A few months ago I was treated to an amusing assault by a few errant white liberals emboldened by a black liberal blogger. Funny how that happens (and so predictably human). Until they see black liberals castigating conservatives like myself, they wouldn’t dare say or write some of the junk I’ve read and heard (Also see Conservative Cool).
People who claim to be “for” black folks can be viciously condescending toward them. Perhaps black liberals don’t notice, but it’s crystal clear to me. Reading what’s written about other black conservatives was more than enough to convince me that liberals don’t really care about us, but being the target of their just-below-the-surface racist attitudes drove it in like a drill.
That’s why I expect to see more articles like Racism, Democrat-style, written by people like Ruben Navarrette, Jr. More “people of color” will begin to see white liberals for what they really are. I suspect they’re not interested in our opinions, even if we’re one of the 90 percent who voted for John Kerry. Blacks are to be seen and not heard. That’s my assessment until I see evidence to the contrary. Navarrette writes:
A LATINO attorney general? A black woman as secretary of state?Who would have imagined it 50 years ago — or even, more recently, say, during the Clinton administration? Give President Bush credit for breaking barriers that his Democratic predecessor never got around to.
Just don’t tell that to white liberals thrilled with the idea of minorities doing well — as long as liberals can claim credit. If they can’t, or if the minorities happen to be conservative, things can get messy.
He goes into detail about the Condoleezza Rice/white liberal scribblers incidents, but I don’t want to get sidetracked by all that. It’s the big picture I want you to see. White liberals will begin to understand the full import of their losses in November, and more venom will spew. Mark my words. It’s only a matter of time before these emboldened bigots step up their verbal assaults on black conservatives, uttering things they wouldn’t dare say to our faces.
Walter Williams says:
Dr. Condoleezza Rice, President Bush’s national security adviser and now his secretary of state nominee, has been the subject of nasty, demeaning and disrespectful cartoons and commentary. Some of the worst has come from people like Julian Bond, chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who said on TV’s “America’s Black Forum” that he agreed with “The Boondocks” cartoonist Aaron McGruder’s characterization of Dr. Rice as “a murderer.” A lead article in Black Commentator said, “Condoleezza Rice is the purest expression of the race traitor. No polite description is possible.” Those kinds of attacks by blacks have emboldened guilt-ridden white liberals to join in as seen by the recent cartoons of Pat Oliphant and Garry Trudeau (”Doonesbury”)….Black people have become Democrats first and whatever else afterward. The Democratic leadership, along with its leftist allies in Hollywood, on college campuses, in labor unions, in the education establishment and in the media, detests President Bush. Too many black people are dependent on the Democrats for handouts and racial preferences. Black politicians depend on the Bush haters for financial resources enabling them to gain office. Black civil rights organizations are beholden to liberal foundations. The bottom line of all of this is that he who pays the piper calls the tune and black people dance along.
Williams has much more experience with the emboldened white liberal than I have. I may need his advice in dealing with this rabble because something tells me I’ll need it. I just hope I don’t “lose my religion” as I try to deal with their stupidity. Pray for me.
Better yet, pray for them! 
Just remember, white liberal bigots like Ted Rall and Gary Trudeau and sell-outs like Julian Bond and Jesse Jackson are one day going to have to give an account for everything they’ve done (as will we all, mind you). On that day, a lot of people are going to be surprised when the veils of rationalization are torn away and they see themselves as God does (I’m sure I will, for starters). In the meantime, you know I’ll be praying for you, La Shawn!
Comment by AWG — 11.26.04 @ 1:40 pm
Great Post.
It’s has always amazed me how those in the liberal establishment has referred to Rice (and Powell) as either a stooge or a lackey; seemingly suggesting that they are not capable of independent thought. Sadly, this type of commentary only arises when a prominent black or minority (conservative) arises to power. I don’t recall Albright being referred to as Clinton’s stooge. God help Condi if she ever decides to run for President.
Comment by K. Ham — 11.26.04 @ 1:42 pm
I gave up trying to understand how anyone (especially Blacks) could not see the hidden racism within many White Liberals. I started getting headaches just thinking about how much it defies the common sense factor (and losing my religion). Like AWG said, we are all going to have to account for our actions. On that day, there will be no spin, no double talk… just absolutes (all black and white regardless of the mantra “there are no black and whites, it’s complex”).
Thanks La Shawn for posting this.
Comment by Renee — 11.26.04 @ 1:53 pm
Dear La Shawn:
A fool’s rebuke hurts him more than it hurts its target.
Personally, I would be ashamed to use the expression “race traitor”: it sounds like something out of the KKK playbook.
As for those who aren’t ashamed to use it, well, they defy “polite description,” so I’d better say no more about them, lest I be guilty of breaching the LBC Etiquette. . .
OK—just one more thing: the collapse of the distinction between argumentation and villification is a first step towards tyranny.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Adrian
Comment by adrian — 11.26.04 @ 2:15 pm
Happy Thanksgiving, Adrian! I hope everybody had a great day. Now it’s time to walk off all that turkey and stuffing…
Comment by La Shawn — 11.26.04 @ 2:20 pm
Watch them start claiming that Rice is being paid to be a black Republican Secretary of State. Oh wait, she is!!
I’ll be praying for you, La Shawn, for God’s help in these difficult times looming ahead. There are going to be a lot of battles to fight in the coming years, but with God’s support we can prevail.
Hope you had a happy Thanksgiving!
Shayne
Comment by Shayne — 11.26.04 @ 2:40 pm
We’ll, they already claim I’m on the Heritage Foundation’s payroll. I haven’t seen any cash yet. Maybe the check’s lost in the mail…
Comment by La Shawn — 11.26.04 @ 2:56 pm
‘Some of the worst has come from people like Julian Bond, chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, who said on TV’s “America’s Black Forum” that he agreed with “The Boondocks” cartoonist Aaron McGruder’s characterization of Dr. Rice as “a murderer.”’
Wait, thats not based on her race. The NAACP has come out against the use of race to critique condi. There’s plenty of other criticisms.
Comment by actus — 11.26.04 @ 3:56 pm
What those white liberals need to do is to download Mr. William’s “Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon Granted to All Persons of European Descent”
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/gift.html
Comment by Jeff Miller — 11.26.04 @ 4:04 pm
I agree La Shawn. I read WW the other day and sho’nuff, the storm is just a brewin’. I can only take heart that, bit by bit, sane persons of the DemParty will either reclaim the reins or walk away. More than likely, walk away.
Actus, why don’t you enlighten us, with quotes or links, on the positive things that Houseboy Bond and Frizzel Queazy have had to say about Black Conservatives? To me, anyone agreeing with that embittered McGruder is agreeing with the overall lackey meme. The Wapo and other MSMs need to drop McGruder as well.
