kinda leaning more towards advocacy than tech/IP at this point, but that may have been the electoral cycle ramping up my martyr's complex.

[russell]

"I've posted this before, but it's a pretty nuanced discussion"

yeah, but that's Coates, so obviously it's crap

[jack lecou]

I've posted this before, but it's a pretty nuanced discussion:

TNC is habitually outstanding. But discussion? Just don't read the comments. Or try to bring an article of his up in the wrong house at Thanksgiving dinner.

And then, that article is basically about how even Obama couldn't manage to really successfully initiate any rational discussions with America on any race issues. See, e.g., the arrest of Prof. Gates.

It's also about how one of the reasons he was able to get as far as he did was that his own idiosyncratic upbringing protected him a little bit from the kinds of scars the more mainstream black experience leaves. (Less charitably: he's a little out of touch with that experience. TNC mentions this feeling a few times.)

[sapient]

And then, that article is basically about how even Obama couldn't manage to really successfully initiate any rational discussions with America on any race issues. See, e.g., the arrest of Prof. Gates.

But this is the whole problem with the "civil discussion", "aren't McKinney and Marty nice", "we are all rational, and minds can be changed" narrative.

It's not true. These people aren't rational. We weren't going to appeal to Nazis with "please?". They have, like it or not, embraced a man who is embarrassingly crude, but also cruel. He's a wife abuser, and he's nominated a whole bunch of other ones.

And McKinney is still all about "HRC". McKinney is a fraud. He "didn't vote" for Trump (yeah, right), so he can come here and ask GftNC to "understand" him. Well, McKinney, I understand you all too well.

[Nous]

Just to broaden the discussion of what to gather from an election map:

Maps of the 2016 US Presidential Election Results at U Michigan.

Compare the map linked here and the purple map and cartogram that adjust for the percentage by which a given county went to either candidate.

The unforgiving binaries that drive election results (and red/blue Maps) in the US would be a lot less scary and divisive if the results were calculated by a proportional mechanism and not winner take all.

[Doctor Science]

sapient, please dial back the personal remarks. Not helpful, also it makes me cranky and you wouldn't like me when I'm cranky.

[wj]

McKinney is a fraud. He "didn't vote" for Trump (yeah, right)

Getting a bit too close to a personal attack on someone merely for disagreeing with you. Time to take a break for a while, sapient.

[russell]

I share much of your frustration, but "not rational", "nazis", and "fraud" are probably several steps too far.

Maybe time to take a break? I'm not talking about banning, I'm just talking about walk away for a bit.

Marty and McK are not Nazis, and have earned and deserve an assumption of good faith.

[sapient]

Okay, I'm gone. Please let me know when I can tell the truth about people who are basically Vichy. I'll leave until I'm invited back.

In the meantime, please read the many, various articles I've posted by completely run of the mill folks, who are very, very worried.

[Marty]

As tedious as I find him, I read the TNC link.

I just don't understand how it was a nuanced discussion of anything. It was a story of the Presidents view of the world sprinkled with the standard litany of TNC complaints. Black people despise and fear white people, they have every reason to, in fact they are taught to as children, they bear no responsibility for the state of race relations, and the white people should give them money.

So, I would be curious to hear what it was a nuanced discussion of?

[russell]

QED

[Girl from the North Country]

I just read the TNC piece, and am feeling even more upset and depressed about the future, and about what America has lost.

sapient, we (which is to say people, not ObWi people) are not all rational, but minds can be changed. HRC was not a perfect candidate; Marty and McKinney are not Nazis or frauds; and McKinney did not ask me to "understand" him. Acting as if manifestly decent people are our enemies, and the enemies of freedom, is a path to madness. Above all, we must not become like our enemies, and we do that by demonising people just because they disagree with us. Rest and recover, and come back soon.

[sapient]

Acting as if manifestly decent people are our enemies, and the enemies of freedom, is a path to madness.

I promise to leave after this.

I don't believe in unredeemable people. I'm not saying that anyone here or elsewhere is going to that dark place. But it's time for them to step up, and separate themselves from the wife abuser (and appointer of abusers), the fraudster, the science denier, the liar, the warmonger with China, the Putin lover. So far, I haven't seen it. And people are "cranky" about me? I am cranky about them.

Please show some support for me. I'm not the one who needs to reflect. I'll come back when I see that you agree.

[McKinneyTexas]

NV--on my damn iPhone. Will circle back later. Anxiety and depression are occupational hazards if not features. Consider law school in a warmer clime. Trial work is stressful. More later.

