Black NY Democrat: Who Wants Mississippi?

[William Joyce]

This is the new chairman of the Ways and Means Committee:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/11/n...&ex=1163912400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

I can pretty much guarantee you that the tax dollars leaving New York aren't coming from his district in Harlem.

 

[Annie]

This is the new chairman of the Ways and Means Committee:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/11/n...&ex=1163912400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

I can pretty much guarantee you that the tax dollars leaving New York aren't coming from his district in Harlem.

This is the new leadership?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/11/n...&ex=1163912400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

Mississippians Rise Up Over Rangel’s Comment
By ANTHONY RAMIREZ

It was a remark, says Representative Charles B. Rangel, uttered with regional pride rather than rancor. But he apologized nonetheless.

On Wednesday, the day after the Democrats won a House majority, Mr. Rangel, the Harlem Democrat poised to become chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, which writes tax legislation, talked about winning back more of the tax revenue that New York State sends to the Treasury. He said, “Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?”

Apparently, a lot of people do, and they are not shy about saying so.

Charles W. Pickering Jr., a Mississippi Republican and a colleague of Mr. Rangel’s, was the first to publicly take umbrage. He reacted as if he and his state had been slapped with a glove.

“Mr. Rangel owes the people of Mississippi an apology,” he said in a statement. “I hope his remarks are not the kind of insults, slander and defamation that Mississippians will come to expect from the Democrat leadership in Washington, D.C.”

Mr. Pickering, who is from Laurel, Miss., marched to his peroration.

“From the coast to the Delta to the Pine Belt to the hills and across Mississippi,” he said, “there is beauty in every city, charity in every heart, love in every church, and majesty in every countryside.”

In Jackson, the state capital, Mr. Rangel’s remarks were discussed on local television and talk radio, said David Hampton, who edits the editorial page at The Clarion-Ledger. “A lot of it was post-election Republicans saying the evil Democrats this and that and a-ha, we told you so,” he said. “Mississippi sort of has an inferiority complex.”

Mr. Hampton said he had received about a dozen letters to the editor and five comments on his editorial page blog, and some of it was genuine outrage.

In a letter to the editor, Wendy Barthe Peavy of Biloxi wrote: “Congressman Rangel: As a proud Mississippian and resident of the Katrina-ravaged Gulf Coast, I would be happy to tell you ‘who the hell wants to live in Mississippi.’

“I will not waste your time with the litany of world-class writers, artists, athletes, entertainers, scientists, surgeons, astronauts, musicians, soldiers and statesmen who have called Mississippi home,” she wrote. “I will tell you of the 93,000 people still housed in FEMA trailers due to the loss of over 10,000 apartment units and over 150,000 homes to Hurricane Katrina.”

She concluded, “Congressman Rangel, these people went through hell to live in Mississippi!”

Told of Representative Pickering’s comments, Mr. Rangel said he was sorry. “I certainly don’t mean to offend anyone,” he said in a statement issued Thursday. “I just love New York so much that I can’t understand why everyone wouldn’t want to live here.” Attempts to reach him by telephone and e-mail for further comment were unsuccessful.

Some Mississippians were skeptical about the regional chauvinism explanation.

“I don’t know if he was joking,” said Debbie Crapps, 46, who lives in Florence and works as a manager at Homer’s Barbeque Store in Jackson.

“I think it was a bad thing to say,” Ms. Crapps said in a telephone interview. “He doesn’t live in Mississippi, he doesn’t know anything about us. A lot of people here have a lot to say about it because we’re not a big city like New York City. We are humans. We don’t think that’s right.”

But Mr. Pickering, at least, was prepared to let bygones be bygones. In a statement yesterday, he said Mississippians were “quick to forgive a sincere person.”

Beyond the bruised feelings, there were some fears that Mississippi’s needs would be ignored by a Northerner in a powerful position. In his editorial page blog, Mr. Hampton wrote that Mississippi would have to adjust to Mr. Rangel.

