View Full Version : Disagree With Obama? Are You a Racist?
A MINORITY VIEW
Is disagreement with Obama racism?
Walter E. Williams combats 'nonsense' of leftists tying protests to skin color
By Walter Williams
Former President Jimmy Carter said, "I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man." That's from a man who earlier referred to Obama as "This black boy" on the Jim Lehrer "News Hour." New York Times social critic Maureen Dowd said, in reference to Rep. Joe Wilson's shouting "You lie" during Obama's address on health care before the joint session of Congress, "Some people just can't believe a black man is president and will never accept it." Washington Post's Howard Kurtz said he "began to suspect that race was a factor for at least some critics when I heard them shouting about 'the Constitution' and 'taking our country back.'" Kurtz asked whether the massive tea parties and other public protests reflect a "distinct discomfort with the country's first black president." House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, New York Gov. David Paterson, MSNBC's Chris Matthews and other leftists claim that racism is behind criticism of President Obama.
For these people, it is inconceivable that many Americans are outraged by the president's spending policies, budget deficits, industry takeovers, not to mention the appointment of czars, a term that ought to be alien and offensive to American values whether used by a Republican or Democratic president.
Obama's presidency is truly a remarkable commentary on the goodness of Americans and how far we've come in resolving matters of race. Obama convincingly won votes in states with insignificant black populations, such as the New England states, Iowa and Minnesota. For the nation as a whole, he managed 53 percent of the popular vote and 365 of the Electoral College votes when he only needed 270 to win. So now Jimmy Carter, Dowd, Rangel and other race-carders want us to believe that the massive discontent with Obama is racism. I say nonsense!
Speaking for the president, Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman, in no uncertain terms said that the president did not think the criticism directed at him and his policies was based on the color of his skin. President Obama refused to answer a reporter who queried him about Carter's comments. When Obama did respond, and much to his credit, he insisted that the "biggest driver" of the vitriol was distrust of government. His response was not only correct, but the nation is better off as a result of it. We don't need the kind of divisiveness that would surely arise if Obama himself played the race card.
Race is no longer the problem that it once was. That doesn't mean there are not white and black bigots and that every vestige of racial discrimination has been eliminated. What little racial discrimination remains is nowhere near the insurmountable barrier it once was. For the most part, white bigots are no longer respected among whites, and I look forward to the day when black bigots are no longer respected among blacks.
When one says that race is no longer the problem it once was, it is not the same as saying that there are not major problems that confront a large segment of the black population. Grossly fraudulent education is a major problem, but it has nothing to do with racial discrimination as evidenced by the fact that the worse education received is in the very cities where blacks dominate the political structure. Crime is a major problem, but it has nothing to do with racial discrimination, particularly in light of the fact that blacks commit most of the violent crime in America and well over 90 percent of their victims are black. The fact of a 70 percent illegitimacy rate and only 35 percent of black children raised in two-parent homes is a major problem, but it has nothing to do with racial discrimination.
Americans should disavow and not fall prey to the racial rope-a-dope being played on us by the nation's race hustlers.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=111407
Interesting article. Thank you.
Jimmy Carter is a Jackass who has lived way past his usefulness on ths earth.
What is the date in this country that we can truely move beyond race?
When do we declare that institutional racisim has come to an end? What is the "exit strategy" from affirmative action programs? What are the metrics that we're using to make that decision? Or, are we hoping for Jessee and Al to tell us?
kimberly
09-30-2009, 20:52
I am not a racist at all and do not agree with Obama on anything. It would have made more sense for him to audition for a movie (since Hollywood finds him so attractive) than president. He would have been more effective.
What is the date in this country that we can truly move beyond race?
When do we declare that institutional racism has come to an end? What is the "exit strategy" from affirmative action programs? What are the metrics that we're using to make that decision? Or, are we hoping for Jessee and Al to tell us?Are we looking for political and economic solutions for issues that are now largely about culture, gender, ideology, and psychology?
Do we turn the corner by talking (or not talking) about the issues with those who agree with our position? Or might there be some merit to making the effort to have conversations with those who disagree?
With candor, I'll say that the latter approach has been very helpful to me. Especially when the conversations are with people who are my betters.* They could have easily replied "I don't want to hear it" and walked away.
My $0.02
______________________________
* Yeah, I know, that doesn't cut down the crop much.:)
LongWire
09-30-2009, 21:22
Another good article~
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/980zlght.asp
The Post-Postracial Presidency
What we learned at the teachable moment.
by Jonathan V. Last
09/28/2009, Volume 015, Issue 02
Barack Obama is, you might have heard, America's first postracial president. In his celebrated speech to the 2004 Democratic convention, he assured viewers that "There's not a black America and white America and Latino America and Asian America; there's the United States of America." And, early in 2007, he humbly acknowledged that
In the history of African-American politics in this country there has always been some tension between speaking in universal terms and speaking in very race-specific terms about the plight of the African-American community. By virtue of my background, you know, I am more likely to speak in universal terms.
