Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Which Party Is More Racist?
- Thread starter Annie
- Start date
Following the logic above, could we determine which party is the more anti-military, by seeing which party most military people vote for?
Could we see which party is more pro-criminal, by seeing which party most convicted felons vote for?
That isn't really a fair observation. The Republican party has engaged for decades in a strategy designed to garner the votes of the Southern States by playing on racial tension. Given that the face of the Republican party is intentionally white and intentionally designed to appeal to white Christian men, it seems kind of disingenuous to claim they aren't racist in the sense that they try to benefit from the racism of others. That's not to say that there are no blacks or women in the Republican party. It just means that there's really no reason for most blacks to vote against their self interest... same is true of women and other minorities.
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the focus of the Republican party on winning U.S. Presidential elections by securing the electoral votes of the U.S. Southern states, often by exploiting racial anxiety among white voters.
Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Richard Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it[1], but merely popularized it[2]. In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:
From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."[3]
While Phillips was concerned with polarizing ethnic voting in general, and not just with winning the white South, this was by far the biggest prize yielded by his approach. Its success began at the presidential level, gradually trickling down to statewide offices, the Senate and House, as legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP. The strategy suffered a brief apparent reversal following Watergate, with broad support for the racially progressive Southern Democrat, Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election. But with Ronald Reagan kicking off his 1980 presidential campaign proclaiming support for "states' rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi, the site of the murder of three civil rights workers in 1964's Freedom Summer, the Southern Strategy was back to stay. Although another Southern Democrat, Bill Clinton, would twice be elected President, winning a handful of Southern states, he did better outside the South, and would have won without carrying any Southern state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
DeadCanDance
Senior Member
- May 29, 2007
- 1,414
- 127
- 48
Following the logic above, could we determine which party is the more anti-military, by seeing which party most military people vote for?
Could we see which party is more pro-criminal, by seeing which party most convicted felons vote for?
It's not even comparable.
There are zero elected black republicans in congress. The number of elected Democratic military veterans in congress is virtually the same as the number of elected republican military veterans.
90% of blacks routinely vote against republicans. The military vote fluctuates much more election cycle to cycle, and this year, BushCo. is loathed by a large number of military veterans and their families. Republicans may have an edge among military veterans, but its not even close to the way blacks have identified the republican party as a party who is against their interests.
William Joyce
Chemotherapy for PC
there's really no reason for most blacks to vote against their self interest... same is true of women and other minorities.
Yet I'm sure you would consider it worthy of condemning that whites would vote in their self-interest. The funny thing is that no black person would think twice about doing so, or bragging that they did so. Meanwhile, no white person (OK, well, maybe ME) would ever admit to it.
At an American Renaissance conference a few years back, one speaker talked about how blacks vote Democrat, always. He said this was not a dumb thing to do. In fact, it was very smart. Democrats usually deliver for blacks: welfare, affirmative action, less focus on punishment for crime, etc. So why in the hell should they vote for the Republicans? He did add that whites are the idiots here: they SPLIT their vote, with the wifey voting D and the hubby voting R. That's an indication that politics is serious business for blacks, but a parlor game for whites. We as whites need to wake up.
Kathianne: My reply was not to you, but to the argument that if most X's vote for party A, then all other political parties must be anti-X. By this truly moronic criterion, the very white and middle-class Naderites are anti-Black and anti-working class.
It's a silly and shallow argument -- although absolutely typical of the demagogic emoting which the Left substitutes for rational thought -- and is probably not even really believed by those who propose it, since a minute's thought will provide a dozen counter-examples.
Any human population can be divided into categories according to an endless number of criteria: sex, occupation, race, income level, age, geographic location, sexual orientation, IQ, religious observance, criminal activity, propensity to bathe, belief in astrology ... you name it. (I personally believe the root impulses that make both liberals and conservatives are psychological pre-dispositions: conservatives are more self-interested, liberals more compassionate; conservatives prefer the customary and normal, liberals prefer the new and unusual. But these are just my unscientific observations.)
It would be remarkable if, in a multi-party system, each such category distributed its political allegiances evenly across all parties. Even consciously trying to make sure we had such a distribution for more than a few categories would be comparable to the problem of doing input-output analysis for the major commodities of a planned economy -- each change would affect all other categories and require re-adjustment of each of them, and would prove computationally intractable.
If we take just geographic location, it is almost always the case -- in any country and period of time that you care to name -- that political parties have a strong geographical bias. The Democrats, for instance, were tradtionally, outside of the South, an urban party. Did this necessarily make them "anti-farmer"? No, it simply meant that farmers tended to find it in their self-interest to concentrate their support for the Republicans.
