One reason I think structural racism is not obvious is illustrated by Bank of America's new "Community Affordable Loan Solution." It's a program where Blacks and Hispanics can buy a home with no money down and no closing costs. No minimum credit score and no requirement for mortgage insurance even if less than 20% down.
One reason I think structural racism is not obvious is illustrated by Bank of America's new "Community Affordable Loan Solution." It's a program where Blacks and Hispanics can buy a home with no money down and no closing costs. No minimum credit score and no requirement for mortgage insurance even if less than 20% down.
IOW, one must factor in "structural racism" in *favor* of Blacks and Hispanics, right?
I would also point out at surveys asking if whites would be *against* a Black person marrying someone in family. From *very* poor memory: In 1984 it was around 86%, in 2016 it was around 14%. Recent figures put it at 6%. First, You can't just assume that 6% of Americans are White Supremacists. And, second of all, what is the basis of the idea that pretty much *all* institutions are plagued with "structural racism?" I think the basis is that some people just wanna destroy (or "dismantle") all the institutions in the country, for essentially no reason.
And I'm sure additional "study" will prove there are reasons to destroy the country. They just won't be based on reason.
Not only that, but if You look at everything through the lens of "structural racism" that's why You would see "structural racism" everywhere.
Are their *any* cases of structural racism? Sure. Probably a smaller number than You would *imagine.* But in the event they actually existed, then changes would be necessitated. Not necessary to dismantle everything.
Besides, it's been written that people who are over-educated are just as liable for all the psychological deficiencies, like confirmation bias, as anyone else. They just think they aren't. And, for that and other reasons, their so-called solutions tend to have little to do with the realities "on the ground," a *lotta* times, right?
(That's the long-winded version of what I meant, I guess. ;-)
I'll start by saying that I don't agree with all of the people who parade themselves as experts on structural racism and critical race theory. As in any field, there's a lot of garbage, and unfortunately I think the ones who are the most provocative and most appealing to white liberals get the most attention (hence the outsize focus on self-flagellation and inner reflection, which Singal has noted).
For example, I think Robin DiAngelo's approach to 'white fragility sensitivity training' is basically unfalsifiable, and also sort of missing the point entirely. "White fragility" broadly refers to a phenomenon where white people are uncomfortable talking about race, especially when it comes to discussing examples of white people who have benefitted from racism. I think this is a very WASP reaction - I'm a white Hispanic, and white Hispanics, in my experience, have no shame or embarrassment talking about race. (White hispanics are also more likely to be openly racist.) DiAngelo's framework of white fragility doesn't allow for any 'good' reactions beyond agreeing with her 100%, which is ridiculous, as she is not the arbiter of good race reactions. Nobody is the arbiter of such a thing. I don't think her training has good results, and in fact will only make people more uncomfortable in inter-racial conversations.
So, if I'm understanding you right, your impression of what structural racism is as follows:
- All structures in the government are biased, consciously or otherwise, against people of color
- All white people have implicit psychological biases against people of color
- All structures must therefore be torn down and replaced with new ones
- White people must meditate on their bias to become better people and not perpetuate new forms of structural racism
I think there are basically two concepts at play here.
Structural racism is an idea that became popular in the post-Civil Rights era, when black activists and scholars noted that although de facto race-based laws were over, the economic condition of black people hadn't improved. As people concerned for their community, they put research and thought into the question of, "why are African Americans doing so poorly?" especially in the legal area (it is significant that critical race theory began as a legal framework). The conclusion they came to was that although laws no longer specified race by name, laws were being made that still disproportionately affected African Americans negatively, which made it harder for them to accumulate wealth.
There is also the issue of implicit bias. I think it's fair to say that if you are a millenial, as I am, you've grown up seeing both positive depictions of black people and negative ones. One wishes that only the positive depictions remained in our memories, but unfortunately the negative depictions do, too. For example, I live in a majority white Hispanic area. I once saw a group of black teens just walking around a park, and for some reason a thought came to my head unbidden, "what if they're here to cause trouble". It surprised me, because I grew up in a house that attempted to be race-neutral, and I tried to consume media that challenged stereotypes of black teens. At the same time, I couldn't forget all of the media I had consumed where black teens were associated with gangs, or starting trouble, or some other negative thing, and my subconscious or unconscious or whatever makes thoughts you don't control spat that at me. I realized it was nonsense - these were just regular kids having fun. But what if someone else had a similar thought, and didn't think to ask, "why am I thinking this? Are they actually causing trouble, or am I being prejudiced?" What if this happened at work, or at school?