Comment by Andy — 11.26.04 @ 4:21 pm
Andy:
must be an MSM conspiracy that you haven’t heard:
http://www.naacp.org/news/2004/2004-11-19-1.html
There’s plenty of much more useful things to criticize condi for.
Comment by actus — 11.26.04 @ 4:29 pm
Great thoughts, La Shawn, thanks.
Does anyone else give a bit of credit (perhaps that’s the wrong word — I have no clue whether it’s deliberate or inadvertant) to Fox News for splashing cold water on stereotypical assumptions? Not too long past (it may still be true on other networks), when one black and one white guest would be introduced to discuss a liberal/conservative controversy, it would be a surprise when the conservative position was championed by the black guest. Not anymore, thank heaven.
I imagine that’s the sort of thing that really started driving the liberals a little nuts. Heh, heh.
Comment by Merry — 11.26.04 @ 4:47 pm
” Race traitor “, indeed! Bond has gone around the bend on this one. His intemparate language is dragging the NAACP down into the mud.
Comment by Dixonh — 11.26.04 @ 6:03 pm
Democratus rudius
LaShawn discusses the increasingly unsubtle racism of the Left. Includes bonus Walter Williams…
Comment by Inoperable Terran — 11.26.04 @ 6:33 pm
Bill Bennett’s replacement host on his radio program this morning had a segment on Liberals bashing minority Conservatives. Apparently a newspaper dropped Michelle Malkin’s column and in that paper someone explaining the change called her a “Asian Ann Coulter.” I’ll start being impressed with the sincerity of “Liberals” when they when they call anyone who uses racial epithets to account.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 11.26.04 @ 7:06 pm
I guess I just don’t get it.
Maybe it is because I am white and having no personal experience where I might relate with persons such as Mr. Bond or the person who wrote, “Condoleezza Rice is the purest expression of a race traitor’.
I’m not understanding how it is that a person must think in a specific manner in order to remain a member of their race.
If I take this and turn it about, would I be considered to be black if I were to be politically and socialy of the same mind as Mr. Bond?
If thinking differently than he does would make me a race traitor were I black, then surely being white and thinking like Mr. Bond would make me black.
It makes no sense at all.
Comment by Keith — 11.26.04 @ 7:26 pm
Speaking of Secretary of State nominee Rice, I was surprised to see Senator Clinton on TV saying that a consideration for Ms. Rice’s confirmation is that she be independent and speak her own mind. This is a strange comment for someone whose husband withdrew Lani Guinier’s nomination with the reason given to Ms. Guinier that she “wasn’t a team player.”
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 11.26.04 @ 7:56 pm
Keith,
I bit deep for me if you think about it.
Many blacks just haven’t left the plantation mentality. I remember having to place a young lady in her place when she got mad at me for supporting Bush. Than she goes and says that Clinton was the first Black President. A white person saying this crap!! I had to let her know that regardless of what your liberal left thinks he WAS NOT BLACK!!! The real anger came when she tried to infer that I was less than black for not thinking differently.
PS LB… Have a safe flight back to DC. God bless.
Comment by Dominic — 11.26.04 @ 8:01 pm
Evon,
Please, I beg of you: Let’s not get on HILARY just yet. I know it only 3 years and 11 months til Election Day but I can’t take her sudden campaigning and shift to the “rightish” just yet(rolling eyes).
Comment by Dominic — 11.26.04 @ 8:05 pm
Thanks, Dominic. I’m headed back to the nation’s capital tomorrow.
Thanks for stopping by, readers!
Comment by La Shawn — 11.26.04 @ 8:34 pm
Maybe the reason why no one listens to Bond (and the NAACP) now, is because worse cartoons about Rice came out months ago (see below).
http://mhking.mu.nu/archives/034714.php
Since these were PRIOR to the election, I guess Bond and crew (the dinosaur club) didn’t see it as so bad ) not at least while they were still getting paid to bring home the black vote).
Comment by Renee — 11.26.04 @ 8:52 pm
Just an FYI,
I wrote the NAACP about the Rall cartoon in July that called Condi worse than Aunt Jemima…
Needless to say I got no response.
Comment by Renee — 11.26.04 @ 8:55 pm
I work in healthcare…primarily MediCaid and Black. What I’ve found interesting is when politics is not mentioned overtly, most of the parents, grandparents, etc. agree with comments like Bill Cosby made; want their children to do well in school; want them to be responsible rather than blaming others; etc. Positions that are often antithetical to the liberal/Democrat positions.
Black people are pretty conservative socially–believe in education; working hard; church-goers (even when we don’t necessarily act like it the rest of the week); family-oriented; etc. Again…non really consistent with the liberal/Democrat stances.
It’s ironic how many “amens” I’ll get when I talk about how we need this generation to stop viewing themselves as hapless, helpless victims who require the largess of white people to survive; how the past 50 years since Brown vs. Board of Education…Black children now aren’t expected to know how to be respectful, learn, speak, etc. in school; during the past 40 years of “The Great Society,” more Black children are fatherless, inadequately educated or trained for employment; more Black males are incarcerated, etc. But, if those topics then are related to conservatives, Republicans, George Bush–suddenly they’re at a loss.
Privately we seem to agree, but publicly we disagree.
What up with that? Have we truly been so brainwashed by the propaganda of “The Great Society” when has underlying themes of certain groups “needing help” to have, feed, raise, watch, educate, support, house, etc. their families because (I guess) they can’t (due to ignorance, lack of intellect, lack of maturity, lack of ambition; bad genes, or other issues) do it themselves?
When did we–the descendants of the survivors of slavery, Jim Crow, etc. –stop being intelligent, motivated, ambitious, determined, responsible citizens who just wanted a fair chance to work, learn and live; and start being dependent, lackadaisical, needy, helpless, childlike, group-thinking victims content to live off scraps from the government teat?
PurpleMD
…lone, Black, conservative Christian female physician in the San Francisco Bay Area
Comment by PurpleMD — 11.26.04 @ 10:31 pm
When other blacks, particularly the leadership of the civil rights organizations, treat Dr. Rice the way they do it’s obviously troubling, and no doubt hurtful to her personally. It’s up to the mainstream media to call them to account for their hypocracy and mean-spritiedness. But wait, the mainstream media is on board calling her even worse names and running cartoons of her depicting her in the most despicable and racist ways.
The only thing that’s ever going to change it is for the black population to become a whole lot more diverse in its voting habits than it is at present.
Comment by Jay Bird — 11.26.04 @ 10:39 pm
LaShawn,
I see all of this liberal vs. conservative firestorm (Blacks & Whites) as a golden opportunity to make real inroads in unity, understanding and cooperation between Black and White “conservatives.” Why? Because White liberals are Black hating racists in disguise. Black liberals are White hating racists in disguise. Thus, not only do they both hate all conservatives but (in disguise) they hate each other.