Lots of people agreed. Everyone from Newsweek to the New York Times commended Obama for his "'post-racial' approach" and the manner in which he "transcended race." Even George Will cooed about the political implications of the Obama's "transcendence of confining categories."
Yet Obama was never as post-racial as advertised. Despite its charms, Obama's first memoir, Dreams from My Father, is filled with racialist moments--from his attraction to Jeremiah Wright's church to the admission that he once broke up with a girlfriend because she was white. Even during the presidential campaign, Obama would occasionally lapse into race-consciousness. The week before the South Carolina primary, the first contest with a substantial number of black voters, he worked a direct reference to Malcolm X into his stump speech, telling predominantly black audiences, "That's what they do. They try to bamboozle you, hoodwink you."
During the presidential campaign, Obama made noise about how McCain and Republicans were going to attack him for his race. After the McCain campaign ran its "Celebrity" ad, suggesting that the Democratic nominee was famous for being famous, like Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, Obama suggested that the ad was a racial provocation. "What they're going to try to do is make you scared of me," he said. "You know, he's not patriotic enough. He's got a funny name. You know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills." At an earlier rally, Obama was even more explicit: "They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?"
It was a successful strategy, and when the Reverend Joseph Lowery used the benediction at Obama's inauguration to pray, "We ask You to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to give back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man, and when white will embrace what is right," people laughed, thinking it was a charmingly homespun tribute to the end of the race issue.
But the first black president has been anything but postracial as chief executive. His first major piece of legislation, the $800 billion stimulus bill attached racial considerations to some of its largesse. In February, Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, said in a speech to Justice Department employees that America is "a nation of cowards" when it comes to discussing race. Obama disavowed Holder's choice of words, but later told the New York Times, "We're oftentimes uncomfortable with talking about race until there's some sort of racial flare-up or conflict. We could probably be more constructive in facing up to sort of the painful legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and discrimination." When a vacancy opened on the Supreme Court, Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor without even pretending that she was the most impressive liberal legal mind available. Her primary qualification was her "life experience" which made her a "wise Latina."
Another of Obama's hires was now-departed Van Jones as the "green jobs czar." Jones was forced to spend more time with his family because he showed sympathy for a group which believes that the Bush administration was complicit in 9/11. But Jones' background as a community organizer and radical environmentalist was just as disturbing. He founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, which made a business out of launching race-based complaints against the San Francisco police department in the late 1990s. Shortly before Obama appointed him, Jones explained environmental racism thus: "White polluters and white environmentalists are essentially steering poison into the people-of-color communities because they don't have a racial-justice frame."
Obama's Justice Department has also been quite keen on racial justice. The president's budget requested an 18 percent increase for the department's civil rights division for the express purpose of hiring more lawyers to work the racial discrimination beat. During the Bush administration, the office had shied away from the blanket pursuit of racial discrimination law, choosing to tackle individual discrimination cases as they arose and focusing on other kinds of crime, including human trafficking and religious discrimination. Holder told the New York Times that the civil rights division was now "getting back to doing what it has traditionally done." Namely, sussing out "disparate impact" violations in housing, employment, lending, voting rights, and other areas of American life.
Obama's nominee to head the division, Tom Perez, is certainly preoccupied with race and quotas. (He worked in the civil rights division during the Clinton years before entering Maryland state politics.) In 2003, as a councilman in Montgomery County, Perez pushed for quotas. "We have made great strides in attracting minorities to the county within the last 30 years," Perez said at the time. "We need a workforce in the Department of Fire and Rescue Services that reflects the diversity of the county."
The reason Perez was so concerned was that 46 of the 48 members of the fire department's recruiting class that year were white. The class was chosen based on an aptitude test, in which the white applicants scored highest. "These statistics are unacceptable," Perez said. "But I have confidence that we can get back up to the original number of minorities in the department, and develop a comprehensive plan to recruit diversity."
Three years later Perez published an article in the University of Maryland's Journal of Health Care Law and Policy in which he argued for a more rigorous quota system as part of medical school admissions. Perez's stated goal was not just to buttress the current affirmative-action regime, but to erect a new system of quotas should the diversity rationale eventually run afoul of the Supreme Court. He proposed an "access" rationale: Since minority doctors tend to serve minority patients, medical school quotas weren't just important for would-be minority doctors. Not having quotas for minority medical school students would create a disparate impact for all minority patients.
Perez's confirmation has lingered in the Senate, but the acting head of the civil rights division, Loretta King, has already filed 10 amicus briefs in private discrimination lawsuits. In July, she sent a memo to all federal agencies calling for more aggressive enforcement of Title VI regulations--forbidding discrimination by federal agencies. King encouraged "each federal agency to examine anew all aspects of its compliance program." The highest-profile matter to come across her desk is the case of three New Black Panther party members who were charged with voter intimidation at a polling place in Philadelphia last November. (Video surfaced of the thugs harassing voters and brandishing a weapon.) After consulting with another senior official at Justice, King decided to downgrade the charges against the Black Panthers.