“Regional insults aside,” Mr. Hampton wrote, “the more serious issue is Rangel will head the powerful Ways and Means Committee at a time when there already is reluctance to continue to address Katrina-recovery needs and a perception that Mississippi got more than it should have in recovery funds.”

He said Mississippi’s Democrats in the House, Bennie Thompson and Gene Taylor, “have their job cut out for them,” and added, “They might start with a visit to Mr. Rangel.”

 

[red states rule]

What is all the fuss about? It is common knowledge (among libs and the liberal media) there are only white racists in the world



NY Times Hints Racism a Factor in Democrat Ford's Failure in TN Senate Race
Posted by Clay Waters on November 8, 2006 - 12:21.
Like Chris Matthews last night, The Times seems to be bitter about not having everything go the Democrats' way last night, putting its usual racism spin on one of the GOP's few bright spots -- Bob Corker's win over Harold Ford Jr. in the race for Senate in Tennessee.

Adam Nossiter's "Republican Hangs on to Frist's Senate Seat" opens:

"Tennessee's open Senate seat stayed in Republican hands on Tuesday night after a campaign that drew national attention for its nastiness and for Democratic hopes that it would break a longstanding race barrier."

Nossiter blames racism in Tennessee:

"In addition, Mr. Ford was trying to become the first black senator from the South since Reconstruction.

"In the end, that barrier may have been too difficult to overcome in a state that is only 17 percent black, as some analysts suggested before the vote. As the scion of a politically influential family from Memphis, Mr. Ford was faced with overcoming the suspicions of rural whites skeptical about his race, his background and his city."

And this being the Times, the "racist" ad from the RNC gets play:

"The first issue came to the fore in a television advertisement featuring a winking, bare-shouldered white woman intoning, 'Harold, call me.' Produced by the Republican National Committee and eventually disavowed by Mr. Corker, the commercial played on Mr. Ford’s reputation as a man about town but also spoke to -- or so critics charged -- age-old white Southern fears of miscegenation."

Sixties-era lines like that lead Times Watch to suspect Southern-based Times reporters don't know Southerners all that well.

Indeed, Nossiter doesn't seem to respect Southerners very much, judging from a statement he made to a New Orleans' weekly in 2001 while promoting a book:

"Southerners are in general a good deal more myopic. There's very little shame, covert or otherwise, attached to revering the Confederacy -- and this I obviously find scandalous. It has to do probably with deficiencies in education. People are ignorant of the facts, willfully or otherwise."

Nossiter concludes his post-election report with this snide remark about Corker's supporters:

"Mr. Ford’s upbringing proved an irresistible theme for Mr. Corker, who repeatedly invoked the background of the person his campaign referred to as 'the Washington congressman.' At a fund-raiser in a fashionable Nashville restaurant on Sunday night, Mr. Corker told the crowd, 'This is a choice between two individuals who could not have had more different life experiences, and could not have more different views of what makes this country safe and strong.'

"The crowd in the room packed with Corker supporters told its own story: It was almost entirely white."

In other words, it was just like the Ralph Nader rally Times Watch attended back in 2000.

By contrast, the Times barely noticed Maryland elected to the Senate Ben Cardin over Maryland lieutenant governor and black Republican Michael Steele -- the paper certainly made no hints of racism on the part of those particular voters south of the Mason-Dixon line.
http://newsbusters.org/node/8950

 

[William Joyce]

The New York Times hates the South as much as Charles Rangel, and it isn't because it's geographically farther from the North Pole. It's because it's filled with conservative whites who aren't as reflexively apologetic about being white as the others. A Jewish reporter like Adam Nossiter is about as much of a freakin' Southerner as Hitler is an honorary Israeli.