White liberals are a lost cause (forever) but; Blacks who currently follow tradition (ie; not really liberal at heart) represent the best opportunity to “see the light” through people like you who have changed and thus increase the conservative majority that already exists.
That’s why your work here is so important (and God working through you).
Comment by Dave in AZ — 11.26.04 @ 11:07 pm
I will be praying for you, La Shawn, and them.
I think the way the liberal establishment treated Dr. Rice and Colin Powell was and is abyssimal. I am hopeful that more and more minorities are waking up and seeing the light.
Comment by RepJ — 11.27.04 @ 12:03 am
The liberal mindset toward blacks is the same as that toward all the groups that the liberal elite exist to “help” (i.e. control). I was an education major, which might as well be a liberalism major. We were systematically taught to look condescendingly down our noses at blacks, the poor, the parents of our students, all immigrants or minorities, the religious–the list goes on and on–because they needed our wise assistance. This attitude permeated every class I had and was the underpinning of the humanistic philosophy that guided our education.
The source of this attitude is pride and it is their pride that is wounded when anyone has the audacity to suggest that people from all these “lower classes” might just be able to make it this world and compete without their noble assistance.
Let us pray that the Holy Spirit continues to knock fools like me off our pedestals.
Comment by Dory — 11.27.04 @ 12:08 am
I do get the point of the post. I just get so tired of people trying to post everything in “black and white”. Thats what is wrong with the world today. It should be “one for all and all for one”. Its sad to think we shall probably be forever divided by color. What a tragedy.
Comment by Dariana — 11.27.04 @ 7:37 am
And hold hands and sing “kumba ya” (sp?)…
That’ll make it all better
Comment by Renee — 11.27.04 @ 8:09 am
ProtestWarriors dot com (LaShawn - hope this is okay) - has a manifesto on their website that details the racism of white liberals in a most graphic way.
On another note, you write “blacks are to be seen and not heard.” Has this been your experience across the political spectrum with respect to white people? What have white conservatives done along these lines good or bad?
Comment by Mary — 11.27.04 @ 9:34 am
Dariana,
As nice as your comment is, the truth remains that race is important enough to people that issues are debated in regards to race. In this country, race is used in politics to gain an advantage. It’s called using the “race card”. And regardless of their denying it, Liberals are some of the best users of the race card. Shoots arrows at me if you like for labeling people with generalities, but, that is my preceived reality. Why do I say this?
I have worked in a number of places and am also a very outgoing natured individual. In a nutshell, I have been around enough people to notice little traits; especially among blacks(gee, maybe has a bit to do with the fact that I am black?).
White liberals from FDR to Lyndon B Johnson to the present day Democratic Party have brainwashed Blacks into believing that we are helpless without the aide and assistance of an external force in order to succeed in America. I hate to promote it, but it ties into what we are talking about here. Last night I posted on my blog a story of a man who came to America and did whatever it took to be successful. The angst comes Dariana when White Liberals tells myself,family, friends,neighbors,church friends,etc. that “we” will do for you because you are unable to do for yourself.
To people like myself, LaShawn and all the others that think differently, this is a crime. A church I used to attend, the Pastor would make comments about welfare once in a while and you’d get amens all over the place. But, deep in my heart I knew that that was only a head nod. Scripture says,..they draw nigh unto me with their mouths, but their hearts are far from me. Same thing here, Blacks have been brainwashed and some of us hate it.
I can recall an incident in which I was waiting tables and I had a teacher as a customer. We got into a conversation and she actually was feeding me this “crapola”(LB, hope I didn’t violate the etiquette policy) that we had to pour more money into pre head start becauce the children would be at risk of being left behind at THREE AND FOUR years old! Come on, give me a break! So, this is what the Liberal mindset has done for blacks: young black girl goes out and has four babies by the age of twenty-one and Libs say, no problem; society will take care of you. Black man goes out and robs,rapes and murder and Libs say its society’s fault and America is targeting the Black Man (I say get the guy off the streets, he might bump into me). Where is the personal responsibility? So yes, race is a problem in this country. Especially, when people use it to tear down thrity million blacks, be they black or white.
OK rant over
PS PurpleMD great stuff! So true and to the point.
Comment by Dominic — 11.27.04 @ 9:55 am
‘On another note, you write “blacks are to be seen and not heard.” ‘
As a liberal, I’ll have to say that I like to both see and heard what Alan Keyes has to say.
Comment by actus — 11.27.04 @ 9:56 am
I’ve pretty much come to see liberalism as racism with a different suit of clothers. La Shawn Barber has an outstanding post on the truth of white liberalism, which deserves much more attention than it’s getting:People who claim to be
Trackback by What Attitude Problem? — 11.27.04 @ 12:17 pm
This post was on target. Such condescension from liberals towards capable human beings of free will. Its insulting to everyone involved. I’m white, and its insulting that liberals think I would be such a condescending jerk as to agree with their crudola. I try to stay calm, and not ascribe to bad intention what can be ascribed to simple stupidity.
Comment by gcotharn — 11.27.04 @ 1:16 pm
If ”white liberals” are so condescending, then why, demographically speaking are there more black liberals?
Comment by TheMariachi — 11.27.04 @ 1:42 pm
Ay! Mariachi…for the same reason there are so many liberal Jews. They are either misguided, misled, confused, uncaring, uninvolved, selfish, unthinking, ignorant, or any other adjective that describes the condition that causes one to shoot oneself in the foot.
La Shawn, it’s ok to lose “lose [your] religion” as long as you don’t lose your faith. I don’t see that happening.
Comment by Allan — 11.27.04 @ 3:57 pm
actus: the hypocrite Alan Keyes was rebuked far and wide by conservatives of all hues. Most Illinois Republicans I know (quite a few) voted for Barack Obama, which *should* tell you how much Keyes was reviled.
That you keep bringing Keyes’ name into the conversation shows that you have no better token (if you’ll pardon the term) of “bad” conservatives to which to point. It’s sad, really.
Prominent liberals don’t rebuke their more off-the-wall adherants. They place them in seats of honor next to former liberal presidents at their political conventions.
Comment by Juliette — 11.27.04 @ 4:19 pm
‘That you keep bringing Keyes’ name into the conversation shows that you have no better token (if you’ll pardon the term) of “bad” conservatives to which to point. It’s sad, really.
I’m not looking for tokens. Just people to be seen and heard.
‘Prominent liberals don’t rebuke their more off-the-wall adherants. They place them in seats of honor next to former liberal presidents at their political conventions. ‘
And if they rebuke them, and they’re black? Its because they don’t want them to be heard. Thats my point.
