Don't say, "I don't think so", because although you are right about those other things contributing to high black unemployment, that doesn't mean that racism didn't have something to do with it too.
I think your rationale is too simple - as Mencken said: "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong."
I'm not saying racism doesn't have any part in those situations but there are a lot of other factors involved that have little to do with race. I also think racism is less of a factor now then it was a couple of decades ago.
Look at high black unemployment for example. Is it across the board? Or, is it in certain geographical locations and in certain occupations that are more fragile and have a higher number of blacks? Are black CEO's disproportionately fired over white CEO's?
Do you deny that an overwhelming number of white managers in almost every company for decades refused to hire black people?
Depends on WHEN and WHERE you are talking about. Your statement is too broad.
This is why AA came to be, and rightfully so.
Agree - AA was needed to bust through the barriers. I don't think it's needed any more and causes more problems and legitimate resentment over quotas vs. merit.
Condi being rich has everything to do with her position on issues, and rightfully so. She's smart. I may call her a sellout, but at least she's voting in her own financial interests.
Or maybe she's voting for important (to her) principles?
If you vote GOP because of their positions on god, gays, guns, war, or any other bs wedge issue then they have fooled you into voting against your own best financial interests. Example, who gives a fuck about abortion if I go from $30 hr to $15. Or if the GOP were to become the pro choice party, do you think rich social conservatives would rush to the Democratic party? Even if it would cost them another 10% on their investments? Wake up.
Are those "wedge" issues necessarily? They are very important to the people involved - soldiers sent out to the wars, gay people wanting to get married, or gun owners. But - I DO agree that the parties use wedge issues to distract from deeper issues and fire up voters into thinking the Democrats will ban the guns or the Republicans will ban abortion if elected into power. But I think you also over-estimate the power that financial interests represent in voting - or there would be no rich Democrats. I think a lot of people vote on an array of interests that fluctuate according to the current situation - right now the economy is primary, eclipsing even the war.
Sex, religion, age, black, white, mexican, jewish, gay, straight, etc. None of this matters. These are just the things they use to divide us. Wedge issues.
Without these wedge issues, the GOP would have to stop catering to just the top 1% richest and instead they would have to start catering to the upper middle class. But ask many upper middle class people. There is no difference between Bush and Obama for them.
I'm not sure about that. The Christian Right for example has become a powerful voting block for the Republican party in the last several decades. It's not a wedge issue - it's a block that up until now they've had to cater to even to the point of losing traditional supporters such as fiscal conservatives. They aren't among the riches either but are predominately middle class.
The GOP take for granted that many upper middle class people THINK they are rich, and then they usually solidify their support by using the wedge issues I mentioned above. Plus the conservative message sounds good, whether they put it into practice or not. On top of that, they have made liberal a dirty word. Just look at how you guys feel about us. And you're all broke as hell.
You may have a point there but I don't think it's just that. Many conservatives aren't rich - in fact...I'm not sure, I'll have to look it up - but I don't think there is that much difference in wealth between the two.
Both parties tend to use wedge issues to solidify support - the Democrats have the gays, environmentalists, and women's issues for example.
By the way - I probably ought to clarify this - except for a few issues, I'm pretty much a liberal. When it comes to how the GoP has slandered the word "liberal" and turned it into a perjorative - I whole heartedly agree. That has been a concerted media campaign on the part of the right since Newt Gingrich and is (im)moral minority.
You don't realize you are voting against your own financial interests because maybe you aren't in a union or maybe nafta hasn't hurt you, YET.
I vote for a variety of interests - including financial.
Or maybe you didn't own a home that dropped in value or maybe you don't have a 401K.
I've seen my retirement lose money but home prices (always low in my area) have remained stable.
Or maybe you've been a republican so long that Rush limbaugh has convinced you that it was freddy/fanny/carter/clinton/pelosi who fucked up the economy. Isn't it funny how they have made a case for why/how it is every one of these people's fault? Don't you sense that they are lying to you when they got an excuse for everything? Wasn't Delay's fault, or Bush's, but it was Carter's fault? Wasn't Newt, wasn't Graham, but it was Fanny May?
I've never been a Republican. And - if there is blame for "who fucked up the economy" it's not as simplistic as blaming any one President but rather the financial policies of the past 25 years (since Reagan) - Congress - deregulation and lack of oversight - and the greed and sense of entitlement over discipline of the American public.
And if you weren't stupid enough to buy that, then they told you that, "everyone is to blame for what happened".
I wasn't told that - I figured it out on my own.
Yea, ever know the GOP to accept any blame for anything unless they were flat out guilty?
Hell, they even convinced you that the Democrats should share blame for the Iraq war.
They should. Congress and the media FUCKED UP big time - except for a 133 members of the House of Representatives (all Democrats...I think...) and 23 senators (21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent who courageously voted their consciences) who voted against the unprovoked use of force against Iraq - the rest were cowards who failed in their mandate of oversight. They failed to question the "intelligence" seriously - they failed to ask tough questions - they failed and gave in to the politics of fear. That includes almost all the Republicans and many Democrats.