 

[red states rule]

Hurricane Katrina; Has America Forgotten?
This week marked the one year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, which means it’s time for white Americans to look into the mirror and ask themselves what they have done to make life easier for the millions of impoverished Blacks they allowed to drown in New Orleans. The answer is, to put it bluntly, diddly squat. Despite all the promises to rebuild the Chocolate City and restore it to its original chocolatey goodness, houses ripped from their foundations still rest in the middle of the streets, with large crowds of local politicians standing around wondering what Bush is going to do about it. Parts of the Gulf of Mexico are still completely underwater. The thousands who fled Louisiana haven't been offered enough cash incentives to come back, and the grinning skeletons of entire Black families who remained behind carpet the rooftops to this day, patiently waiting for rescue teams that will never come.

We can never completely repay African-Americans for what we did to them in New Orleans, nor can we ever wash the blood of slavery off our hands. But there are meaningless little gestures we can make to show the Black community that we at least care enough to pretend like we give damn about their suffering. Naming a street in your community after Dr. Martin Luther King, for instance. Giving Halle Berry an Oscar. And most importantly, understanding that African Americans are essentially helpless children who need constant nurturing to survive.

About ten years ago, I noticed a homeless African-American man panhandling on the street corner outside my apartment building. Realizing that as a white man I was somehow responsible for his sorry state of affairs, I felt obligated to make amends. So I gave the poor man a crisp ten dollar bill, and he thanked me profusely.

The next day, I passed the same guy begging for change again. I gave him another ten bucks as I walked by. “Blesh you shir,” he slurred. “Gah Blesh you!” I shook my head and reminded him that the money was his by rights. In an anglo-centric system of White Privilege built through the exploitation of African slaves, every dollar a white person earns is essentially stolen from a black person - or from any other minority (except for those damn Asians who are practically house Negroes because they work hard and don't complain).

On third day, the poor guy was still out there on the corner but he didn’t even bother to thank me when I gave him another ten dollars. He just nodded as if he had expected it. Nevertheless, I gave him ten dollars every single day for the next two or three weeks. By the end of the month, rent was due and I was a little short on cash, so I had to skip my reparations payments for a while. Then one afternoon as I was knitting macrame bong sweaters for Hempfest '96, there came a loud pounding on my door.

“YO, WHERE’S MY MONEY, BITCH?” A familiar voice shouted from the hall. “I KNOW YOU'RE IN THERE! OPEN UP!"

"I'm broke!" I cried. "I don't have any money to give you!"

“LIAR!" he growled back at me. "YOU TOOK ME FROM AFRICA AND BROUGHT ME OVER HERE IN CHAINS! NOW I WANT MY FORTY ACRES AND A MULE!!!”

As a progressive American sensitive to the plight of the oppressed hyphenated peoples, and aware that as a White American I am to totally blame for it, how could I possibly argue with him? I quickly slipped my credit card under the door, and listened as his footsteps dwindled away down the hall.

That was the last I heard from him until a couple weeks ago, when he knocked on my door as I was knitting bong sweaters for Hempfest '06. I looked through the peephole and saw a transformed man. Clean cut, shaven, and wearing a nice suit, he was almost completely indistinguishable from the downtrodden street bum I had met ten years before.

“I want to shake your hand,” he said when I opened the door and greeted him. “Before I met you, I was a broken man, and convinced that I was totally to blame for my condition. But your stup...err, generosity opened my eyes. Thanks to you, I was able to rise up out of the gutter and begin a rewarding and lucrative career transforming white guilt into cold hard cash. Now I'm running for Congress in the State of Maryland, and I'm counting on your support.”

“Of course, Mr. Mfume!" I agreed, beaming with pride. "I'll be more than happy to help in any way I can! I'll campaign, I'll pass out flyers, whatever you want!"

“Actually," he replied, clearing his throat, "they cancelled your credit card. I ‘ll need a new one.”

Later that evening, as I crawled onto the mountain of delinquent credit card bills and “pay or vacate notices” I've been sleeping on since I pawned my flotation tank, I congratulated myself on a job well done. In a small way, I had fulfilled my duty as the descendent of people with the same color skin as slave owners to enrich the lives of people with the same color skin as slaves 150 years in the grave.