Comment by actus — 11.27.04 @ 5:38 pm
If Keyes has been really rebuked, he will no longer make the type of money he did by giving speeches.
Comment by DarkStar — 11.27.04 @ 6:00 pm
I think the point here is that it was the “more liberal leaning” folks that cried racism throughout the entire past election year (in the Black churches, at the NAACP convention, everywhere they could)…
and whenever one of their liberal own blantantly uses racist rhetoric, they are no where to be heard. They go into hiding.
It’s the same old game… Do as I say, not as I do.
Comment by Renee — 11.27.04 @ 6:35 pm
La Shawn:
Here’s a thought that occurred to me just now.
We all know that politicians of all stripes talk about American blacks as a group having common interests that other groups in this country don’t.
And we all—or, at least some of us (!)—know that a lot of politicians and public figures use this group-identification for less-than-noble purposes. And that that includes many liberals, black and white, who claim (often consdescendingly or arrogantly or both) to “speak for” the group as a whole.
That having been said, it seems to me undeniable that blacks in the U.S. do have, on the whole, a distinctive shared historical experience, just as American Jews and ethnic American Catholics do (although, of course, the content of the experience is different in each case).
Racialist group-think is bad news, and I join you in rejecting all its pomps and works. BUT, it’s also undeniable that the American black historical experience (which, of course, is far from a monolith) carries a human and cultural wealth that, in God’s Providence, is surely meant to enrich the larger American experience of which it is a part.
What I’m suggesting, then, is that American blacks do have something to contribute to this country “as blacks,” by which I do not mean “as a race”—what is race anyway?—but “as bearers of certain distinctive cultural traditions” (once again, an analogy would be American Jews or American Catholics).
To put it another way, what I’m proposing is NOT “multiculturalism,” but, rather, equal participation in society (which racialist group-think tends to make impossible) combined with cultural distinctiveness, understood, not as exclusivistic group-think, but as a service and contribution to the richness of the commonwealth.
Does that make any sense, or am I way off base here?
Adrian
Comment by adrian — 11.27.04 @ 7:07 pm
Adrian - Good post. While recognizing the distinct sub-cultural (because we are part of the American culture) contributions of blacks (based on shared history), which I do, I will never accept that blacks as a group deserve or are entitled to special rights based on that shared history (and skin color). In light of your comment, I suspect that my opposition to skin color preferences is mistaken for a denial of worthy contributions by black Americans. Far from it. The most important part of our history that should be highlighted often is surviving and thriving in the midst of subjugation and overt racial discrimination.
Whenever I try to emphasize this, black liberals jump all over me for failing to recognize what “white America” has done to blacks. If they want to constantly complain about that, fine. I choose not to expend energy writing about past grievances. My niche is focusing on what we have done well in the past and what we are and should be doing well now.
I’m not pushing total cultural assimilation, either, but I want to focus on our shared history as AMERICANS, regardless of skin color. Some blacks won’t let this happen. As a way of keeping whites “on the hook”, as John McWhorter says, they tend to overlook what we have achieved WITHOUT GOVERNMENT HELP. These same people refer to people like myself as race traitors for saying that blacks should stop turning to the government AND white liberal paternalism to solve their problems.
I’m rambling, but I hope my feedback makes sense. I may turn this into a blog post.
EVERYONE - Some of you asked me specific questions in this thread. I’ll try my best to answer them soon.
To the people who sent e-mails in the past few days, I will try my best to respond tomorrow. Thanks for commenting!
Comment by La Shawn — 11.27.04 @ 7:24 pm
Dear La Shawn,
Thanks for your response.
Let me clarify. First, I didn’t think for a minute that you were denying black Americans’ worthy contributions. Second, I join you in rejecting skin color preferences.
When I speak of shared history, that of course includes slavery and segregation, but I’m thinking primarily of the human and cultural wealth that emerged through blacks’ overcoming of those evils. In other words, I’m not arguing for special treatment for blacks, but for (potential) special contribution of blacks.
You put your finger on my real concern towards the end of your post: assimilation. There’s a fine balance to be struck here, it seems to me. On the one hand, we’re all Americans, which means that we should all share in the life of the country. On the other hand, however, our sharing also needs to affect the national unit back—otherwise all of the legitimate and enriching sub-cultural differences get erased (as happened, for example, for many, many post-subculture American Catholics in the 1960’s).
Anyway, thanks for allowing a frank discussion of these issues. Everybody talks about talking to one another about “race,” but no one ever really does—we end up talking around it and past one another more than about it to one another.
Adrian
Comment by adrian — 11.27.04 @ 7:45 pm
‘They are either misguided, misled, confused, uncaring, uninvolved, selfish, unthinking, ignorant’
Now to me, THAT sounds condescending. Im Navajo/Mexican. If a Conservative came up to me, and described me in this manner….well yeah. Calling minorities that dont subscribe to Conservative ideals all these things, then complaining liberals are condescending seems a bit odd.
Comment by TheMariachi — 11.27.04 @ 7:51 pm
If a Conservative came up to me, and described me in this manner….well yeah. Calling minorities that dont subscribe to Conservative ideals all these things, then complaining liberals are condescending seems a bit odd.
Now THAT’LL preach!
or
Now THAT’S what’s up!
Comment by DarkStar — 11.27.04 @ 8:31 pm
La Shawn, reading the recently “converted” Scott, at Blacks for Bush is yet another piece of evidence that the left still does not “get it”! They are amazingly insular and myopic in their refusal to do any self-examination! But that’s okay. It’s good for our side!
Comment by DagneyT — 11.27.04 @ 8:57 pm
Dear La Shawn,
I wrote my last post in a rush and so was unclear.
My point is simply this: no sub-culture should get special treatment from the government, but every sub-culture (provided it’s not one that’s incompatible with the common good, for example, the sub-culture of Satanism) should retain enough identity to be able to make a special contribution to society—particularly when it’s a sub-culture so rich as that/those of black Americans.
This sounds like a platitude, I know, but, in practise, it’s not easy for sub-cultures to flourish in the larger culture.
I’m not advoacting separatism for blacks, or any other sub-culture, mind you, but just noting that the loss of sub-cultural identities can be an impoverishment for society as a whole. Indeed, the disappearance of sub-cultural identities can mean that society misses out on an important opportunity to correct or enrich itself.
For example, the fact that Catholics in this country have become to a large extent indistinguishable from the larger populace, while good in that it signals the end of the old anti-Catholic prejudice (the KKK also went after Catholics, you know), is also bad in that it means that Catholics have a harder time offering the nation an alternative, less individualistic account of freedom (this point is underscored indirectly in an excellent recent book by John McGreevey entitled “Catholicism and American Freedom”).
Thanks again for allowing real dialogue to go on here.