Obama's most celebrated presidential moment of race consciousness came this summer when he eagerly injected himself into the dispute between Harvard's Skip Gates and the Cambridge police department. Asked about the incident in which a white police officer arrested Gates, Obama said the officer had acted stupidly and added, "What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact." After the officer in question was defended by numerous black colleagues, a "beer summit" ensued with Obama, Gates, the officer, and Joe Biden--heretofore totally unconnected with the affair--called in as racial ballast.
Shortly before the summit, Obama had spoken to the NAACP, where he claimed that while discrimination may be at an all-time low, it's still a terrible burden:
I understand there may be a temptation among some to think that discrimination is no longer a problem in 2009. And I believe that overall, there probably has never been less discrimination in America than there is today. I think we can say that.
But make no mistake: The pain of discrimination is still felt in America. [Applause.] By African American women paid less for doing the same work as colleagues of a different color and a different gender. [Laughter.] By Latinos made to feel unwelcome in their own country. [Applause.] By Muslim Americans viewed with suspicion simply because they kneel down to pray to their God. [Applause.] By our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights. [Applause.]
It would be nice if our first -postracial president would begin the postracial phase of his presidency.
Jonathan V. Last is a staff writer at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.
What is the date in this country that we can truely move beyond race?
When do we declare that institutional racisim has come to an end? What is the "exit strategy" from affirmative action programs? What are the metrics that we're using to make that decision? Or, are we hoping for Jessee and Al to tell us?
The date? Shortly after it ceases to be a useful and profitable tool. A sly politician can reward one group, punish another, and intimidate yet another - all to the politician's benefit.
So long as the various groups fear and distrust each other, so long as they cannot coalesce, control is easy. As Machiavelli said:
Therefore a wise prince ought to adopt such a course that his citizens will always in every sort and kind of circumstance have need of the state and of him, and then he will always find them faithful.
All MOO, YMMV.
What is racism?
Is it refusing to hear anything a person of a particular race says? Does it have anything to do with race at all? Is it belittling a person based on the color of their skin, or the way they dress, or the music they listen to, the clothes they wear? Is it something that revolves around actions or is it something deeper than that? Is racism a feeling that comes from a weakness of character, a momentary loss of personal courage? Is it like alcoholism; a kind of disease of the spirit that affects a person's behavior? Can a person get over racism? Seriously, the older I get the less sure I am of the answer. I know what it feels like to have a person assume things about me because I have or haven't had the same experiences they've had, and I know the pitiful feeling in my heart when I see dumb arrogance take the place of self-respect, honor, pride, and human compassion. Because sometimes I am weak, I sometimes I look on these things and get confused and then turn lazy, and end up hanging all my frustration on a single nail...lump my distrust or displeasure or misunderstanding with a person's behavior into one uncompromising assumption and say, "Ah-ha! This is it! Here's the reason!". You see, that's a lot easier for me to manage as a feeling, rather than think with the brains of something greater than a piss-ant. When I come to those kinds of conclusions (and I admit that I have) I am wrong, and in my heart I know it, regardless of what it's called. I'm just flatassed wrong.
After all the struggle and fight of the last 60 years, IMHO I don't think as a country we've found the answer to that question.
incarcerated
09-30-2009, 23:22
The 'Postracial' was all smoke. There is plenty of hate on the Left.
The 'Postracial' was all smoke. There is plenty of hate on the Left.Yeah, it is just politics. Source is here (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm).Racial bias
In 2007, law enforcement agencies reported that 4,724 single-bias hate crime offenses were racially motivated. Of these offenses:
* 69.3 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.
* 18.4 percent stemmed from anti-white bias.
* 6.0 percent were a result of bias against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race (anti-multiple races, group).
* 4.6 percent resulted from anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
* 1.6 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias. (Based on Table 1.)
Table 1 is attached in PDF format.
Obama, Colon Powell, Condolezza Rice, Clarence Thomas are just a few of the many examples that make it hard for me to believe in rampamt racism anymore. Once Obama became "the man" that should have ended the racial dispute once and for all. BTW-Michael Steele disagrees with the President so is he racist also?
President Obama as a Rorschach Test for America.
Richard
Yeah, it is just politics. Source is here (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm).
Table 1 is attached in PDF format.
Sigaba;
You posted data on hate crimes but that leads to the question "What is a hate crime?" and then that leads to "Who decides if a crime is a hate crime?"
Until the listing requirements are equal and fair the numbers you posted are very questionable and subject to the bias of the listing agency.
Just because a white does it to a black does not make it a hate crime and just because it was a black that does it to a white does not make it not a hate crime.
Next thing you know people holding anti Obama protest signs will be charged with a hate crime
Pete
JMO....
1. If you want to go out and inflict physical pain and suffering on a person because of the skin color, ethnic background or Religion. That is racism in my book.
2. If you call me a White or Cracker M F-r and I call you a N$@Ger. That is name calling. It is not acceptable behavior but is no more than a harmless insult in my book.
If you happen to be of a different skin color, ethnic background or Religion than myself and we do not agree on a matter, and I voice my opinion or discontent. I am not racist, I just don't agree with your line of thinking.