No longer can the racist great, great, great, great grandchildren of plantation owners use the fact that they weren't even alive during the era of slavery to escape their responsibility for the plight of African-Americans. Hurricane Katrina will make sure of that. Like Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, it will forever serve as an annual booster shot of white guilt.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/racism/index.html

 

[Kagom]

The New York Times hates the South as much as Charles Rangel, and it isn't because it's geographically farther from the North Pole. It's because it's filled with conservative whites who aren't as reflexively apologetic about being white as the others. A Jewish reporter like Adam Nossiter is about as much of a freakin' Southerner as Hitler is an honorary Israeli.

I think it's more along the lines of the fact that there is a lot of racism in the South. You can't tell me that isn't true. I've lived in the South for 14 years. I've had my fair share of experience.

However, to say there is no reverse racism (as I like to call it) is also quite naive and stupid. I've been subjected to it.

Red States: I loved the utter sarcasm in your story you post.

 

[red states rule]

Matthews: Racist Voters Like Black Candidates 'Almost Castrated'
Posted by Rich Noyes on November 7, 2006 - 15:49.
As Chris Matthews sees it and decrees it, if voters in Maryland decide to go for Republican Michael Steele today it will be because they prefer African American candidates who are “unthreatening” or “almost...castrated,” and that the “funny” “lighthearted” Steele strikes voters as “a guy I would like to have living next door” — although he quickly added that “that may be pushing it in some cases.”

As Joe Scarborough, one of the rotating anchors of MSNBC’s continuing election coverage tried to interrupt, Matthews justified his comments by insisting that, “I have to tell you, we have an ethnic problem in this country. And it’s coming to the fore, this race problem we have.”

Of course, whether or not Steele wins, most of his votes will come from Maryland’s more conservative voters. Does this mean that Matthews is blaming liberal Democratic voters for the supposed racist antagonism against Steele?

As NewsBuster Brad Wilmouth already documented, Matthews also blamed racism for the fact that Democrat Harold Ford appeared to be trailing in his race for a Tennessee Senate seat:


“We all know the history of our country electing white people. Blacks vote for whites. Whites don't vote for blacks. It’s just been a problem. It's just a horrible problem. I thought he was really courageous in making this run. I never thought it was really that winnable. He's from Memphis. He's had a history of family illegalities. Talk about the old man being involved in affecting your election. An uncle in trouble. I think he had to overcome an awful lot. But most importantly, he's an African-American guy running in the United States.”
Matthews made his comments about Steele around 2:25pm EST on Sunday, during live coverage shortly after President Bush’s delivered comments praising the death sentence verdict against Saddam Hussein. As he and Scarborough handicapped the various races, Matthews blurted out what he presented as praise of Michael Steele:

“Michael Steele has run a first-rate campaign. He’s a gentleman of the first order. You talk about meeting him — I’ve met him at so many football games and baseball games, and he’s always great to hang around with, but that’s all I really know about him.”

“But the commercials have been so positive. He’s so — I hate to say this, because this sounds so damned ethnic — unthreatening, which a lot of white voters like to see from an African-American, unthreatening. You almost have to be castrated to take the fear away from some people.” As Matthews said "unthreatening" and "castrated," he raised his voice to emphasize each word.

At this point, Scarborough tried to interrupt, but Matthews plowed forward: “And this guy comes on as a funny guy, a lighthearted, positive guy. And the people go ‘God, this guy is a guy I would like to have living next door’ — although that may be pushing it in some cases.”

After Scarborough tried again to interrupt, Matthews finished up: “ And so I have to tell you, we have an ethnic problem in this country. And it’s coming to the fore, this race problem we have.”