Adrian
Comment by adrian — 11.27.04 @ 10:41 pm
I should also add that I agree with (here I’m putting it into my own words) your emphasis on the need for an autonomous, grass-roots revitalization within the black community itself. My point, to repeat, is just that this revitalization could also draw strength from what is best in the distinctive cultural traditions of the black community.
The “race traitor” stuff you get for rejecting government help and white paternalism is simply outageous nonsense. That kind of language has no place in this discussion and it just shows that your opponents are incapable of thinking rationally (I mean that; I’m not being hyperbolic) about the issue of “race.”
Adrian
Comment by adrian — 11.27.04 @ 10:51 pm
Actus, thanks for the link. In reading it, I figured Bond and Queazy have a good cop, bad cop game going.
Interesting that the MSM hasn’t noted that particular press release. Could be a case of if they acknowledge the release, then they have to cut back on the racist jokes at Condi’s expense.
But then again, as well as the NAACP edits their tripe, it’s a wonder anybody even goes there to read up on their news.
To wit, on the same day Queazy was ‘decrying’ the assaults on Condi, there’s another article entitled “NAACP Convenes 9th National Religious Summit In Atlanta” But if you click on it, it’s actually a brag sheet about keeping people down on the plantation again — “NAACP Scores Another Victory In Florida Vouchers Case Voucher programs threaten public schools by stripping them of needed resources”
Go figure, they’re worried about gov’t “support” of religious private schools. How oxymoronic in light of the link title. Bwahahaha.
Anyhoo, under the correct link, one would read the following excerpt “Kweisi Mfume, NAACP President & CEO, said: “The Summit is another opportunity for the NAACP to build upon its historically strong ties to the faith community.
During the meeting in Atlanta, the NAACP and faith leaders are coming together to explore and strategize on post-election plans and fiscal and membership opportunities so that people throughout this country will be equipped for successful social, political and economic activism.””
Well?? Which is it? Build faith or destroy faith. These dinosaurs are so stoooopid, it’s no longer funny. More than ever, I understand why my dad withdrew his membership back in the late 70s, while Carter was being chased by a wabid wabbit.
PS. Just saw Julian — along with Juan Williams, Armstrong and special guests James Zogby and ‘Brother’ Cornell West — this morning on the American Black Forum, isn’t it about time that perpetual victim retired?
Comment by Andy — 11.28.04 @ 6:05 am
Mariachi - It has nothing to do with subscribing to Conservative ideals. It has to do with supporting policies that are against one’s own self-interest or the interests of one’s country.
In the sixties the “make love not war” crowd believed they were acting in the interest of all mankind and what did we wind up with? A demoralized and diminished military, rampant drug use, widespread venereal disease, huge increases in single teen mothers, and AIDS. That is against not only one’s own self-interest, but against the interests of all humankind.
Comment by Allan — 11.28.04 @ 7:39 am
From Dariana: “Its sad to think we shall probably be forever divided by color. What a tragedy.”
But that’s exactly what the Afirmative Action laws did! That’s what all the government supported ethnic labels did! i.e. “Afro-American” & “Native American”. I have a lot of fun with the last label. Whenever I am asked to fill out a form with questions of ethnicity, I always check the “Native American” box. The few who read the submitted form usually ask me “Are you really American Indian?”. My reply is always “No, but you didn’t ask me that question. You asked me if I was a Native American, and the answer to that is ‘Yes’. I am a 4th generation American, born in this country, therefore I’m a Native American.” They start to change my choice to something else on the form, and I explain to them that if they do, they need to remove my signature as well. That usually stops them, at least from erasing my answer in front of me. If we keep going down this slippery slope, we’ll look just like Yugoslavia after it became all those little countries. i.e. Bosnia, Hertzogovinia, etc.
Comment by Vulgorilla — 11.28.04 @ 8:30 am
La Shawn, Check out Maureen Dowds Op-Ed column today. Sounds like her own family has turned against her, politically speaking. Here’s the link:
nytimes.com/2004/11/28/opinion/28dowd.html?oref=login&th
The rhythm of the righting is riveting.
Comment by Jim R — 11.28.04 @ 9:02 am
Sorry Allan, but i dont support policies against my own ’self interest’ OR against the interests of my country. An example, attacking Iraq had nothing to do with our interests, and saying it was ‘humanitarian’ is a total joke. The people who attacked us are still at large, and growing in strength as a direct result of the Presidents actions.
As for ’self interest,’ Bush has no idea what tribal sovreignity is, has presented tax cuts for his rich buddies that were supposed to benefit the poor and has made decisions that i feel are totally against the interests of the country as a whole. Critisism of the status quo is one of the most American things anyone can do. And Bush is worthy of it.
Whats the ‘make love not war’ thing got to do with any of this? That wasnt a case of minorities, that was a massive change in public opinion, spurred by the Vietnam war. Maybe im getting the wrong end of the stick, but you seem to be suggesting this movement is responsible for AIDS and drug use. Thats a little off me thinks.
Comment by TheMariachi — 11.28.04 @ 9:14 am
I’m praying for you, sister. You’re fighting the good fight. And may God help your enemies!
Comment by Sissy Willis — 11.28.04 @ 9:19 am
Allan: ‘Mariachi - It has nothing to do with subscribing to Conservative ideals. It has to do with supporting policies that are against one’s own self-interest or the interests of one’s country.’
Go read ‘whats the matter with kansas”
Comment by actus — 11.28.04 @ 10:07 am
La Shawn, the troll you kicked out (TCF) has wandered over to my weblog. He sounds like he’s feeling the strain. I’ve dealt with him before, and usually found him to be intelligent and articulate, but I think (as with so many ‘progressives’ following the election) they’re so bitter and frustrated they’re just a tad unhinged.
Come on, guys. It’s only four years. Your side will get back into power sooner or later, so get over it.
Comment by Bonnie Warford — 11.28.04 @ 10:25 am
Vulgorilla,
I, like you, just love when a form asked for my race, ethnicity or whatever…
I check “other” and write in American. I refuse to be labeled African American (sorry but it has been a few centuries since any of my ancestors has lived in Africa and for those who have visited… we are not exactly considered “Africans” to them). I don’t hold “dual” citizenship so no “false” need to put anything else. The only time someone may remotely need to know my ethnicity may be in regards to health issues (i.e. sickle cell anemia or something that afflicts mainly Black Americans).
Reminds me of something Martin Luther King Jr. said in a speech. He talked of going to Jamaica and how impressed he was that there were not labels such as “White Jamaican, Black Jamaican, Asian Jamaican, etc.” (now this was in the 60s and maybe that has changed and they have gone backwards instead of forwards). He said that is what we should strive for in America… sort of rings a bell… judged by the content of our character not the color of our skin? What a concept!