Obama, Colon Powell, Condolezza Rice, Clarence Thomas are just a few of the many examples that make it hard for me to believe in rampamt racism anymore. Once Obama became "the man" that should have ended the racial dispute once and for all. BTW-Michael Steele disagrees with the President so is he racist also?
When is the last time you witnessed in the US:
1. White Only Bathrooms
2. White Only Restaurants
3. Blacks required to sit in the back of the Bus.
4. White people in general conversation, openly referring to Blacks as the N-WORD?
5. When is the last time a main stream White Singer or Band used the N-Word in their lyrics? Or sing about killing blacks?
6. When is the last time a White Mob unleashed their anger on innocent Blacks?
7. Do you know of any 'White Only' clubs, religions or political groups?
8. Is there a "White' Entertainment Channel?
9. Is there a 'White', 'Whitey' or Caucasian magazine?
While racism isn't what it used to be, it still exists and always will. And if you ask me the roles of those discriminated against have reversed radically.
JMO
Obama's presidency is truly a remarkable commentary on the goodness of Americans and how far we've come in resolving matters of race.
This is all good and definitely a true statement today. IMO, if he is voted out of Office in 2012. That statement is going to be reversed. Even thou he would be voted out of Office for a failed presidency. It won't matter. The accusations of America being Racist will be screamed from every Mountain top.
Yeah, it is just politics. Source is here (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm).
Table 1 is attached in PDF format.
Do's the 5:1 ratio of Whites to Blacks living in the US have have any impact on those statistics? This was info from one year ago.
Do's the 5:1 ratio of Whites to Blacks living in the US have have any impact on those statistics?
Racism and behaving with prejudice against anybody becasue of their background, skin color, what-the-heck-ever, IMHO, is indicative of a weakness in moral courage. In some folks it's a condition that supercedes all else, and with others (the majority of so called "racists" (white or black)) it is eposodic behavior. It comes and goes. Regardless, a tree is known by the fruit it bears. So far Obama has demonstrated that he is overwhelmed. He may get re-elected in 2012, but it won't change him into a great President.
The accusations of America being Racist will be screamed from every Mountain top.
I think this is unfortunate but true. Again, a weakness in moral courage...this time coming from the ACORN's and and other squirrels.
Yeah, it is just politics. Source is here (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2007/incidents.htm).
Table 1 is attached in PDF format.
Perhaps the FBI should have posted the same warning used to preface the 'Crime in the United States' statistics:
Caution Against Ranking
Each year when Crime in the United States is published, some entities use reported figures to compile rankings of cities and counties. These rough rankings provide no insight into the numerous variables that mold crime in a particular town, city, county, state, or region. Consequently, they lead to simplistic and/or incomplete analyses that often create misleading perceptions adversely affecting communities and their residents. Valid assessments are possible only with careful study and analysis of the range of unique conditions affecting each local law enforcement jurisdiction. The data user is, therefore, cautioned against comparing statistical data of individual reporting units from cities, metropolitan areas, states, or colleges or universities solely on the basis of their population coverage or student enrollment.
2008 crime statistics by race (Table 43, Arrests by race attached):
Overview
* In 2008, 69.2 percent of all persons arrested nationwide were white, 28.3 percent were black, and 2.5 percent were other races.
* Of all juveniles (persons under the age of 18) arrested in 2008, 66.4 percent were white, 30.9 percent were black, and 2.7 percent were other races.
* Nearly 70 percent (69.7) of all adults (persons aged 18 and over) arrested were white, 27.8 percent were black, and 2.4 percent were other races.
* White persons were more often arrested for violent crimes than were black persons, accounting for 58.3 percent of those arrests.
* The number of adults arrested for murder and nonnegligent manslaughter was almost equally divided between black arrestees (49.1 percent) and white arrestees (48.8 percent).
* Black juveniles accounted for 51.6 percent of juveniles arrested for violent crimes.
* White juveniles accounted for 64.7 percent of juveniles arrested for property crimes.
In the crime statistics by race, there is no breakout of crimes committed by Hispanics. Are these numbers included in the category White? I have been unable to find an answer on the FBI's website.
metelliana
10-01-2009, 11:38
Yes, Hispanics fall under the White category.
This information is a bit dated but interesting. (if the link works)
http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf
Metelliana
Sigaba;
You posted data on hate crimes but that leads to the question "What is a hate crime?" and then that leads to "Who decides if a crime is a hate crime?"
Until the listing requirements are equal and fair the numbers you posted are very questionable and subject to the bias of the listing agency.
Just because a white does it to a black does not make it a hate crime and just because it was a black that does it to a white does not make it not a hate crime.
QP Pete, your points are well made and raise at least one additional question: when is a crime not hateful? A CPA pillages a retirement fund, a parent abuses his kid, a quality assurance manager turns a blind eye to an engineering defect that makes a vehicle unsafe--are these hypothetical examples any less hateful because the assailant doesn't use slurs of one type or another?
JMO....
1. If you want to go out and inflict physical pain and suffering on a person because of the skin color, ethnic background or Religion. That is racism in my book.
2. If you call me a White or Cracker M F-r and I call you a N$@Ger. That is name calling. It is not acceptable behavior but is no more than a harmless insult in my book.