So, I think you're talking about these two concepts. I don't know if literally every structure in society is racist. I would not be surprised, if only for the reason that most of the people in America who have the opportunity to create massive social structures are white people who are middle class or higher. Even if we assume they are not prejudiced in the slightest, assume they are perfect angels, they still don't know what it's like to be poor, or the differences in black cultures and white cultures. They may assume, for example, that in most married couples, one partner will stay at home, because that's what they've seen in much of their life. They may create tax incentives around this assumption that will benefit couples with one partner at home, and one at work, and penalize couples where both partners work (in that it would be more advantageous for them to file separately). They're not doing this out of malice or implicit bias - they are simply ignorant of the socioeconomic conditions African Americans live in! But it still has consequences, as low-income black Americans where both partners work may find that they would actually save money on taxes if they filed separately. (Most low-income black Americans might assume that getting married *must* be better than filing separately, and so are probably also unaware of this tax situation, and don't realize that they are not optimizing their taxes.)
As you point out - "in the event that [cases of structural racism existed, then changes would be necessitated]." Frankly, I think this sort of thing - looking at how assumptions on how people live their lives, how socioeconomic ignorance can make life harder or more expensive, etc. is much more valuable and important to solve than poring over the soul of white people. Implicit bias is still important, but so far, we don't seem to have a great way to change it, as Singal has pointed out.
I don't think every structure must be dismantled. For one, I don't even see how that's possible, so it kind of seems like a non-starter. (Fun fact: some lefty extreme-progressive academics think academia itself is unsalvageably racist, and must be dismantled and remade. Universities are hesitant to put their work out, for understandable reasons.) For example, I don't think we need to be ashamed of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and the founders as a whole. The work Jefferson did in the Declaration, for example, has served as inspiration for liberatory groups throughout the world, regardless of race. We absolutely must grapple with the heinous things he did as slavemaster, and we shouldn't worship him the way some people seem to (American civic religion is a trip). But is really necessary to throw him out? What about other founding fathers? What about John Adams and Samuel Adams, who were against the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery in general?
I do think that the attitude that white people are better than other races was extremely common at the founding of this country (what critical race theorists call "white supremacy" - I don't like that term because it's associated with the KKK and Nazis specifically, so people are confused when they hear that George Washington "is a white supremacist'). But I also think it's important to point out the legacy of resistance, both from black people and from white people. There has always been debate and pushback. We do ourselves and the United States a disservice if we ignore the people who historically grappled with their own ignorance and prejudice, who risked social ridicule to fight for their values, who even risked their own lives because they believed that some aspect of their dominant racial paradigm was unspeakably wrong.
I think I agree with you on some things, then, like thinking too much importance is placed on racist soul-searching, how some conceptions of racism seem to allow for "no way out" (if you agree, you're racist - if you disagree, you're racist), and how there is a little bit of a destructive glee in wanting to "fully dismantle all structures, because they are all racist", but I disagree on the scale of how important structural racism is.
Apologies for the long post - I think I still missed some of your points, but I've already rambled on long enough. :)
No. Apology NOT accepted, because none NEEDED! (I just happen to appreciate long posts, probably because i've produced no small number myself. ;-)
TY for reply. You have some interesting points. But I think You're pretty far off-base on a few of them, and I don't wanna hurt Your feelings. Plus, I'd hafta give it considerable more thought before I responded in any event. Up to You. TY again.
Thank you for the considered conversation. In recent years, I've been more of a critic of critical race theory and its practitioners than a defender, so it's interesting to sort of put myself back in that point of view and think, what is worth taking from this area?
I would like to know which ones you think I'm off base on. There are always things one may not consider or know about. And I know it takes quite a while to write a considerate, reasonable, readable response, so there's no rush.
Yeah, I agree the loudest voices in the racist "anti-racist" movement are the least capable of actually helping anyone. DiAngelo amongst the worst of the lot. But she's grifted her way to being a multi-millionaire, so she has that "in favor" of herself. What bothers me most about her is, like You "said High Tone, if You don't agree with her 100%, Your in denial.