Of course, the fact is that in both Tennesse and Maryland voters are siding with the candidate who best represents their positions on the issues -- Republicans voting for the white Bob Corker and black Michael Steele, Democrats picking the white Ben Cardin and black Harold Ford. Matthews could be rejoicing over how color-blind the American political system is in the early 21st century, but instead he's impugning voters as too racist to vote fairly.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8914




No sarcasm here - just another liberal mootbat

 

[Gunny]

I think it's more along the lines of the fact that there is a lot of racism in the South. You can't tell me that isn't true. I've lived in the South for 14 years. I've had my fair share of experience.

However, to say there is no reverse racism (as I like to call it) is also quite naive and stupid. I've been subjected to it.

Red States: I loved the utter sarcasm in your story you post.

I have to question your judgement. You're way to quick to cry foul. Racism does not exist in the South to the extent you are attempting to say it does, nor does it exist in any larger or smaller percentage than anywhere else.

 

[red states rule]

The liberal media is be telling America who racist they are. No matter if it is true or not


WashPost: 'Is America Too Racist for Barack? Too Sexist for Hillary?'
Posted by Michael M. Bates on November 12, 2006 - 09:51.
In a riveting 2,000-word thumbsucker for Sunday's Washington Post, the Washington Post asks: "Is America too Racist for Barack? Too Sexist for Hillary?" The author, Benjamin Wallace-Wells, is identified as a writer on national affairs for Rolling Stone. And here I thought that periodical's idea of national affairs was the latest on Britney Spears.

Anyway, the article doesn't answer the questions it poses. At least I don't think it does. When the author began using terms such as "post-racial" and "post-gender," my eyes glazed over and my mind meandered.

I did make it to the part, though, about there being a disparity between African Americans and women in terms of political leadership:

"The political progress of women and African Americans has long been intertwined; the suffragette movement gained huge momentum from the complaint that black men had received the right to vote before women of any race. But when it comes to modern political leadership, women have become more present. In January, the Senate will have 16 women and one African American, while eight women and one African American will be governors. Geraldine Ferraro was a vice presidential running mate more than 20 years ago, and still no black politician has reached that plateau."

Doubtless there are many reasons why that disparity exists. An obvious one is the difference in population: Women make up about half the nation's citizenry while blacks comprise only about 12 percent of the population. Admittedly, that probably isn't the sole reason for the difference, but it's relevant.

In the next paragraph, the author notes:

"Gender, meanwhile, may have become part of the political wallpaper. When Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. and Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele ran for Senate this fall, their race was mentioned in virtually every story; when Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Claire McCaskill ran, their gender was barely noted."

Gee, could that be because folks with names like Debbie and Claire are readily identified as people of the female persuasion?

As I mentioned, the piece doesn't actually say that America is either too racist or sexist. It just asks the question and in so doing places the idea in the public consciousness.

I won't hold my breath waiting for a comparable Washington Post article asking if possibly, just possibly, Barack and Hillary are too liberal for America.


http://newsbusters.org/node/9025

 

[Kagom]

I have to question your judgement. You're way to quick to cry foul. Racism does not exist in the South to the extent you are attempting to say it does, nor does it exist in any larger or smaller percentage than anywhere else.

I'm only speaking from my experiences in the South, Gunny. It was rampant where I was (Vicksburg, MS and Whitmire, SC).

 

[red states rule]

I'm only speaking from my experiences in the South, Gunny. It was rampant where I was (Vicksburg, MS and Whitmire, SC).

Only white Republicans are racists



CBS Expert: Republicans Are Racists But Democrats Are Geniuses
Posted by Michael Rule on October 26, 2006 - 12:13.
CBS’s ad expert claimed on Thursday’s "Early Show" that the Republicans in Tennessee are playing on "racist," "Reconstruction era" fears in the Senate campaign against Democrat Harold Ford Jr. While the RNC spot in question in its entirety hits Ford’s record and what his election would mean to Tennessee, CBS played only a brief segment, including where a "playboy bunny" tells Ford to "call me." Whereas this was denounced by the media as racist, there was no discussion on CBS of Mr. Ford making his moral values an issue by filming a political commercial inside of a church.