In a democratic society, political parties tend to be coalitions of groups which seek to advance their interests via a particular party. Only in the totalitarian societies favored by the Left do we find everyone "voting" for the same party, and even here the rulers have sometimes created phoney interest-bloc parties which mimic the reality of free societies.
Broadly speaking, out of the thousands of ways in which a population can be broken into categories, the most reliable, in terms of guiding political orientation, is the economic.
Perceived economic interests can be trumped by ethnic and national ones --and woe to the country where this is the case! -- but normally, you will find that political parties are generally of the Left, or of the Right.
This is because free societies naturally tend to divide into the Unsuccessful, and the Successful.
The Unsuccessful want to use the state to better their condition, often by transferring some of the wealth of the Successful to themselves. The Successful want to prevent this, and are often not above using the state to reinforce their success.
There are, of course, a thousand exceptions and partial-exceptions to this rule: Jews, for example, in the US tend to vote for the Left, despite their being among the Successful.
Blacks have tended, historically, to be among the Unsuccessful, in economic terms. Thus they support the party of the Left. This is generally true with poorer immigrants in all countries, by the way. No big deal.
DeadCanDance simply denies the reality that military people tend strongly to support the political party which they conceive has the more pro-military attitude. She does this by diverting the question to the nature of elected officials: of course the Democrats, who are not stupid, do not put forward CodePink supporters to run for national office. They choose candidates who they think will be acceptable to the broad center, who do not share the liberal aversion for the military.
But the proportion of elected officials is not what is being discussed. It is true that the Bush regime has succeeded in alienating many groups of people who would otherwise be natural conservatives, some of the military included. But this is a temporary phenomenon and is not relevant to the question, Does the non-support of a certain group for a political party mean that that party is "anti " that group? (Some conservatives are not above using this same wrong methodology to claim that the Democrats are anti-military, by the way. But it's a bad way to argue.)
Jillian raises the issue of the Republican Party and blacks. Here we have a more substantial question, which is worth discussing. She motivates it, in part at least, by some concrete facts, as opposed to the ridiculous inference from demographics of some of the previous posters. (The inference from demographics would also indicate that the Republicans are anti-Semitic, since most Jews are Democratic-voting liberals. And while this was probably true prior to the Second World War, it would be a silly charge to make today, although I suppose Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson might make it.)
Is the Republican Party racist, because, in the last few decades, it has received little support from black voters? No, this does not follow.
For one thing, it plays fast and loose with the word "racism". For liberals, this is an all-purpose emoter-word, designed to immediately shut down the cerebral cortex. In the context we are talking about, it is practically meaningless. (If you don't think it is, I challenge you to propose a three- or four-sentence definition of the term.)
But perhaps we can examine, as Jillian does, the detailed history of the two main parties and their legislative conduct, and conclude that the Republicans are, as Jillian hints at by mentioning "the Southern strategy", systematically in favor of discriminating against black people? That they exploit racial tension and try to benefit from the racism of others? She writes:
The reality is this: for decades, prior to the 1960s, Southern whites were deeply racist -- I'm talking lynchings here, not tasteless comments on talk shows -- and overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party. The Republicans were seen as the party of Civil Rights, although their advocacy of them was tepid. (The only people who passionately crusaded against Black oppression were the Communists.)
The one-party nature of the South meant that Southern Democrats tended to achieve the seniority which allowed them to dominate committees in Congress and thus bottle up Republican (and Northern Democrat)-supported civil rights legislation.
Basically, both parties, in practice, tolerated the Southern status quo, where the rule of law for Blacks was very weak indeed. This continued up until the Second World War. After that war, as we began to compete on the global stage in a (non-white) world with the officially anti-racist Soviets, the ruling elite in the United States decided that Southern official racial segregation would have to go. It took about twenty years to achieve this.
In the course of this change, the two parties swapped voting bases: the Republicans acquired the support of Southern whites. The Democrats acquired the support of Northern and Southern Blacks.
There was nothing unusual in this. Of course, many politicians are slime-balls, and we can find lots of examples of unedifying statements and actions by them when the nasty reality of race and ethnicity is involved, although these are far outnumbered by their pious hypocrisies.
My personal favorite of the former, for a contemporary example, is the way the Lousiana Democrats deal with the dark-skinned son of Indian immigrants who has just won the governorship of Louisiana, on the Republican ticket. This has, reportedly, including darkening his skin tone on photographs of him in their leaflets, and always calling him by his alien-sounding Indian name ("Piyush") rather than his American nickname ("Bobby").
The real question is this: have the Republicans in the South supported legislation which discriminates against people because of their race, as the Democrats there did for decades? That is, have they been actually racist in their political practice, as the Democrats were?