If you happen to be of a different skin color, ethnic background or Religion than myself and we do not agree on a matter, and I voice my opinion or discontent. I am not racist, I just don't agree with your line of thinking.Paslode, a question for the sake of clarification (this is to say, I'm not sharpshooting you). In your first point, you indicate that the desire ("want") to hurt someone due to racial, ethnic, or religious differences is racism and your second point suggests that the use of slurs constitutes harmless insults.
My question is: where would you fit in hateful comments and/or remarks and/or behaviors aimed to damage someone's sense of self? Everyone has buttons and it doesn't take long to figure out what they are and how to push them. As an example, the last person to aver that I couldn't insult him was offering to kick my ass five seconds later.
For clarification, I thought true racism was based on race, and nothing else. Caucoid hates Mongoloid. Mongoloid hates Negroid, etc. I suppose it would be somewhat unusual (unless we're talking about the Aryan Nation) to simply hate one of the other two races based on genetics, so "racism" is a byproduct of specific prejudices based on stereotypes tagged to race, instead of say, geographical location. However, how is it racism if the only prejudice is religion, or otherwise non genetic? For an Afghani muslim to claim racism against a white american who hates islam does not make sense, for they are of the same race. Nor does it make sense for a hispanic to claim racism against a white american for supporting deportation and closed borders.
I believe the misuse and misunderstanding of racism and race contribute to their sensationalistic usage. Be aware that I don't read up on the subject, so these points may or may not be malformed.
To have a truly racist bias against Obama, wouldn't you have to be asian? I'm of mixed race, and while I say I'm half and half, it doesn't really work that way. I don't have a dotted line separating the two races that I am composed of, so you can't hate half of me.
QP Pete, your points are well made and raise at least one additional question: when is a crime not hateful? .....
Which is why I don't believe in the "Hate Crimes" law.
It's application is subjective based on the perp, the victim and the local LEOs.
If you curb stomp somebody your crime is curb stomping them.
It is not the governments job to look into the hearts of thugs - except the premeditated area, you went out looking for somebody to curb stomp.
For clarification, I thought true racism was based on race, and nothing else.SF0--
It would depend largely on how one defines "race." Is it just about fundamental genetic differences among the three racial types that you delineated or is it also about other factors?
In the case of racism in America, the other factors include ethnicity, gender identity, sexuality, morality, culture, religion, concepts of work and of play, the art of war, political activity, the acquisition of knowledge, the arts, and communication.
FWIW, there is broad agreement among Americanists (historians who study America) that while there have always been notions of racial difference in America--dating back at least as far to the "settlement" of the Americas by Europeans--the deliberate construction of American racism occurred during the 1830s and quickly permeated.
While Americans have worked together (and continue to work together, as evidenced by this thread) to uproot this toxic plant, it continues to flower in different forms and in different places. Even in those places where it has been uprooted, purged and burned, its shadow may still remain, haunting all who cast their gaze upon it, though they themselves may be blameless.
SF0--
It would depend largely on how one defines "race." Is it just about fundamental genetic differences among the three racial types that you delineated or is it also about other factors?
In the case of racism in America, the other factors include ethnicity, gender identity, sexuality, morality, culture, religion, concepts of work and of play, the art of war, political activity, the acquisition of knowledge, the arts, and communication.
FWIW, there is broad agreement among Americanists (historians who study America) that while there have always been notions of racial difference in America--dating back at least as far to the "settlement" of the Americas by Europeans--the deliberate construction of American racism occurred during the 1830s and quickly permeated.
While Americans have worked together (and continue to work together, as evidenced by this thread) to uproot this toxic plant, it continues to flower in different forms and in different places. Even in those places where it has been uprooted, purged and burned, its shadow may still remain, haunting all who cast their gaze upon it, though they themselves may be blameless.
My traditional view has always been that the "three races" are sub species of the human species. After some research, it seems most bio-anthropologists don't believe race is adequate to describe the variation of humans. "Cline", or the gradual change in the form or frequency of a trait over space seems to be the standard. This indicates there are no sub species as I believed. If this is true, it further invalidates the "race card" as many like to call it. Yet, this apparently common scientific observation is unknown or ignored by organizations with agendas, and public in general. I have to believe that the Obama administration and supporters have access to this information, but choose to ignore it for their benefit.
At a different level, I can imagine the backlash the scientific community trying to introduce the concept to the "mob". While you and I may comprehend it without issue, the un-thinking would not. The organizations that are in the best positions to do so, would effectively eliminate their purpose if they did. It does seem like hate is being perpetuated for personal gain as the Americanists suggest.
My traditional view has always been that the "three races" are sub species of the human species. After some research, it seems most bio-anthropologists don't believe race is adequate to describe the variation of humans. "Cline", or the gradual change in the form or frequency of a trait over space seems to be the standard. This indicates there are no sub species as I believed. If this is true, it further invalidates the "race card" as many like to call it. Yet, this apparently common scientific observation is unknown or ignored by organizations with agendas, and public in general.