CBS called upon "Ad Week" magazine’s Barbara Lippert for their segment, and Lippert described the RNC spot:

"Yes, well, you know, that sort of looked like a phone sex ad. It's just bad. It's just, you know, cheesy and it sort of picks on all the racist things like from the Reconstruction era, you know, that black men will be all over white women. And, it's so ugly that I think, you know, people will want to reject it. Even Republicans, you know, see a basic unfairness in it."

The CBS segment featured Lippert, CBS News National Political correspondent Gloria Borger, and "Early Show" Co-host Hannah Storm. While there was criticism for the RNC spot running in Tennessee, there was praise for the Michael J. Fox ad running in Missouri on behalf of Democrat Claire McCaskill. Lippert declared the Fox commercial to be powerful and raw, but there was no discussion over the factual accuracy of claims he made in the ad. Lippert then proceeded to offer her critiques to an advertisement run in response to Mr. Fox, starring actors Jim Caviezel, who played Jesus in the "Passion of the Christ" and Patricia Heaton from "Everybody Loves Raymond." Lippert assessed these ads:

"Well I think what sets it apart is it's so heartfelt and raw and powerful for a major star like this who is even known to TV viewers, you know, as Alex, you know, from that TV show, for him to lay himself there this way and show himself as so vulnerable and so affected by this disease is just amazing. And, I think it's, you know, it has to break through and it has to get to you."

Lippert continued:

"Well, you know, it's celebrity versus celebrity, five celebrities, bam bam. And I think, you know, you can't say no to Jesus. Jesus has his effect. But I think the genius of the Michael J. Fox thing is how under done it is, just so that you focus on Michael. Here the production values are terrible because the creativity isn't getting it out so quickly and the problem then is that it sounds bad, and it looks bad."

Borger was less critical regarding the Ford ad, noting it was probably effective:

"Well, what's really interesting is that it was produced by an independent expenditure group. These are groups that come in, spend their own money at the end of a campaign and drop these ads. The Republican candidate Mr. Corker disavowed it, but of course it did play in the district. They have now started to take it off the air, but it's sort of had its impact. And again the ad was supposed to get out those voters who don't like Harold Ford who might have been thinking about sitting at home this election, and so you could say that it's probably working."

It is probably working because Ford made his moral values an issue when he aired an ad of him inside a church. It seems attending a Superbowl party hosted by Playboy and simply defending the attendance by claiming he likes football and he likes girls, runs contrary to the values Ford professes to possess. That is why the ‘playboy" aspects of the ad are effective, not because of racism as claimed by Ms. Lippert and others in the media.

We are nearing the end of a grueling election cycle and, granted, there are negative ads being run. But these ads are being run by both political parties, not just Republicans. So where was the discussion of negative ads run by Democrats? As Tim Graham noted in an MRC Media Reality Check on October 25, the media have been silent on Democratic ads all cycle, and it appears the "Early Show’ simply continued this trend.

http://newsbusters.org/node/8619

 

[Gunny]

I'm only speaking from my experiences in the South, Gunny. It was rampant where I was (Vicksburg, MS and Whitmire, SC).

I've spent most of my life living all over the place, mostly in the South. My family is originally from Northern Alabama. That would basically triple your fourteen years.

Racism exists, but it is no worse in the South than anywhere else. Matter of fact, it was worse in Wichita, KS than anywhere I ever lived in the South, and by far the biggest bigot I have ever met was from Omaha, NE.

I think you have class discrimination and racism mixed up. Take a drive down to Watts, or downtown San Diego. Do you approve of the lifestyle you see? Low-class people and criminals who make no attempt to get away from their environment, better themselves, or in any way contribute to society rather than just take. Blacks of that nature tend to segregate themselves, just as Hispanics, Asian, whites, etc.