I would go along with Your definition of what structural racism is. By that definition, I don't think it's a useful concept.
I believe that the idea of structural racism was born outta impatience. Blacks thought that, with the passage of civil rights laws, everything would immediately change. They were right that, although the law changed, there were still obstacles to their advancing. That's an example of Black myopia. Society doesn't change as fast the law does. Simple as that.
My concept of implicit bias is a bit different. Yeah, it's a case of *deeply unconscious* negativity towards people who are different. I wonder... Have Blacks been tested? Because they likely have as much, if not more, implicit bias as White people.
I think the example You raise isn't so much a case of implicit bias as it's a case of applying, perhaps errant, stereotypes. My understanding is the one-a the most tested theories in psychology is the validity of stereotypes. Young Black males are killing each other by an order of magnitude more than others do, right? So, to me anyway, what You experienced is not an uncommon reaction. So I don't think You should hold it against Yourself. That is, as long as You recognize quickly that it *is* based on a stereotype. And that sometimes it doesn't apply to the situation.
Other times it might.
Me? I was lucky not to experience negative depictions of Blacks in my Youth. And as a teenager I experienced a very deep, positive, experience of Black people.
So perhaps I can add some insight. Your theory that it's likely that all structures in society are racist is an exaggeration that, to me, doesn't merit much consideration. Yeah, it was true before the Civil Rights act. That was a period of legal apartheid, right?
Today? You seem to be under the misapprehension that things have remained largely the same. They haven't. I don't know the statistics, but Black people in positions of power just doesn't compare to what it was back then. If You observe *closely* over the past five years, Black people punch *WAY ABOVE* their weight. That's how we entered a period of Black Supremacists being in power, right?
Granted, most Black Supremacists are Caucasian. Still...
Your statement that White people don't know what it's like to be poor is somewhat true. But I think it largely misses the point. Technically, only 20% of the people know what it's like to be in the bottom quintile. But there are a *lotta* people, both Black and White, who live paycheck to paycheck. Without the savings to be able to survive an unexpected expense of a few hundred dollars. I've been there myself. I consider those people to fall in the "poor" category.
But when You're talking about the people who are capable of creating massive social structures, I think Your view is somewhat.. How should I say.. I guess I would say that You seem to be somewhat constrained as to what changes have been going *on* these past five years. The, IMO, buffoon Kendi has created a massive social structure. BLM? Same. Hannah-Jones and Coates?
These are not White people.
But maybe You don't consider their doings to be creating *massive* social structures. Okay fine. Then the people You are referring to are the one-percenters. The politically connected. Those in Big Tech. Their wealth and power has been consolidated in just these past five or ten years, right? *Those* are the social structures that rule the day.
As far as not being ignorant of the socioeconomic conditions of poor Blacks, You exhibit Your own ignorance. Sorry. You showed some implicit bias that is common these days. Prejudice against White people. You seem to think that poor Whites are it materially better position than Blacks. On the contrary. Blacks are given *illegal* precedence in things like getting the vaccine and getting Federal money and so many other ways. For no good reason that any logical person can see.
I agree it's more important to consider how people live than to consider implicit bias. Unless You're gonna turn the bright light of inquiry onto the implicit bias that Blacks have, which I don't think has been given much consideration at all, AFAIK. Prejudice again, AFAIK.
And, no. We do *not* need to grapple with the "heinous things he [Jefferson] did as slavemaster..." And we *absolutely should* "worship him the way some people seem to.." Like You pointed out: I refer You to the experiment some Professor did when he asked a bunch-a privileged White kids how many of them would-a joined the Abolition Movement. They *all* would-a, right? Yeah, riiiiight. You think these punks would-a actually risked their *life* for the principle in *that day and age?!?*
Nup. No way.
There's totally, completely, and ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT to the idea of judging people in the past by present day conditions. How You think today's Woke are gonna be judged? (Weeeel, depends who wins and writes the history, true.) So, no. People back then didn't grapple with their own existence. *You're* lacking in imagination, IMO, when You look into the past.
I agree with the second-to-last paragraph. (And disagree with the last, as I posted above. ;-)
Okay. I'll take a shot at it. Probably tomorrow, on account-a my day ends early.