SF0--
Part of the issue may be that the construction of the concept of racialized differences used scientific studies that 'proved' the inferiority of some races relative to another.
A second part of the issue may be how we Americans approach knowledge in general, especially if information is being presented from experts to laypersons. As an example, I would point to the resistance I encounter when I suggest to people whom I know that they come to a BB such as this one to learn more about the American armed services that they so casually vilify.
A third part of the issue may be that even when confronted by a scientifically verifiable piece of information, some may still decide to favor other sources of information and teaching. Recently, HBO aired a documentary on Morgan Freeman's effort to subsidize a single prom in a small town in Mississippi.
The documentary, Prom Night in Mississippi <<LINK (http://www.hbo.com/docs/docuseries/promnight/)>> features residents offering their views on race and race relations. While some residents were open to the idea of a single prom, others remained skeptical.
Some of these skeptics focused on factors such as how they were raised and their faith as Christians, and simply how they wanted to live their lives while also acknowledging their understanding of differing viewpoints. Given a wide range of information, residents of this town, like people elsewhere, made their own decisions for their own reasons. Such is life.
ETA. FWIW, I believe that comments such as these are not helpful and I cringe when I hear them."I live here," Freeman tells an assembly of seniors. "I think it is the stupidest thing I've ever heard of that in this time...you children are being brought up this way. It hurts me deeply." I've never changed anyone's mind or even gotten them to take another look at their views by belittling them. (And I sure have tried. I mean, give me a break. How many times does one have to scorch the popcorn before realizing that two minutes is too long in the microwave?)
SF0--
Part of the issue may be that the construction of the concept of racialized differences used scientific studies that 'proved' the inferiority of some races relative to another.
A second part of the issue may be how we Americans approach knowledge in general, especially if information is being presented from experts to laypersons. As an example, I would point to the resistance I encounter when I suggest to people whom I know that they come to a BB such as this one to learn more about the American armed services that they so casually vilify.
A third part of the issue may be that even when confronted by a scientifically verifiable piece of information, some may still decide to favor other sources of information and teaching. Recently, HBO aired a documentary on Morgan Freeman's effort to subsidize a single prom in a small town in Mississippi.
The documentary, Prom Night in Mississippi <<LINK (http://www.hbo.com/docs/docuseries/promnight/)>> features residents offering their views on race and race relations. While some residents were open to the idea of a single prom, others remained skeptical.
Some of these skeptics focused on factors such as how they were raised and their faith as Christians, and simply how they wanted to live their lives while also acknowledging their understanding of differing viewpoints. Given a wide range of information, residents of this town, like people elsewhere, made their own decisions for their own reasons. Such is life.
Good points, as unfortunate as they may be. I can only imagine the backlash from certain groups if these common views held by bio-anthropologists were pushed onto the general public via MSM, or possibly by a new organization dedicated to it.
Blitzzz (RIP)
10-02-2009, 09:43
An action motivated positively or negitivly by race is racism. With that I suggest that the greater numger of Obama voters are racists.
On another note Obama's failure to get the Olympics to Chicago is a great example of his belief in his "popularity" but fact that he's not.
He places himself on a pedestal he cannot defend.
QP Pete, your points are well made and raise at least one additional question: when is a crime not hateful? A CPA pillages a retirement fund, a parent abuses his kid, a quality assurance manager turns a blind eye to an engineering defect that makes a vehicle unsafe--are these hypothetical examples any less hateful because the assailant doesn't use slurs of one type or another?
Paslode, a question for the sake of clarification (this is to say, I'm not sharpshooting you). In your first point, you indicate that the desire ("want") to hurt someone due to racial, ethnic, or religious differences is racism and your second point suggests that the use of slurs constitutes harmless insults.
My question is: where would you fit in hateful comments and/or remarks and/or behaviors aimed to damage someone's sense of self? Everyone has buttons and it doesn't take long to figure out what they are and how to push them. As an example, the last person to aver that I couldn't insult him was offering to kick my ass five seconds later.
NOTICE: My response is unedited. No Offense intended.
Not at all, I thought someone would bring that up. And yes, a verbal insult is meant to be hurtful or to prompt a action, but the recipient has a choice to react or not to react. And while it maybe insulting it is only a word.
Around Aunt Nannie, Aunt Mary, Uncle Conner and Uncle Jimmy you never referred to person of color as Sir, Mister, Ma'am, Miss or Misses. They were Niggers. You might get your ass kicked or your faced slapped for referring to them by any other name and the person of color might receive the same or worse treatment because of your actions.
They didn't just dislike blacks, they 'hated' them. They didn't just want to insult them, they wanted to cause physical harm to them.
They went as far as to frame a young black for stealing chickens so he couldn't get his scholarship to Ole Miss.......they didn't want Ole Miss tainted.
That is racism in my mind. They were on par with what my Jewish German Teacher described as Nazi's.
Whereas if my Grandpa (Nannie, Mary's and Connor's brother) happened to call someone a nigger it was because a person of color wrong him or someone else. And actually I never heard him use the word, rather he substituted coon.
In my mind that is the difference between insult and hatred. Racism is hatred and more than insulting words in my book.