I would be grateful for examples of such racist political practice.
The argument that the Republicans must be racist because Blacks vote for the Left is pitiful ... but perhaps there are better arguments? If so, let us have them.
It's a silly and shallow argument -- although absolutely typical of the demagogic emoting which the Left substitutes for rational thought -- and is probably not even really believed by those who propose it, since a minute's thought will provide a dozen counter-examples.
Any human population can be divided into categories according to an endless number of criteria: sex, occupation, race, income level, age, geographic location, sexual orientation, IQ, religious observance, criminal activity, propensity to bathe, belief in astrology ... you name it. (I personally believe the root impulses that make both liberals and conservatives are psychological pre-dispositions: conservatives are more self-interested, liberals more compassionate; conservatives prefer the customary and normal, liberals prefer the new and unusual. But these are just my unscientific observations.)
It would be remarkable if, in a multi-party system, each such category distributed its political allegiances evenly across all parties. Even consciously trying to make sure we had such a distribution for more than a few categories would be comparable to the problem of doing input-output analysis for the major commodities of a planned economy -- each change would affect all other categories and require re-adjustment of each of them, and would prove computationally intractable.
If we take just geographic location, it is almost always the case -- in any country and period of time that you care to name -- that political parties have a strong geographical bias. The Democrats, for instance, were tradtionally, outside of the South, an urban party. Did this necessarily make them "anti-farmer"? No, it simply meant that farmers tended to find it in their self-interest to concentrate their support for the Republicans.
In a democratic society, political parties tend to be coalitions of groups which seek to advance their interests via a particular party. Only in the totalitarian societies favored by the Left do we find everyone "voting" for the same party, and even here the rulers have sometimes created phoney interest-bloc parties which mimic the reality of free societies.
Broadly speaking, out of the thousands of ways in which a population can be broken into categories, the most reliable, in terms of guiding political orientation, is the economic.
Perceived economic interests can be trumped by ethnic and national ones --and woe to the country where this is the case! -- but normally, you will find that political parties are generally of the Left, or of the Right.
This is because free societies naturally tend to divide into the Unsuccessful, and the Successful.
The Unsuccessful want to use the state to better their condition, often by transferring some of the wealth of the Successful to themselves. The Successful want to prevent this, and are often not above using the state to reinforce their success.
There are, of course, a thousand exceptions and partial-exceptions to this rule: Jews, for example, in the US tend to vote for the Left, despite their being among the Successful.
Blacks have tended, historically, to be among the Unsuccessful, in economic terms. Thus they support the party of the Left. This is generally true with poorer immigrants in all countries, by the way. No big deal.
DeadCanDance simply denies the reality that military people tend strongly to support the political party which they conceive has the more pro-military attitude. She does this by diverting the question to the nature of elected officials: of course the Democrats, who are not stupid, do not put forward CodePink supporters to run for national office. They choose candidates who they think will be acceptable to the broad center, who do not share the liberal aversion for the military.
But the proportion of elected officials is not what is being discussed. It is true that the Bush regime has succeeded in alienating many groups of people who would otherwise be natural conservatives, some of the military included. But this is a temporary phenomenon and is not relevant to the question, Does the non-support of a certain group for a political party mean that that party is "anti " that group? (Some conservatives are not above using this same wrong methodology to claim that the Democrats are anti-military, by the way. But it's a bad way to argue.)
Jillian raises the issue of the Republican Party and blacks. Here we have a more substantial question, which is worth discussing. She motivates it, in part at least, by some concrete facts, as opposed to the ridiculous inference from demographics of some of the previous posters. (The inference from demographics would also indicate that the Republicans are anti-Semitic, since most Jews are Democratic-voting liberals. And while this was probably true prior to the Second World War, it would be a silly charge to make today, although I suppose Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson might make it.)
Is the Republican Party racist, because, in the last few decades, it has received little support from black voters? No, this does not follow.
For one thing, it plays fast and loose with the word "racism". For liberals, this is an all-purpose emoter-word, designed to immediately shut down the cerebral cortex. In the context we are talking about, it is practically meaningless. (If you don't think it is, I challenge you to propose a three- or four-sentence definition of the term.)
But perhaps we can examine, as Jillian does, the detailed history of the two main parties and their legislative conduct, and conclude that the Republicans are, as Jillian hints at by mentioning "the Southern strategy", systematically in favor of discriminating against black people? That they exploit racial tension and try to benefit from the racism of others? She writes:
The Republican party has engaged for decades in a strategy designed to garner the votes of the Southern States by playing on racial tension. Given that the face of the Republican party is intentionally white and intentionally designed to appeal to white Christian men, it seems kind of disingenuous to claim they aren't racist in the sense that they try to benefit from the racism of others. That's not to say that there are no blacks or women in the Republican party. It just means that there's really no reason for most blacks to vote against their self interest... same is true of women and other minorities.