The problem of what they are is ALWAYS clouded over with shouts of racism the second they are criticized. The problem isn't the color of their skin and/or because "whitey" won't give them jobs. It's that they are lazy sacks of shit, conditioned from birth to perpetuate the "whitey owes me" myth. What they aren't given they just take. Their values begin and end with what they do and do not want.

 

[red states rule]

Liberal Racism

Liberals, who have always claimed to be the authoritative source of progressive attitudes on race, have actually become one of the centers of racist thinking in America over the last quarter century, a period of time in which postwar liberalism itself was being reconfigured by the radical Sixties worldview. Liberal racism began in the last years of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s life, when organizations such as the Black Panther Party and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) radicalized the issue of color in America by focusing on legitimate "black rage" and the "institutional racism" they claimed was embedded in the "DNA" of American society. King was an obstacle in their path; they rejected the gains he had achieved as illusory. This was no mere intellectual disagreement about a strategy for improving race relations in America; it had a bitter personal component. The black radicals and their white supporters derided King as "De Lawd" and "Uncle Martin."

Later on, after King's assassination, most of those who had expressed contempt for him during his lifetime would pay cynical homage to his martyrdom. But they never embraced his vision of an integrated social world. Rather, the program of these liberal racists, both white and black, focused on separatism and racial difference. Instead of subscribing to King's belief in a colorblind society, they wanted government policies that were color-coded. The further America progressed from the dark days of slavery, the more they insisted that slavery was present in America's social institutions and its personal interrelationships. The U.S., they asserted, was steeped in blood and guilt: it must pay for its crimes against "people of color."

The extent to which such views have not only entered but dominated the intellectual mainstream of America in the past three decades can be seen in the degree to which King's notion that people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin has become marginalized as quaint and naive. The racism in the left's view primarily of blacks themselves, but also of whites, has been clear in the policies the left has pursued. Some, like the demand for reparations for slavery, have not yet prevailed. Others, like the demand for affirmative action, have become part of America's way of doing business as a society. Although claiming to be an equitable "leveling of the playing field," this policy has actually tilted the social landscape. It has nothing to do with equality of opportunity, and everything to do with establishing a regime that will produce an equality of results. It is a zero sum game in which some win because of skin color and others lose because of skin color. Ultimately, affirmative action has put government back into the business of playing racial favorites — even after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the summary achievement of the civil rights movement, banned such action.

Liberal racists believe that neutral and objective tests for college admissions are actually rigged in favor of whites. When Asians, many of them recent immigrants with little or no cultural experience, refute this notion by outscoring whites on these tests, liberal racists say that these Asians are not really a minority at all but inauthentic, imitation whites.

Liiberal racists bear a heavy burden for having helped destroy the black family and create a black underclass by their romanticization of ghetto behavior, and their insistence that blacks are victims who cannot be held responsible for what they do. They reject the idea that culture rather than race may help explain the disadvantages those in the black underclass face. It is true, as they point out, that some 40 percent of America's black children are born poor, and that this fact affects their life chances. But it is also true that 85 percent of these poor children come from single-parent homes. It is this circumstance—studies show that children born into single-parent families are more likely to be poor, regardless of race, than children with two parents—rather than "institutional racism" that actually handicaps them. Yet in the liberal view, any policy aimed at countering illegitimacy and single parenthood among the black underclass is "blaming the victim."

The effects of liberal racism can be seen in the way black students taunt those among them who strive for achievement as sellouts who are "acting white." Liberal racism can be seen in the unholy alliance between the Democrat Party, the National Education Association and other teachers' unions, and black spokesmen such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, to maintain their power by opposing school choice for black children trapped in violent and failing public schools. Liberal racism can be seen in the way black voters are kept on the proverbial "liberal plantation" through scare tactics and attacks on "race traitors" such as Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, who have defied the party line. Liberal racism can be seen, paradoxically, most clearly in the way anyone straying from its premises is immediately branded as a "racist." This is a powerful sanction that liberal racists use like a bludgeon to control the public discussion about race.

http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/guideDesc.asp?catid=162&type=issue

 

[Kagom]

I've spent most of my life living all over the place, mostly in the South. My family is originally from Northern Alabama. That would basically triple your fourteen years.