And sure, some Shrink can come up with all kinds of evidence that words cause all kinds of trauma.....In my book, getting called a Nigger, Coon, Spic, Jew Boy or whatever, it ain't any different than being the kid that has Green Teeth from Tetracycline.
Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me......unless of course I let them.
As insults go you can be a Victim, or you shrug it off and get on with life.
Easier said than done though, it depends.
Mom's advice was to ignore them, Dad's was to hit them in the mouth. I heeded their advice and did some of both ;)
incarcerated
10-02-2009, 23:31
Yeah, it is just politics.
I lost faith in the Federal Dept. of Justice' Bureau of Crime Statistics in the mid-'90s when they started cooking their books on behalf of Janet Reno and her boss. The Bureau instituted a phased dumbing down of their definition of "crime" and what constituted a crime. This was a politically motivated trick to quietly reflect an artificial drop in crime by raising the bar as to exactly what constituted a criminal act. The Clinton Administration took credit for the lower crime rates, attributing them to the success of their Community Based Policing.
Prior to this, in 1993 the FBI sent some young Junior Agents into our shop to talk to our LEOs while we awaited the approaching 2nd Rodney King verdict. (You may recall seeing the contrails over Los Angeles of high-speed military aircraft that were flown over the courthouse, while the jurors were repeatedly treated to parades of SWAT teams in full dress inside the building: Secretary of State Warren Christopher's idea of preserving the impartiality and integrity of a jury). The JAs were treated like royalty: in the hierarchic world of Law Enforcement, the FBI commands great respect. In a series of mandatory meetings, the JAs proceeded to tell our assembled LEOs about the racial slurs that Stacey Koon, Laurence Powell, Timothy Wind and Theodore Briseno taunted King with throughout the incident, all of which was false. Yeah, it's just politics.
Assuming your FBI stats to be accurate, are you suggesting that this tidal wave of hate crime against blacks justifies Reverend Jeremiah Wright's views and sermons about America? How do those stats explain Bill Ayers and James Carville? How would it be received in the media if a conservative wrote a book entitled "I Hate..."?
Assuming your FBI stats to be accurate, are you suggesting that this tidal wave of hate crime against blacks justifies Reverend Jeremiah Wright's views and sermons about America? How do those stats explain Bill Ayers and James Carville? How would it be received in the media if a conservative wrote a book entitled "I Hate..."?IMO, nothing justifies Reverend Wright's views about America.
For me, the question is what can be done to address the legitimate concerns of Americans who encounter racism in their everyday lives? Until we come up with better solutions, there will be those who will lend their ears to the Wrights of America.
And by "solutions" I mean programs that are consistent with our political values (i.e. do not punish/burden/tax some to the benefit of others). Solutions can also mean adjustments to the way we listen, talk, think, and act when it comes to issues of race.
An example that starts off as a non sequitur. I hate cats. But for reasons I couldn't figure, cats like me. After years of memorable of uncomfortable encounters, I stumbled upon a piece of information about felines. To cats, a turn of the head is a signal of approval. So when people who dislike cats turn their head in disgust, a cat is getting a message that says "Hey, come on over and terrorize me." (And that is just another example of how stupid cats are. YMMV.) Now, I glare at friends' cats and they leave me alone.
To go from the feline to the human, might there be things we do that unintentionally exacerbate race relations in America? Maybe if we engaged in the exercise of identifying those behaviors and taking corrective actions we could send a powerful message.
Just my $0.02.
LongWire
10-03-2009, 02:23
And by "solutions" I mean programs that are consistent with our political values (i.e. do not punish/burden/tax some to the benefit of others). Solutions can also mean adjustments to the way we listen, talk, think, and act when it comes to issues of race.
Something that you scholars are not taking into account are the variable factors ingrained into each one of us. Apples and oranges maybe, but we all see things a little different. I think paslode touched most of it, but to each their mileage may vary.
Not to mention those that will bend the rules that are in place to their advantage even though they weren't discriminated in the first place, thus skewing the scales even further.
For that my friends, I feel there may never be a solution.
You show me a disadvantage out in the field and its considered a challenge to overcome. Does it matter how you came to success? Sure it does, but only in the court of opinion. When the numbers are in your favor then you usually end up on top.
Going back to the original question: I can say no, disagreeing does not make me racist since he is only half black. I think the discussion gets off of center from that because even he understands that it is more advantageous to use his race in his favor, omitting the other half, since it allows him the position of being someone who can be discriminated against, therefore leverage. Conjecture on my part, but I don't think I'm far off.
And that's as far in the pool I'm wading...........
The word racism is just a Marxist construct to divide this country.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIUa4GblVJg&feature=player_embedded#t=12
Lots of good insights.
Still, I think there is too much sensitivity. Below is a concrete example that caused some raised eyebrows. Two people I know (both smart, rational, and so on) reacted as if this was borderline racism.
“The distribution of grades in all the six classes analyzed demonstrated that the performance of Mexican-American students enrolled in algebra under traditional instruction was better than those enrolled in the Web-classes.” (p. 47)
Esmaeili, G. A. (2001). A comparison of mathematics performance of Mexican-American college students utilizing Web-based instruction versus traditional instruction. Unpublished Ed.D., Texas A&M University - Kingsville, United States -- Texas.