The reality is this: for decades, prior to the 1960s, Southern whites were deeply racist -- I'm talking lynchings here, not tasteless comments on talk shows -- and overwhelmingly supported the Democratic Party. The Republicans were seen as the party of Civil Rights, although their advocacy of them was tepid. (The only people who passionately crusaded against Black oppression were the Communists.)
The one-party nature of the South meant that Southern Democrats tended to achieve the seniority which allowed them to dominate committees in Congress and thus bottle up Republican (and Northern Democrat)-supported civil rights legislation.
Basically, both parties, in practice, tolerated the Southern status quo, where the rule of law for Blacks was very weak indeed. This continued up until the Second World War. After that war, as we began to compete on the global stage in a (non-white) world with the officially anti-racist Soviets, the ruling elite in the United States decided that Southern official racial segregation would have to go. It took about twenty years to achieve this.
In the course of this change, the two parties swapped voting bases: the Republicans acquired the support of Southern whites. The Democrats acquired the support of Northern and Southern Blacks.
There was nothing unusual in this. Of course, many politicians are slime-balls, and we can find lots of examples of unedifying statements and actions by them when the nasty reality of race and ethnicity is involved, although these are far outnumbered by their pious hypocrisies.
My personal favorite of the former, for a contemporary example, is the way the Lousiana Democrats deal with the dark-skinned son of Indian immigrants who has just won the governorship of Louisiana, on the Republican ticket. This has, reportedly, including darkening his skin tone on photographs of him in their leaflets, and always calling him by his alien-sounding Indian name ("Piyush") rather than his American nickname ("Bobby").
The real question is this: have the Republicans in the South supported legislation which discriminates against people because of their race, as the Democrats there did for decades? That is, have they been actually racist in their political practice, as the Democrats were?
I would be grateful for examples of such racist political practice.
The argument that the Republicans must be racist because Blacks vote for the Left is pitiful ... but perhaps there are better arguments? If so, let us have them.
Doug --
Republicans are also opposed to programs like Head Start which largely benefit the black community. Not calling things like that "entitlements" or "welfare" and understanding that government also needs to address certain social issues would be a good start.
I've always thought the Republican strategy was kind of limiting, and ultimately self-destructive. In order to retain their Southern voting block, which they got initially based on opposition to the Civil Rights Laws, they continue to rely on issues which are divisive and alienate groups other than white christians (predominantly the male of the species). There is a huge core of conservatism in the black community which, if it were tapped into properly, would also enable the Republicans to expand their base.
I would also point out that there is a large Muslim community among blacks. Taking positions which appear not to differentiate rabid, extreme Wahhibists, from moderate Muslims probably doesn't help either.
So is the Republican party racist? On an individual basis, I'm sure no more than it is sexist. As a party, its policies certainly give that impression.
Republicans are also opposed to programs like Head Start which largely benefit the black community. Not calling things like that "entitlements" or "welfare" and understanding that government also needs to address certain social issues would be a good start.
I've always thought the Republican strategy was kind of limiting, and ultimately self-destructive. In order to retain their Southern voting block, which they got initially based on opposition to the Civil Rights Laws, they continue to rely on issues which are divisive and alienate groups other than white christians (predominantly the male of the species). There is a huge core of conservatism in the black community which, if it were tapped into properly, would also enable the Republicans to expand their base.
I would also point out that there is a large Muslim community among blacks. Taking positions which appear not to differentiate rabid, extreme Wahhibists, from moderate Muslims probably doesn't help either.
So is the Republican party racist? On an individual basis, I'm sure no more than it is sexist. As a party, its policies certainly give that impression.
Gunny
Gold Member
Doug --
Republicans are also opposed to programs like Head Start which largely benefit the black community. Not calling things like that "entitlements" or "welfare" and understanding that government also needs to address certain social issues would be a good start.
I've always thought the Republican strategy was kind of limiting, and ultimately self-destructive. In order to retain their Southern voting block, which they got initially based on opposition to the Civil Rights Laws, they continue to rely on issues which are divisive and alienate groups other than white christians (predominantly the male of the species). There is a huge core of conservatism in the black community which, if it were tapped into properly, would also enable the Republicans to expand their base.
I would also point out that there is a large Muslim community among blacks. Taking positions which appear not to differentiate rabid, extreme Wahhibists, from moderate Muslims probably doesn't help either.
So is the Republican party racist? On an individual basis, I'm sure no more than it is sexist. As a party, its policies certainly give that impression.