Comment by Renee — 11.28.04 @ 11:04 am
The “race traitor” stuff you get for rejecting government help and white paternalism is simply outageous nonsense.
People who claim that the wrong headed cries of “race traitor” is just about “rejecting government help” are either uninformed, mislead, or willfully misleading.
When Rev. Floyd Flake was in congress, he used a combination of government funds and private funds to revitalize neighborhoods. Democrats and Republicans, including conservative Republicans, have praised him for what he has done.
When Flake has been “attacked,” it has been for his support of vouchers. And even then, because of his standing, he’s not called a “sellout.”
Comment by DarkStar — 11.28.04 @ 11:42 am
People who claim that the wrong headed cries of “race traitor” is just about “rejecting government help” are either uninformed, mislead, or willfully misleading.
I don’t think anyone is saying or implying that these are the only things for which black conservatives are called race traitors (at least I’m not). They’re only examples, DarkStar.
Comment by La Shawn — 11.28.04 @ 12:12 pm
Mariachi, If you live in the USA, you are an American and that’s it. I am a proud Scottish, French, American Indian, but first and foremost I am an American. Most Americans are Heinz 57s, and you fit that bill. Be an American first, and look at your race last. Then, you might start to see things in a more conservative light.
Comment by RepJ — 11.28.04 @ 3:11 pm
I am an American, and i DO put that first. I dont really vote based on how little Bush knows or cares about Native Americans. Ive already explained that i feel Bush isnt serving American interests, and thats one reason i voted for him. To see things in a more ‘Conservative light’ id have to change my political and social beliefs totally, which i dont intend to do. Being a Conservative isnt as simple as putting your country first. Most liberals do that.
Comment by TheMariachi — 11.28.04 @ 4:26 pm
*against him, damn tiredness.
Comment by TheMariachi — 11.28.04 @ 4:27 pm
Renee,
When I went from contractor to employee at my company, I left that ‘optional’ section about race blank. HR wouldn’t process my paperwork until I checked a ‘valid’ box. When I checked off Native American, they wouldn’t accept that, either (My father, if you don’t notice the blue eyes, passes, the red/blonde hair I got from his mother and my mother ensures that I am always white to most people). I had to threaten to call my lawyer to get things moving.
Now everytime I move to a new department, or a new manager comes in, I get called in to the office… so they can make sure they meet their diversity quotas (they get a larger bonus for having a diverse staff).
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.28.04 @ 4:28 pm
SCSI,
One of my co-workers once said it was a pretty sad system we have where if I put “white” (since I am of mixed race), I get treated or percieved one way, and if I put “Black”, I get treated or perceived another. He asked how did I feel about that (since he was White he could not relate). I agreed, it is sad, because regardless of what box I check, I am still Renee, still the worker they know me as, still have my same faults, still have my same strengths.
It just seems to me that because of our support of the “labels” (and insisting on them ourselves), we have gone no further in regards to being judged by the content of our character, as opposed to the color of our skin.
Go figure
You would think it was rocket science or something.
Comment by Renee — 11.28.04 @ 5:05 pm
Now back to the topic at hand
The fact remains that a “group” of people who happen to call themselves “liberal, progressive or whatever suits them this week” and claim to “love all” and look out for the “best interest” of us “unfortunate Blacks” seem to consistently revert to derogatory name calling whenever one of us “Blacks” steps out of line with their agenda. Now, most are smart enough to keep their mouth shut and just think it ;-), but whenever one of their own opens his mouth to show just how ignorant they are, you don’t see them coming out in full force condemning the act.
It’s the typical hidden racism that was rampant where I grew up. Smile in your face; call you everything but a child of God behind your back. These new fools just hide behind a cartoon or a radio show or whatever else they can find now.
Oh well.
What about them Redskins?
Comment by Renee — 11.28.04 @ 5:57 pm
Critisism of Condi has nothing to do with her political affiliations, its to do with her political INCOMPETENCE, regardless of color. All members of the Bush cabinet have received critisism. Kerry had plenty of caricature cartoons done of him.
I think we all know whos condescending towards minorities. We only have to read Allan’s statement….what was that again…minorities who follow liberal politics are misguided, misled, confused, uncaring, uninvolved, selfish, unthinking and ignorant? And you wonder why Conservatives struggle to appeal to racial minorities.
Comment by TheMariachi — 11.28.04 @ 6:26 pm
And you wonder why Conservatives struggle to appeal to racial minorities.
Unfortunately this part of your comment is true. I wish it weren’t. Conservatives would do well to appeal to Americans rather than those of a certain skin color. I’m one “racial minority” who they didn’t have to “appeal to.” Thank goodness.
Comment by La Shawn — 11.28.04 @ 6:32 pm
DarkStar:
My point was simply that to call someone like LB as a “race traitor” because she doesn’t toe the party line (because that’s what it amounts to) is a bunch of . . . sorry—can’t say that here.
Cordially,
Adrian
Comment by adrian — 11.28.04 @ 7:21 pm
Allan,
You can play mind games all by yourself, but we all know that the party of slavery, jim crow, segregation and government-based dependency is the Democratic Party. You can’t change history with spin, nor can you win an election.
Comment by Jim Hicks — 11.28.04 @ 7:58 pm
Excellent!
Comment by Rod Stanton — 11.28.04 @ 8:04 pm
Hee…on the application thing, my company has had a pretty funny track record. For example, my former coworker is Filipino but married someone with a Hispanic last name. When the company sent out everyone’s basic info for yearly updates, her info had her down as Hispanic. So she asked them to change it. The next year, the paperwork said she was white…but under her contact info it said she was married to her husband (primary contact) and to her sister (secondary contact who has a completely different last name and telephone number).
I chose not to give them the info (though I did when I first applied). They tried to strongarm me into providing it, but I told them I was legally in my rights not to tell them. Methinks it made them a little crazy.
Comment by LawWife — 11.28.04 @ 8:11 pm
Mariachi,
No more condescending than the “liberals” and “hollywood” saying that those who voted for Bush, were undeducated, “hated themselves” and were against what was best for them.
And liberals wonder why they can’t keep us in line
Comment by Renee — 11.28.04 @ 8:16 pm
‘You can play mind games all by yourself, but we all know that the party of slavery, jim crow, segregation and government-based dependency is the Democratic Party. You can’t change history with spin, nor can you win an election.
Comment by Jim Hicks ‘
But you can change how you view history. The Democratic party renounced jim crow, segregation and even dependency, for the first two, they lost the south.
Frankly if Dems are going to get kicked by this, can you at least as well kick who the voters they lost started voting for?
The democrats took a principled stand for civil rights in the 60’s, and have been on their way to minority status for decades because of the GOP’s southern strategey. Now they’re told to appeal to red staters. I guess like the alabamans that kept segregated schools and the poll tax in their constition on Nov 2nd.