But I should warn You that I don't take a whole *lotta* time when I write, other than the typing. If something comes out considerate and readable, that's my aim. If it comes out reasonable, that's a miracle. ;-)
One reason I think structural racism is not obvious is illustrated by Bank of America's new "Community Affordable Loan Solution." It's a program where Blacks and Hispanics can buy a home with no money down and no closing costs. No minimum credit score and no requirement for mortgage insurance even if less than 20% down.
IOW, one must factor in "structural racism" in *favor* of Blacks and Hispanics, right?
I would also point out at surveys asking if whites would be *against* a Black person marrying someone in family. From *very* poor memory: In 1984 it was around 86%, in 2016 it was around 14%. Recent figures put it at 6%. First, You can't just assume that 6% of Americans are White Supremacists. And, second of all, what is the basis of the idea that pretty much *all* institutions are plagued with "structural racism?" I think the basis is that some people just wanna destroy (or "dismantle") all the institutions in the country, for essentially no reason.
And I'm sure additional "study" will prove there are reasons to destroy the country. They just won't be based on reason.
Not only that, but if You look at everything through the lens of "structural racism" that's why You would see "structural racism" everywhere.
Are their *any* cases of structural racism? Sure. Probably a smaller number than You would *imagine.* But in the event they actually existed, then changes would be necessitated. Not necessary to dismantle everything.
Besides, it's been written that people who are over-educated are just as liable for all the psychological deficiencies, like confirmation bias, as anyone else. They just think they aren't. And, for that and other reasons, their so-called solutions tend to have little to do with the realities "on the ground," a *lotta* times, right?
(That's the long-winded version of what I meant, I guess. ;-)
I'll start by saying that I don't agree with all of the people who parade themselves as experts on structural racism and critical race theory. As in any field, there's a lot of garbage, and unfortunately I think the ones who are the most provocative and most appealing to white liberals get the most attention (hence the outsize focus on self-flagellation and inner reflection, which Singal has noted).
For example, I think Robin DiAngelo's approach to 'white fragility sensitivity training' is basically unfalsifiable, and also sort of missing the point entirely. "White fragility" broadly refers to a phenomenon where white people are uncomfortable talking about race, especially when it comes to discussing examples of white people who have benefitted from racism. I think this is a very WASP reaction - I'm a white Hispanic, and white Hispanics, in my experience, have no shame or embarrassment talking about race. (White hispanics are also more likely to be openly racist.) DiAngelo's framework of white fragility doesn't allow for any 'good' reactions beyond agreeing with her 100%, which is ridiculous, as she is not the arbiter of good race reactions. Nobody is the arbiter of such a thing. I don't think her training has good results, and in fact will only make people more uncomfortable in inter-racial conversations.
So, if I'm understanding you right, your impression of what structural racism is as follows:
- All structures in the government are biased, consciously or otherwise, against people of color
- All white people have implicit psychological biases against people of color
- All structures must therefore be torn down and replaced with new ones
- White people must meditate on their bias to become better people and not perpetuate new forms of structural racism
I think there are basically two concepts at play here.
Structural racism is an idea that became popular in the post-Civil Rights era, when black activists and scholars noted that although de facto race-based laws were over, the economic condition of black people hadn't improved. As people concerned for their community, they put research and thought into the question of, "why are African Americans doing so poorly?" especially in the legal area (it is significant that critical race theory began as a legal framework). The conclusion they came to was that although laws no longer specified race by name, laws were being made that still disproportionately affected African Americans negatively, which made it harder for them to accumulate wealth.
There is also the issue of implicit bias. I think it's fair to say that if you are a millenial, as I am, you've grown up seeing both positive depictions of black people and negative ones. One wishes that only the positive depictions remained in our memories, but unfortunately the negative depictions do, too. For example, I live in a majority white Hispanic area. I once saw a group of black teens just walking around a park, and for some reason a thought came to my head unbidden, "what if they're here to cause trouble". It surprised me, because I grew up in a house that attempted to be race-neutral, and I tried to consume media that challenged stereotypes of black teens. At the same time, I couldn't forget all of the media I had consumed where black teens were associated with gangs, or starting trouble, or some other negative thing, and my subconscious or unconscious or whatever makes thoughts you don't control spat that at me. I realized it was nonsense - these were just regular kids having fun. But what if someone else had a similar thought, and didn't think to ask, "why am I thinking this? Are they actually causing trouble, or am I being prejudiced?" What if this happened at work, or at school?