Translation - Republicans are opposed ot perpetuating a nanny state of handouts. They are NOT entitlements. WHO is entitled?
If you wish to claim racism from the right, I would like to point out it is not the right that keeps blacks subjugated to and on the hook sitting around awaiting the next bump in their "entitlements." Democrats pander to that desire, knowing that to keep "entitlements" $5. above the poverty level with a promise of more will buy votes from sheep.
If THAT isn't racist, I don't know what it.
Which Party Is More Racist?
No Answers? Stripped of current considerations, after LBJ I would have to say the republicans. But I love the wonderful twisting of reality the conservatives have managed by saying that welfare and AA are really bad things and are really racist. That magic continues to amaze.
How does welfare help minorities improve their lives?
Translation - Republicans are opposed ot perpetuating a nanny state of handouts. They are NOT entitlements. WHO is entitled?
If you wish to claim racism from the right, I would like to point out it is not the right that keeps blacks subjugated to and on the hook sitting around awaiting the next bump in their "entitlements." Democrats pander to that desire, knowing that to keep "entitlements" $5. above the poverty level with a promise of more will buy votes from sheep.
If THAT isn't racist, I don't know what it.
Except that Head Start isn't a hand out, it's a hand up. Big difference.
Just for the record, white single mothers form the largest group on public assistance. There is a black gentry that doesn't believe in hand outs either. That isn't what I'm talking about. And the reaction that it's "nanny state" "handouts" is a good chunk of the reason that repubs have a very homogenous tent.
Kathianne: My reply was not to you, but to the argument that if most X's vote for party A, then all other political parties must be anti-X. By this truly moronic criterion, the very white and middle-class Naderites are anti-Black and anti-working class.
It's a silly and shallow argument -- although absolutely typical of the demagogic emoting which the Left substitutes for rational thought -- and is probably not even really believed by those who propose it, since a minute's thought will provide a dozen counter-examples.
Not sure where to begin, life is too short to counter all the misconceptions and distorted logic in Doug's posts.
People do not vote for Ralph Nader because he is white, they vote for him because he speaks to their values. Twisting the argument to imply that is downright ridiculous.
"It's the conservatism, stupid.
Trent Lott is no anomaly among conservatives. The whole Southern Strategy that brought him into being was a racist ploy. Republican candidates have had 54 years to appeal to Black voters in Southern states. That they still routinely win less than ten percent of the Black vote is itself prima facie evidence of unregenerate racism.
The tone of their political campaigns, from Bush One's use of Willie Horton in 1988 to Bush Two's appearance at Bob Jones University in 2000, from Jesse Helms' notorious "you lost that job to a minority" ad to the waving of the Confederate battle flag in Georgia's elections, is beyond blatant."
http://www.counterpunch.org/vest1220.html
Alucard, welfare helps everyone get an opportunity to get back on their feet. Do some abuse it, of course they do, but some people abuse anything given the opportunity. Some even steal from church. Consider enron or worldcom. Welfare needs to focus on training as they do in the Denmark.
"Over the last decade, the Danes have turned the conventional wisdom on its head by boasting not only one of the world's most expansive welfare states, but also one of its most robust economies. Given the way average American workers' wages continue to stagnate even as their burden of riskof losing a job, of losing medical insurancecontinues to rise, it looks increasingly as though the conservative triumphalism has been misplaced: It may be that Europe has something to teach us after all. And Democrats, who have come back into power promising to address economic insecurity, should be sure to listen."
http://www.inclusionist.org/node/450
http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/wf010507.htm
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
I'm not sure which party is more racist but I am glad that we've come to a point where racism for the sake of hatred doesn't sell in political platforms anymore. Certainly, Robert Byrd(D) has got to go. While I can fathom the influence of the Klan to a young white man in the south during that period of history I choose to apply the same standard to him that I did to Strom Thurman (R) who was probably just as much a product of the timeframe from which they developed. I think that George Allen (R) lost his bid for the senate because of his macaca comment and I can believe that he used the word ****** in college. Again, I'm betting that such was the result of the SOUTH more than particular party affiliation. Just as Mitt Romney became governor of Mass. on a socially liberal platform (pre-08 election) it seems that location has more to do with the tone of a political message than party. Sure, Reps and Dems may offer different avenues and options but, again thankfully, racism for the sake of hatred is no longer a selling platform.
That being said, clearly race still plays a part in our politics. Al Sharpton's quickness to point the race finger has become a predictable pattern. In America, the only ethnicity not allowed to openly favor it's own on threat of social stigma are whites. Latinos and Muslims get to wear the scapegoat du jour crown.