Comment by actus — 11.28.04 @ 8:54 pm
My point was simply that to call someone like LB as a “race traitor” because she doesn’t toe the party line
Meanwhile, when “conservatives” call whites who agree with Blacks on racial issues, “guilty white liberals,” “conservatives” don’t say it’s out of bounds.
Blacks, no matter if they come armed with facts, don’t tow the “conservative” line, they are said to be “on the plantation” or “group thinking” or the like.
But hey, “conservatives” are doing it so it’s all good.
Comment by DarkStar — 11.28.04 @ 9:35 pm
I’ve called in on talk shows and had Armstrong Williams agreeing with some of the same points I’ve brought up in the commentary section of this blog. The same goes for Michael Steele. The same goes for Michael Reagan.
( Yeah, I’m a talk show junkie.
)
When David Horowitz was commenting on Salon, I went “key to key” with him and even had him agreeing with some of the points I’ve brought up.
Yet, none of that matters, because the “true believers” still say “stuck on the liberal plantation.”
Facts mentioned. Facts agreed upon. Yet “stuck on the liberal plantation.”
Interesting…
Who is really a free thinker?
Comment by DarkStar — 11.28.04 @ 9:40 pm
Let’s see, it’s 10:20 pm my time here. Wonder who is going to get in the last word on who’s wrong, who’s right, who’s Black, who’s White, who’s a Lib, who’s a Conserv., who’s a true American, who’s not, etc., etc. etc………..
Ephesians 4:3-6 states God’s position: ” Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit - just as you were called to one hope when you were called - one Lord, one Faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.”
The enemy of God and mankind thrives on division and hate.
God’s position is the only one with true eternal legitimacy.
Just thought I’d interject that. Goodnight.
Comment by Dave in AZ — 11.29.04 @ 12:16 am
Jim Hicks - Are you really addressing this comment to me?
Allan,
You can play mind games all by yourself, but we all know that the party of slavery, jim crow, segregation and government-based dependency is the Democratic Party. You can’t change history with spin, nor can you win an election.
I have never, ever put a Democrat spin on anything!
PurpleMD made mention of slavery & Jim Crow, but not in the context in which you apparently perceived it.
Comment by Allan — 11.29.04 @ 12:50 am
Mariachi - are you intending to say that the coarsening of values in the sixties had nothing to do with the coarsening of society at large? There is a direct correllational relationship between the breaking down of social and sexual mores in that period and the subsequent breakdown of family, dramatic increases in teen pregnancies, epidemic venereal disease, increased drug addiction including legal prescription drugs such as prozac & ritalin.
I’m uncertain what tribal sovereignty has do with this, but Bush believes in so-called “trickle down” economics, you don’t. It’s that simple.
As to Iraq, what’s wrong with doing something for humanitarian reasons? You might validly argue that we aren’t being humanitarian there, but some believe otherwise. To call it a “joke” is unkind and hurtful to those who serve their country there. You might also argue that we went there on the false pretext of WMD’s, but it was a reason in which most of the world believed to be true.
Those who attacked us are dead! Those who financed and ordered the attack are in hiding and apparently quite powerless. OBL would like nothing more than to bring the U.S. to its knees and the best he could do prior to the election was send out a pathetic videotape in which he quoted Michael Moore and threatened the red staters. Many of his followers are either dead or captured. But, like any wounded animal, he is still a danger and he will still be hounded until he is either dead or captured as well.
Finally, saying that someone is misguided, misled, confused is not condescending, it is merely stating a perception. Saying that someone is ignorant of this or that is not condescending, we are all ignorant of some things. Calling someone uncaring, uninvolved, selfish and unthinking may have been a bit of hyperbole on my part.
Comment by Allan — 11.29.04 @ 1:35 am
actus - Frank’s book is right on target if, and only if one sets economic values over all others. You may agree with that view, I don’t. He characterizes midwest, blue-collar conservatives as slightly doltish in aligning themselves with “frat boys, lawyers, and CEO’s”. In fact, he asks the question at the start…why do so many of us vote against our economic interests? (italics mine)
It’s just a matter of values. Some do place economic values above all else, others do not. Instead of Republicans having suddenly discovered a new scam, they have returned to their roots which Lincoln articulated. He too, placed economic values lower than others.
Comment by Allan — 11.29.04 @ 1:44 am
DarkStar - What sort of facts? You and I agree on many issues, That the people you listed agree with you on certain things isn’t unusual or proof that groupthink doesn’t exist.
Comment by La Shawn — 11.29.04 @ 7:00 am
Dark Star:
I agree that name-calling is a poor substitute for argument, no matter which “side you’re on.” (As far as sides are concerned, let me lay my cards on the table and say that a Christian can’t be a partisan).
I was talking, however, about one way of substituting name-calling for argumentation: calling people like LB race-traitors for not toeing the party line.
So, since two wrongs don’t make a right, let’s leave aside all the other instances of name-calling instead of argumentation and focus on this one: don’t you agree that it’s outrageous and absurd to call LB a race-traitor simply because she doesn’t toe the party line?
A.
Comment by adrian — 11.29.04 @ 8:40 am
DS said: ‘Meanwhile, when “conservatives” call whites who agree with Blacks on racial issues, “guilty white liberals,” “conservatives” don’t say it’s out of bounds’
Guilty white liberals are the ones who attack others at the slightest hint of criticism of minorities. These are the folks that use the logic that minorities owe all of their problems to opression, and that the opression is at the hands of whites. And as a results, whites, regardless of their personal and family history, are obliged to fix the poor minorities….
Now, if you agree with or support liberal policies and programs (and are white), you are not by default a GWL. If your support, and the arguments you use to justify it, are all based on the guilt and culpability of one group, and the excusal of responsibility of another group(s), then you are a guilty white liberal.
It all comes back to the assumption (on the behalf of the GWL) that without their benevolent hand, the minority man/woman cannot make it in this big, mean world. And anyone who disagrees is just a big, racist meanie. And a doo-doo head.
I find your choice of words interesting though. Capital letter for one group, and not the other. And the assumption that black folks think as a group.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.29.04 @ 9:40 am
Emboldened White Liberals
That’s the title of a post by LaShawn Barber, who thinks white liberals will step up their attacks on black conservatives in the months ahead. She has this to say about the motives for such attacks: People who claim to…
Trackback by Democracy Project — 11.29.04 @ 11:47 am
Trickle down economics was debunked in the 1930’s and again during the Reagan Administration. As for tribal sovreignity, this is fairly important to me, and Bush doesnt even understand it when confronted with the phrase.