Racism exists, but it is no worse in the South than anywhere else. Matter of fact, it was worse in Wichita, KS than anywhere I ever lived in the South, and by far the biggest bigot I have ever met was from Omaha, NE.

I think you have class discrimination and racism mixed up. Take a drive down to Watts, or downtown San Diego. Do you approve of the lifestyle you see? Low-class people and criminals who make no attempt to get away from their environment, better themselves, or in any way contribute to society rather than just take. Blacks of that nature tend to segregate themselves, just as Hispanics, Asian, whites, etc.

The problem of what they are is ALWAYS clouded over with shouts of racism the second they are criticized. The problem isn't the color of their skin and/or because "whitey" won't give them jobs. It's that they are lazy sacks of shit, conditioned from birth to perpetuate the "whitey owes me" myth. What they aren't given they just take. Their values begin and end with what they do and do not want.

Like I said, I'm speaking only from my experiences. But what's some of the worst things you've seen in your life?

No, I don't, sadly. I'm talking pure racism which ranges from simply calling someone "cracker" or "******" or "wetback," etc. to violence. But I have seen class discrimination before and haven't gone through it, fortuneatly.

I agree with that last statement, which is why I'm against affirmative action. Everything that you do in this world should be based on merit, not race, sexuality, or gender.

 

[William Joyce]

What if racism is justified in some measure because races are inherently different?

 

[Kagom]

What if racism is justified in some measure because races are inherently different?

Racism, regardless, is never justified.

 

[Gunny]

Like I said, I'm speaking only from my experiences. But what's some of the worst things you've seen in your life?

As it pertains to racism? That's a tough question. I started school when segregation was still legal, and have grown up through desegregation and the backlash that has followed ever since. There's been a lot of violence between then an now, and blacks have committed as much if not more of it than whites.

The difference is they call whites Klansmen, Nazi's and hatemongers while they call blacks, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan.

No, I don't, sadly. I'm talking pure racism which ranges from simply calling someone "cracker" or "******" or "wetback," etc. to violence. But I have seen class discrimination before and haven't gone through it, fortuneatly.

I think you are sensationalizing for the audience a bit, and parroting the PC crowd who love to villify the South and Southerners. Again, it's no better or worse in the South than it is in Chicago, NYC, LA, Miami, nor anywhere else.

I agree with that last statement, which is why I'm against affirmative action. Everything that you do in this world should be based on merit, not race, sexuality, or gender.

Good luck getting anyone to listen to that logic.

 

[Kagom]

Good luck getting anyone to listen to that logic.

I don't think I'm trying to pander to anyone. I have seen less racism since I left the South. Don't get me wrong, I love the South. It's my home and the place I grew up.

Yeah, I know. But I'm fairly loud about that.

 

[Gunny]

Racism, regardless, is never justified.

Bullshit. People have just as much right to be racists as you have to not be one. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them nor understand them. I certainly don't. But discriminating against separatists because they wish to live only with their own kind is just racism by another name.

 

[Gunny]

I don't think I'm trying to pander to anyone. I have seen less racism since I left the South. Don't get me wrong, I love the South. It's my home and the place I grew up.

Yeah, I know. But I'm fairly loud about that.

Fairly loud, and IMO incorrect. Since I missed out on the silver spoon, I gre up in areas that were largely 50/50 black and white throughout the South, and 50 /50 white and Hispanic in Texas and CA. I guess we were all too busy being poor and working our asses off to be able to afford the luxury of hating others for their skin color. Battling windmills is a luxury of people who don't have to work for a living.