Personally, I'd like to see a republican minority leader of the likes of Bill Cosby or Colin Powell. Maybe they could sever the equation of black political consideration with support for welfare. I'd like to see a jewish-American gun lover who identifies with the mid-west above the mid east. I'd like to see a muslim-American become a leading figure in western democracy and the religious freedoms that we allow. A second generation Mexican-American acknowledging the negative impact of illegal immigration on the very saviour nation his family broke into. I'd like to see a white politician married to a black woman in the South. I'd like to see an america where quota solutions are faded away since race is a lesser factor in employment than personal work ethic and profit margin. I think that a majority demographic in America (whites) are not racist just because employment rates are not evenly divided among races. If there are more whites then of course more whites will be in the workforce (colleges, scholarships, etc). If blacks are only 20% of the population then it would be not be any more fair to restrict their opportunity to 20% than it is to restrict white opportunity for the sake of EEOC programs. This isn't 1975. We don't put quotas on sports just because whites are not proportionally represented. If the NBA is allowed to hire based on Merit instead of tokens then so too should every other American business. We've moved on. so too should the NAACP if it can't make room for a similar white organization. Let employers (colleges, scholarships etc) find the best qualified... not the best token demographic. Sometimes, the Al Sharpton race card simply isn't a valid response.
Growing up in a white rural mid west town we had a very low number of minority kids in school. Maybe 5 or 6 in a graduating class of 300. I was fortunate to have had for a best friend one of the few black kids around. It was one of the more significant variables in my mind's political formula. By HS I had heard every joke or comment that you can imagine. As it turned out, his family was exponentially more tactful, classy and educated than my own despite every derogatory accusation i'd ever heard. I remember that, on a tacboard in the kitchen, they had a newspaper clipping from the 80s regarding a new factory that had opened up in St. Louis. The headline read something to the effect of, "800 New Jobs Created: Not One African-American hired". I will always remember the significance of that clipping; not just as a reminder of where we have come from but as a milestone to gauge where we are going. I think, for the majority of America, hateful racism is a skin that was shed in the 20th century and helpful tools from that period (affirmative action, welfare) keep us stuck in a decades old mode. Clearly welfare hurts as much as it helps minorities. Clearly quotas do not reflect population demographics now that we are beyond the days when blatant racism was in fashion. I don't think that the above news clipping would happen in 08 like was possible in 88 because profit has usurped racism as business motivation for the majoirty of American commerce. Clearly the presence of any pro-minority group will illicit a pro-majority group when society no longer carries the same racist stick (as it did) as criteria for social opportunity. As it is, the Constitution doesn't say that racism is illegal and it doesn't say that we should regulate according to quotas. I think such was wiser than the short term solutions that create backfire when society starts to move along.
I don't think it's a bad thing when ANY group of people with a common identity gather to promote themselves. Such is distinctly American. But white people have to be able to do the same thing that the NAACP gets to do. Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they want since their business structure will sink or swim as the product of such decisions. College and University scholarships should not require quotas. There ARE opportunities for people who WANT to do more than be a thug. White people are not the reason the ghetto is filled with blacks. The mid-west has it's own white ghettos called trailer parks; poverty is not race specific. There are many, MANY successful examples of every demographic in this nation. Let common support of any identity fund support for it's own and take government out of regulating everything that is external to the equal application of itself. Chew that sentence up a little before comeing back and calling me a rcist.
That being said, clearly race still plays a part in our politics. Al Sharpton's quickness to point the race finger has become a predictable pattern. In America, the only ethnicity not allowed to openly favor it's own on threat of social stigma are whites. Latinos and Muslims get to wear the scapegoat du jour crown.
Personally, I'd like to see a republican minority leader of the likes of Bill Cosby or Colin Powell. Maybe they could sever the equation of black political consideration with support for welfare. I'd like to see a jewish-American gun lover who identifies with the mid-west above the mid east. I'd like to see a muslim-American become a leading figure in western democracy and the religious freedoms that we allow. A second generation Mexican-American acknowledging the negative impact of illegal immigration on the very saviour nation his family broke into. I'd like to see a white politician married to a black woman in the South. I'd like to see an america where quota solutions are faded away since race is a lesser factor in employment than personal work ethic and profit margin. I think that a majority demographic in America (whites) are not racist just because employment rates are not evenly divided among races. If there are more whites then of course more whites will be in the workforce (colleges, scholarships, etc). If blacks are only 20% of the population then it would be not be any more fair to restrict their opportunity to 20% than it is to restrict white opportunity for the sake of EEOC programs. This isn't 1975. We don't put quotas on sports just because whites are not proportionally represented. If the NBA is allowed to hire based on Merit instead of tokens then so too should every other American business. We've moved on. so too should the NAACP if it can't make room for a similar white organization. Let employers (colleges, scholarships etc) find the best qualified... not the best token demographic. Sometimes, the Al Sharpton race card simply isn't a valid response.