So, I think you're talking about these two concepts. I don't know if literally every structure in society is racist. I would not be surprised, if only for the reason that most of the people in America who have the opportunity to create massive social structures are white people who are middle class or higher. Even if we assume they are not prejudiced in the slightest, assume they are perfect angels, they still don't know what it's like to be poor, or the differences in black cultures and white cultures. They may assume, for example, that in most married couples, one partner will stay at home, because that's what they've seen in much of their life. They may create tax incentives around this assumption that will benefit couples with one partner at home, and one at work, and penalize couples where both partners work (in that it would be more advantageous for them to file separately). They're not doing this out of malice or implicit bias - they are simply ignorant of the socioeconomic conditions African Americans live in! But it still has consequences, as low-income black Americans where both partners work may find that they would actually save money on taxes if they filed separately. (Most low-income black Americans might assume that getting married *must* be better than filing separately, and so are probably also unaware of this tax situation, and don't realize that they are not optimizing their taxes.)
As you point out - "in the event that [cases of structural racism existed, then changes would be necessitated]." Frankly, I think this sort of thing - looking at how assumptions on how people live their lives, how socioeconomic ignorance can make life harder or more expensive, etc. is much more valuable and important to solve than poring over the soul of white people. Implicit bias is still important, but so far, we don't seem to have a great way to change it, as Singal has pointed out.
I don't think every structure must be dismantled. For one, I don't even see how that's possible, so it kind of seems like a non-starter. (Fun fact: some lefty extreme-progressive academics think academia itself is unsalvageably racist, and must be dismantled and remade. Universities are hesitant to put their work out, for understandable reasons.) For example, I don't think we need to be ashamed of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson and the founders as a whole. The work Jefferson did in the Declaration, for example, has served as inspiration for liberatory groups throughout the world, regardless of race. We absolutely must grapple with the heinous things he did as slavemaster, and we shouldn't worship him the way some people seem to (American civic religion is a trip). But is really necessary to throw him out? What about other founding fathers? What about John Adams and Samuel Adams, who were against the Atlantic Slave Trade and slavery in general?
I do think that the attitude that white people are better than other races was extremely common at the founding of this country (what critical race theorists call "white supremacy" - I don't like that term because it's associated with the KKK and Nazis specifically, so people are confused when they hear that George Washington "is a white supremacist'). But I also think it's important to point out the legacy of resistance, both from black people and from white people. There has always been debate and pushback. We do ourselves and the United States a disservice if we ignore the people who historically grappled with their own ignorance and prejudice, who risked social ridicule to fight for their values, who even risked their own lives because they believed that some aspect of their dominant racial paradigm was unspeakably wrong.
I think I agree with you on some things, then, like thinking too much importance is placed on racist soul-searching, how some conceptions of racism seem to allow for "no way out" (if you agree, you're racist - if you disagree, you're racist), and how there is a little bit of a destructive glee in wanting to "fully dismantle all structures, because they are all racist", but I disagree on the scale of how important structural racism is.
Apologies for the long post - I think I still missed some of your points, but I've already rambled on long enough. :)
No. Apology NOT accepted, because none NEEDED! (I just happen to appreciate long posts, probably because i've produced no small number myself. ;-)
TY for reply. You have some interesting points. But I think You're pretty far off-base on a few of them, and I don't wanna hurt Your feelings. Plus, I'd hafta give it considerable more thought before I responded in any event. Up to You. TY again.
Thank you for the considered conversation. In recent years, I've been more of a critic of critical race theory and its practitioners than a defender, so it's interesting to sort of put myself back in that point of view and think, what is worth taking from this area?
I would like to know which ones you think I'm off base on. There are always things one may not consider or know about. And I know it takes quite a while to write a considerate, reasonable, readable response, so there's no rush.
Okay, here goes nuthin.
Yeah, I agree the loudest voices in the racist "anti-racist" movement are the least capable of actually helping anyone. DiAngelo amongst the worst of the lot. But she's grifted her way to being a multi-millionaire, so she has that "in favor" of herself. What bothers me most about her is, like You "said High Tone, if You don't agree with her 100%, Your in denial.
I would go along with Your definition of what structural racism is. By that definition, I don't think it's a useful concept.