Bottom line, those were the results as reported on page 47 of the cited dissertation - a dissertation that was reviewed and approved by a committee of four faculty members and the Dean of the College at Texas A&M University-Kingsville.
Now one could try to delve into why this was, but as matters stand there seems to be no viable theory of online education. At least, in over 200 references I haven't seen any sign of one, nor have those on my own faculty committee. So finding the whys of the results is likely to represent a research career - not a dissertation. The above represents the results the student/researcher obtained.
It seems to me that we are so badly muzzled that we are more likely to build resentments than we are to avoid them.
incarcerated
10-03-2009, 23:54
The word racism is just a Marxist construct to divide this country.
Concur. Ethnic Identity undermines the melting pot and displaces the individual's sense of American nationalism, which IMHO is why they teach it.
The word racism is just a Marxist construct to divide this country.
Concur. Ethnic Identity undermines the melting pot and displaces the individual's sense of American nationalism, which IMHO is why they teach it.I'm not so sure I am following this line of reasoning.:confused:
The crux of Marxism is class conflict and class warfare. If one introduces racial identity to the mix (to say nothing of gender) then is the model of class warfare is complicated (if not utterly compromised)? Does not Marxist theory present racism as a cultural construct used to deflect the attention of the working class away from the source of their ills--capitalism? If the proletariat focuses on race isn't it less focused on fulfilling its historical mission?
And if racism is a construct of Marxists, then why have many scholars whose works have been informed by Marxist theories been taken to task by scholars who look at race and/or gender?
Moreover, if racism serves the interests of Marxism, then why were communists the most violent opponents of fascism, which among other things, stresses racial warfare, before the Second World War?
...when do we declare that institutional racisim has come to an end? What is the "exit strategy" from affirmative action programs? What are the metrics that we're using to make that decision? Or, are we hoping for Jessee and Al to tell us?
I've been told, that if by a miracle, we wake up tomorrow and the world is perfect, that we all love one another, when racism is truely over, Jesse and Al will be out of a job? Are you suggesting the plight of racism is being driven by none other than, racists?
incarcerated
10-04-2009, 01:48
The crux of Marxism is class conflict and class warfare.
You are quite right. Sorry, not using the term 'Marxist' in any narrow or historical sense here. All of my college classmates who referred to themselves as communists went into Education upon graduation. Some were Maoists, others Marxist, still others Leninist; those distinctions mean very little to me. The term 'Leftist Educator" would better describe what I had in mind, namely those who teach the Politics of Identity and Multiculturalism. Do you think that today's' practicing Marxist would quarrel with the use of race to divide and weaken America?
Marxism is just an utopian ideology to overthrow the current power structure. Class conflict could never take hold in American since the poorest Americans live well compared to the Russian peasants under the Czar. The peasants never ruled Russia as promised by the Utopians, correct? Then it’s just a subversive tool to gain power, much like racism is used by government to gain power over the majority population. That’s right, it’s in reverse these days since the Marxist already control our government. Their problem is the Constitution and the people. That’s why the government continues to classify people by their skin color. The government gains power over the majority of the population (whites) by enacting racial quotas, affirmative action, multiculturalism, diversity, etc, ect. Hence, government is the protector of minorities (women too) against those evil white males (majority). The government openly promotes discrimination against the majority under the guise of equality and fairness. Then the government can expanded its social/domestic programs (it becomes more powerful) for the benefit of the minorities. Government really doesn’t care about minorities; it’s just a mechanism to gain more power over the people as a whole. If you oppose these programs, you’ll be called a RACSIT!! That’s the worst thing you can be called these days, and it only applies to white males, it doesn’t stick on other groups. Those protected groups are encouraged to be as ethnocentric as possible. Whites on the other hand, better not even think about it, or they’ll be ostracized. Special laws called (hate crime laws) look to protect the minorities, but whites are afforded no protections under the same laws. Whites can’t be victims of hate crime!! Political correctness is another tool that subjugates the majority population, say the wrong thing and your career is over. That’s a direct attack on the 1st amendment. Government gains more power because more (hate) speech laws will be passed to protect the special groups from the evil majority, say good bye to free speech. Marxism is just subversion, it can morph into anything as long as it gains power under the guise of some utopian promise..
You are quite right. Sorry, not using the term 'Marxist' in any narrow or historical sense here. All of my college classmates who referred to themselves as communists went into Education upon graduation. Some were Maoists, others Marxist, still others Leninist; those distinctions mean very little to me. The term 'Leftist Educator" would better describe what I had in mind, namely those who teach the Politics of Identity and Multiculturalism. Do you think that today's' practicing Marxist would quarrel with the use of race to divide and weaken America?
Ha, you did the fools errand. Never debate a self admitted Marxist about their ideology. I got the run around many times from these useful idiots. You can break it down like this; you are either an individualist or a collectivist. Don’t get caught up in all those “isms” it not worth your time.