Growing up in a white rural mid west town we had a very low number of minority kids in school. Maybe 5 or 6 in a graduating class of 300. I was fortunate to have had for a best friend one of the few black kids around. It was one of the more significant variables in my mind's political formula. By HS I had heard every joke or comment that you can imagine. As it turned out, his family was exponentially more tactful, classy and educated than my own despite every derogatory accusation i'd ever heard. I remember that, on a tacboard in the kitchen, they had a newspaper clipping from the 80s regarding a new factory that had opened up in St. Louis. The headline read something to the effect of, "800 New Jobs Created: Not One African-American hired". I will always remember the significance of that clipping; not just as a reminder of where we have come from but as a milestone to gauge where we are going. I think, for the majority of America, hateful racism is a skin that was shed in the 20th century and helpful tools from that period (affirmative action, welfare) keep us stuck in a decades old mode. Clearly welfare hurts as much as it helps minorities. Clearly quotas do not reflect population demographics now that we are beyond the days when blatant racism was in fashion. I don't think that the above news clipping would happen in 08 like was possible in 88 because profit has usurped racism as business motivation for the majoirty of American commerce. Clearly the presence of any pro-minority group will illicit a pro-majority group when society no longer carries the same racist stick (as it did) as criteria for social opportunity. As it is, the Constitution doesn't say that racism is illegal and it doesn't say that we should regulate according to quotas. I think such was wiser than the short term solutions that create backfire when society starts to move along.
I don't think it's a bad thing when ANY group of people with a common identity gather to promote themselves. Such is distinctly American. But white people have to be able to do the same thing that the NAACP gets to do. Businesses should be allowed to hire whomever they want since their business structure will sink or swim as the product of such decisions. College and University scholarships should not require quotas. There ARE opportunities for people who WANT to do more than be a thug. White people are not the reason the ghetto is filled with blacks. The mid-west has it's own white ghettos called trailer parks; poverty is not race specific. There are many, MANY successful examples of every demographic in this nation. Let common support of any identity fund support for it's own and take government out of regulating everything that is external to the equal application of itself. Chew that sentence up a little before comeing back and calling me a rcist.
mattskramer
Senior Member
How does welfare help minorities improve their lives?
Welfare provides short term assistance to those in need and is a necessity to guarantee the health and well being of the poor.
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
Welfare provides short term assistance to those in need and is a necessity to guarantee the health and well being of the poor.
but it also provides a bare minumum lifestyle fr people whose standards fall below your own. It creates a cycle of dependance with no motivation to stop recieving assistance. I'm all for helping the poor too but when ghetto breeders sell their foodstamps for 50 cent on the dollar so that they can buy smokes and beer then the system is in need of change. Many times it's not a matter of the poverty stricken not having opportunity but not WANTING opportunity that requires an effort beyond opening the mailbox.
I'd agree to the following tweeks:
1. Drug tests for any recipiant of state aid. obvious.
2. Less food stamps at chain grocery stores and more generic food available from neighborhood shops withing walking distance. This creates local small business that reaches into poverty areas without having to stroke a national chain store and removes the temptation of trading food stamps by making the point of sale a small operation identification filter.
3. Financial Support only provided for minimal living requirements. This not only removes unnecessary cost but spreads out applicable funding to cover more people.
4. Fluxuating benefits. People are less likely to depend on welfare if they cannot predict the capacity of it's support. Each year that a person remains on welfare their benefits should be reduced up to 5-10%.
5. Continued tax breaks for business that hire from welfare demographics.
What about daycare for single moms and welfare to work programs?
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
easy. We now have a surplus of educators who can act as facility administrators at community day care that is staffed by recipients of welfare (that qualify - no criminal record.. that sort of thing). This can be paid for by funding saved from the above changes to welfare qualification. This is also potentially creating a market for private business. If we can trust nursing homes to take care of our elderly then we can do the same with daycare.
Be sure, i've known people who have had more children in order to qualify for larger housing/more benefits. This is a burden to a tax structure that has, in no way, any obligation to support breeders. This is one reason why I'm suggesting a staggered benefit amount every year so that people can stop thinking that the government is reliable income. I'm not interested in regulating sexual behaviour. However, I'm not willing to accept the poor choices of individuals who constantly choose poorly when given every other option. By all means, have sex. But do it with the knowledge that government is not a caretaker or a rich uncle that loves the fruit of your loins.
In fact, I'll go one step further and cap all family benefits regardless of household size in order to get the message accross that breeding /= more assistance.