I believe that the idea of structural racism was born outta impatience. Blacks thought that, with the passage of civil rights laws, everything would immediately change. They were right that, although the law changed, there were still obstacles to their advancing. That's an example of Black myopia. Society doesn't change as fast the law does. Simple as that.
My concept of implicit bias is a bit different. Yeah, it's a case of *deeply unconscious* negativity towards people who are different. I wonder... Have Blacks been tested? Because they likely have as much, if not more, implicit bias as White people.
I think the example You raise isn't so much a case of implicit bias as it's a case of applying, perhaps errant, stereotypes. My understanding is the one-a the most tested theories in psychology is the validity of stereotypes. Young Black males are killing each other by an order of magnitude more than others do, right? So, to me anyway, what You experienced is not an uncommon reaction. So I don't think You should hold it against Yourself. That is, as long as You recognize quickly that it *is* based on a stereotype. And that sometimes it doesn't apply to the situation.
Other times it might.
Me? I was lucky not to experience negative depictions of Blacks in my Youth. And as a teenager I experienced a very deep, positive, experience of Black people.
So perhaps I can add some insight. Your theory that it's likely that all structures in society are racist is an exaggeration that, to me, doesn't merit much consideration. Yeah, it was true before the Civil Rights act. That was a period of legal apartheid, right?
Today? You seem to be under the misapprehension that things have remained largely the same. They haven't. I don't know the statistics, but Black people in positions of power just doesn't compare to what it was back then. If You observe *closely* over the past five years, Black people punch *WAY ABOVE* their weight. That's how we entered a period of Black Supremacists being in power, right?
Granted, most Black Supremacists are Caucasian. Still...
Your statement that White people don't know what it's like to be poor is somewhat true. But I think it largely misses the point. Technically, only 20% of the people know what it's like to be in the bottom quintile. But there are a *lotta* people, both Black and White, who live paycheck to paycheck. Without the savings to be able to survive an unexpected expense of a few hundred dollars. I've been there myself. I consider those people to fall in the "poor" category.
But when You're talking about the people who are capable of creating massive social structures, I think Your view is somewhat.. How should I say.. I guess I would say that You seem to be somewhat constrained as to what changes have been going *on* these past five years. The, IMO, buffoon Kendi has created a massive social structure. BLM? Same. Hannah-Jones and Coates?
These are not White people.
But maybe You don't consider their doings to be creating *massive* social structures. Okay fine. Then the people You are referring to are the one-percenters. The politically connected. Those in Big Tech. Their wealth and power has been consolidated in just these past five or ten years, right? *Those* are the social structures that rule the day.
As far as not being ignorant of the socioeconomic conditions of poor Blacks, You exhibit Your own ignorance. Sorry. You showed some implicit bias that is common these days. Prejudice against White people. You seem to think that poor Whites are it materially better position than Blacks. On the contrary. Blacks are given *illegal* precedence in things like getting the vaccine and getting Federal money and so many other ways. For no good reason that any logical person can see.
I agree it's more important to consider how people live than to consider implicit bias. Unless You're gonna turn the bright light of inquiry onto the implicit bias that Blacks have, which I don't think has been given much consideration at all, AFAIK. Prejudice again, AFAIK.
And, no. We do *not* need to grapple with the "heinous things he [Jefferson] did as slavemaster..." And we *absolutely should* "worship him the way some people seem to.." Like You pointed out: I refer You to the experiment some Professor did when he asked a bunch-a privileged White kids how many of them would-a joined the Abolition Movement. They *all* would-a, right? Yeah, riiiiight. You think these punks would-a actually risked their *life* for the principle in *that day and age?!?*
Nup. No way.
There's totally, completely, and ABSOLUTELY NO MERIT to the idea of judging people in the past by present day conditions. How You think today's Woke are gonna be judged? (Weeeel, depends who wins and writes the history, true.) So, no. People back then didn't grapple with their own existence. *You're* lacking in imagination, IMO, when You look into the past.
I agree with the second-to-last paragraph. (And disagree with the last, as I posted above. ;-)
Okay. I'll take a shot at it. Probably tomorrow, on account-a my day ends early.
But I should warn You that I don't take a whole *lotta* time when I write, other than the typing. If something comes out considerate and readable, that's my aim. If it comes out reasonable, that's a miracle. ;-)