[sapient]

McKinney to the rescue. Go for the Oil, NV!

[Girl from the North Country]

On the offchance you are still reading this:

I feel nothing but support for you. I have said many times that I admired your unremitting work for HRC, and I wish you and people like you had prevailed. You were and are one of the good guys. But I think your rage and despair, extremely understandable though they are, have been leading you astray since the election. There are ordinary bastards, and evil bastards, who will soon have power and need to be opposed. Nobody on this site is among them, and although we have the odd rightwinger, not a one of them (despite your baseless insinuations) is a Trump supporter. The rightwingers here may be inclined to be more hopeful than most of us are that the coming administration will be something not much different than a common-or-garden Republican one, but that is only to be expected. I hope they are right, but fear they will soon be proved wrong, as the appointees so far seem to indicate. None of this justifies accusations that our rightwing posters are fascists, and I'm hoping that when you've had time to recover you'll see that too.

[sapient]

sorry, now off.

[russell]

But it's time for them to step up, and separate themselves from the wife abuser (and appointer of abusers), the fraudster, the science denier, the liar, the warmonger with China, the Putin lover.

This is generally where I am at also.

There's always room for differences of opinion about stuff. Trump is a different category of issue. There is really no dimension of the idea of President Trump that isn't plainly scandalous.

President-elect Trump has been a crap-show. There is no reason to think that President Trump will be any different.

I agree that reflection is in order, for a lot of people. I do not expect to see it. I'm not really addressing that to McK or Marty in particular, it's just the reality of the moment.

As far as Coates goes, the man is a thoughtful and excellent writer. The things he says are not very different from things said by the likes of James Baldwin, or Richard Wright, or WEB Du Bois, or any number of people who have documented the experience of being black in America.

If what he says doesn't suit you, don't read him. But as far as I can tell, he's just sharing his experience and understanding, as a black man living in the US. And on any kind of matter of historical fact, he does his freaking homework.

And that's all I have to say about TN Coates.

[Marty]

I have no more to say about Coates.

I will take action, whatever that may be(?) when something bad happens. Nothing bad has happened.

I am concerned about conflicts of interest, but he can't sell all of his businesses, if he did it would cost us a fortune because he would take huge losses and the government would have to pay the difference. That is even if he could. I am not sure how you create a blind trust for that set of businesses, but his team says they are working on a solution and I will complain if its not a good one.

"President-elect Trump has been a crap-show."

Not much fact behind this. He has talked to world leaders, picked a cabinet, basically defended the legitimacy of his Presidency against the CIA, and tweeted a few stupid things. Not exactly a crap show except he cant take a walk to a restaurant without it being a huge faux pax.

There is room for a difference of opinion so far, but not in a different category.

Which pick is scandalous? Sessions isn't a good choice but he's not confirmed, there are a few more that might not be confirmed. But the SecofEd and Energy aren't out of what you would expect, the security side(Defense Homeland etc.) is all generals, we complained that he said he was smarter than generals and then when he hired them. Tillerson was a bad choice but I will bet against his confirmation.

There is no reason to think that anything that is going to happen is different than those that voted for him expected.

Strong defense, less government interference in Education and Energy, more expansive policies from interior. All those picks line up perfectly.I am not sure what policy Ben Carson represents for Housing.

I can go on but nothing has happened yet.

[Ugh]

NV - if you haven't already you should read this law review article (I may have mentioned it before). "On Being a Happy, Healthy, andn Ethical Member of an Unhappy, Unhealthy, and Unethical Profession.

My own advice - Big Law will grind you up and spit you out unless you are lucky (as I was, I still didn't last until partner), or really enjoy the area of law you're working in, preferably both.

Other areas of law may be more rewarding (government practice - whether litigation or regulatory - or nonprofit), but a lot of those jobs are hard to get and/or require just as many hours as Big Law.

If you're thinking of going to a lower tier law school (say, outside the top 30, maybe 50), then be prepared to stay local after school for work, unless you're at the very very top of your class, and maybe even then.

Agree with McKinney on going to school in a warmer climate - can't be beat.

Also, don't ever fall behind in the reading, it may be impossible to catch up.

Good luck.

[russell]

"Not much fact behind this."

not much to say in reply. or, so much to say in reply that i'm just not going to bother.

trump is going to be an unending shit show of a POTUS, just as he's been an unending shit show of a PEOTUS, just as he's been an unending shit show of a candidate, and frankly just as he's been an unending shit show of a human being for the last 40, or probably 70, years.

you will of course do nothing until 'something bad happens'. at which point, i expect that you will respond by doing nothing.