I;ve already addressed Welfare to Work incentives. Promote the program as it integrates private industry as part of the solution.
Be sure, i've known people who have had more children in order to qualify for larger housing/more benefits. This is a burden to a tax structure that has, in no way, any obligation to support breeders. This is one reason why I'm suggesting a staggered benefit amount every year so that people can stop thinking that the government is reliable income. I'm not interested in regulating sexual behaviour. However, I'm not willing to accept the poor choices of individuals who constantly choose poorly when given every other option. By all means, have sex. But do it with the knowledge that government is not a caretaker or a rich uncle that loves the fruit of your loins.
In fact, I'll go one step further and cap all family benefits regardless of household size in order to get the message accross that breeding /= more assistance.
I;ve already addressed Welfare to Work incentives. Promote the program as it integrates private industry as part of the solution.
mattskramer
Senior Member
but it also provides a bare minumum lifestyle fr people whose standards fall below your own. It creates a cycle of dependance with no motivation to stop recieving assistance. I'm all for helping the poor too but when ghetto breeders sell their foodstamps for 50 cent on the dollar so that they can buy smokes and beer then the system is in need of change. Many times it's not a matter of the poverty stricken not having opportunity but not WANTING opportunity that requires an effort beyond opening the mailbox.
I'd agree to the following tweeks:
1. Drug tests for any recipiant of state aid. obvious.
2. Less food stamps at chain grocery stores and more generic food available from neighborhood shops withing walking distance. This creates local small business that reaches into poverty areas without having to stroke a national chain store and removes the temptation of trading food stamps by making the point of sale a small operation identification filter.
3. Financial Support only provided for minimal living requirements. This not only removes unnecessary cost but spreads out applicable funding to cover more people.
4. Fluxuating benefits. People are less likely to depend on welfare if they cannot predict the capacity of it's support. Each year that a person remains on welfare their benefits should be reduced up to 5-10%.
5. Continued tax breaks for business that hire from welfare demographics.
I dont like absolutist rhetoric. I think that there is good and bad in just about everything. Anything can be taken to ridiculous extremes one way or the other. It is best to strike a balance. There is some good in government welfare but welfare can also trap people into a cycle of conditioned dependency. Anyway, I think that we pretty much agree. I like your tweaking.
- Jan 8, 2007
- 30,528
- 2,263
- 1,045
I don’t like absolutist rhetoric. I think that there is good and bad in just about everything. Anything can be taken to ridiculous extremes – one way or the other. It is best to strike a balance. There is some good in government welfare but welfare can also trap people into a cycle of conditioned dependency. Anyway, I think that we pretty much agree. I like your tweaking.
I agree. I understand the value of a minimum standard for our poverty stricken and the utility of a safety net. I just hate to see such benevolent action abused to the point of Welfare becoming synonimous with political consideration for black Americans. In many ways Bill Cosby hit the nail on the head.
You should hear how I pair the above with the positive reinforcement that could be legalized marijuana.
William Joyce
Chemotherapy for PC
Whites don't support welfare because welfare is a program that benefits blacks at the expense of whites. It's a forced, race-to-race transfer, essentially a theft from one group to pay off another. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan suggested, it's actually a payment to keep blacks from rioting, and in some twisted way is "worth it" because otherwise whites would be faced with street-level violence from blacks.
But the foregoing should tell you something about "race relations" in the U.S. Blacks and their handlers essentially hold whites hostage. If we don't give them enough booty, they burn down the neighborhood. Yet this is not a good arrangement. It's basically whites and blacks switching places in the slave/slaveholder dichotomy.
Why not a dignified and peaceful existence for ALL races... in separate places?
But the foregoing should tell you something about "race relations" in the U.S. Blacks and their handlers essentially hold whites hostage. If we don't give them enough booty, they burn down the neighborhood. Yet this is not a good arrangement. It's basically whites and blacks switching places in the slave/slaveholder dichotomy.
Why not a dignified and peaceful existence for ALL races... in separate places?
What about daycare for single moms and welfare to work programs?
Smaller government intervention is the answer Jillian.... not more...
This is one place where we differ greatly... Besides everything else weve ever discussed...
Smaller government intervention is the answer Jillian.... not more...
This is one place where we differ greatly... Besides everything else weve ever discussed...
We disagree??? I'm shocked! Just shocked!!
Ah well... there's always Springsteen ...
Similar threads
- Replies
- 76
- Views
- 891
- Replies
- 2
- Views
- 133
- Replies
- 78
- Views
- 2K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 34
- Views
- 148
- Replies
- 107
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 82
- Views
- 221
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8016
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 466
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-