Iraq clearly isnt a Humanitarian, you only have to see the number of people who have died as a result of the invasion. Medical research puts it at some 100,000, plus those injured. And executing a wounded, unarmed and helpless prisoner IS a warcrime.
OBL is NOT dead, and Bush doesnt even care. Im sure we all remember the ”im not concerned” fiasco, where Bush dismissed the perpertrator of 9/11 immediatly. His organisation has also grown in strength.
In this respect, the war on terror is a failure.
Comment by TheMariachi — 11.29.04 @ 1:33 pm
DarkStar - What sort of facts?
That Blacks haven’t supported the GOP because of actions of the GOP itself. Hence, my “harping” on the Southern Strategy. That “Black leaders” are listed as such, for the most part, by the media. On the latter, I’ve always found it interesting that conservatives will point out where Blacks disagree with “leaders” but still say Blacks are “blind followers” of sorts.
You and I agree on many issues, That the people you listed agree with you on certain things isn’t unusual or proof that groupthink doesn’t exist.
“Groupthink” exists only when Blacks, “as a group,” disagree with the “conservative” position. When Blacks, “as a group” agree with the “conservative” position, like on vouchers, viola, “free thinkers”!
Comment by DarkStar — 11.29.04 @ 9:42 pm
As far as sides are concerned, let me lay my cards on the table and say that a Christian can’t be a partisan.
I agree with you.
calling people like LB race-traitors for not toeing the party line.
I don’t toe the party line on issues, but don’t get called a race-traitor.
I called Clinton a “cracka in a suit” and then followed up with why I did, and caught flack for it. (It was in response to people saying Dems aren’t racists).
The next time, I listed my reasons and ended with the slam. People may have disagreed, but I didn’t catch heat.
Comment by DarkStar — 11.29.04 @ 9:45 pm
But it’s not that simple. When people persist in doing and believing something that doesn’t work or is harmful to them, I have to question their ability to reason. The fact that 90 percent of blacks vote for Democrats when liberalism as an ideology has devastated the “black community”, I call it groupthink, not merely because of the 90 percent voting block, which is awful in itself. A large number of whites voting for one party isn’t the same as a minority voting for one party. I will articulate what I mean by this at a later time. Right now, it’s time for sleep!
Comment by La Shawn — 11.29.04 @ 9:47 pm
I brought up verified statistics to all my students to encourage them to stick with education to buck the trends of illegitimate children, violent crime, et al….and I was told….”How could you?” I was treated with righteous indignation and told I was hurting minority students by reciting facts you could look up or read on any website. And I was the one told that I was looking down on minority students. How can you educate when you can’t even speak the truth?
Comment by Chris Roberts — 11.29.04 @ 9:47 pm
Guilty white liberals are the ones who attack others at the slightest hint of criticism of minorities.
…
Now, if you agree with or support liberal policies and programs (and are white), you are not by default a GWL.
Given how I’ve witnessed the label is used, in person and in the media, I disagree with the last quote.
Capital letter for one group, and not the other.
Been doing it since middle school and catching flack for it since then. But since African-American is capitalized, why not Black when used as a synonym?
And the assumption that black folks think as a group.
I don’t. Or have you missed my writings against the idea of “group think”?
Frankly, those who say Blacks do it, are the ones saying Blacks all think alike.
Comment by DarkStar — 11.29.04 @ 9:51 pm
When people persist in doing and believing something that doesn’t work or is harmful to them, I have to question their ability to reason.
When J.C. Watts was in congress, he was being pounded to take “the lead” for the GOP to end affirmative action. J.C. Watts refused to go along and was blasted by many conservatives.
Watts said that, at the time, all Republicans had to show the Black community was that they were against affirmative action, but nothing to show what they are for. He said that, at the time, that Blacks had a reason to not look at the GOP if that’s all that was being shown.
Comment by DarkStar — 11.29.04 @ 9:58 pm
DS,
The point wasn’t that you capitilize black, but that you don’t capitalize white under the same logic
Mariachi,
Go back into the archives. I laid out the debunking of the 100,000 # last week (with alot of help from the Chicago boyz and others)
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.29.04 @ 10:14 pm
From memory, when the GOP took control of the House, they proposed: cutting EEOC funding. Making it illegal for the EEOC to use “race testers” to determine if race discrimination was occurring. Ending funding of Howard University, and HBCU, that was created as a federal land grant school. “Gutting” the community reinvestment act that mandated banks provide more than simple banking in the areas that they service.
They ended tax breaks to people who sold radio/television stations to majority minority owners.
These actions can be seen as being against the interests of minorities.
Comment by DarkStar — 11.29.04 @ 10:43 pm
The fact that 90 percent of blacks vote for Democrats when liberalism as an ideology has devastated the “black community”
Welfare has done some harm to the Black community. During Reagan’s term, he proposed, and it was enacted, that welfare money be cut from families that had a man and a woman in the house. Additionally, the amount of money that a family on welfare was allowed to have in the bank, and remain on welfare, was also cut.
Both definitely did harm to families on welfare.
Reagan was a conservative.
The support of segration, by conservatives, under the banner of states rights, was something that Gingrich said conservatives were wrong about.
Comment by DarkStar — 11.29.04 @ 10:48 pm
Mariachi - I assume you have some numbers to show how supply- side economics was debunked or does your saying it make it so?
You still don’t explain what tribal sovereignty is. If you mean that tribal lands are sovereign I suspect others understand that and Bush as well. If not, what has he said/done to show otherwise?
Odd that the unnamed medical research you cite varies so wildly from UN and human rights groups numbers. With the exception of Human Rights Watch the numbers are far lower than 100,000.
Now you bring in the killing of a combatant in a mosque as though the Sites video (of which we have seen all of 20 seconds) and blatantly call it a war crime. Are you an expert on war crimes? I’m not so I’ll wait for the investigation to be completed.
On what evidence do you base your statement that al qaeda has grown in strength? Calling the ‘war on terror’, or anything else fot that matter, before the battle has been fully joined is slightly premature. Read some history and gain perspective. The Allies in WW2 had setback after setback as did we in the Pacific. Great losses were suffered. Had your mindset prevailed then we would all be speaking either German or Japanese.
Now I think we’d better terminate this since we are way off topic and I don’t want La Shawn mad at me.
Comment by Allan — 11.30.04 @ 5:35 am
DarkStar, I’m well aware why black liberals don’t like Republicans. For the reasons you listed, as well as many others, they will not vote for them. I think it’s sad that black issues are defined in terms of government handouts in the form of welfare and skin color-related tax breaks. Sad indeed.
Comment by La Shawn — 11.30.04 @ 7:21 am
Allan made me remember a point I was thinking of the other day…
Mariachi (and others)… how about the French officer that bid his soldiers fire on a mob in Ivory Coast?
Where are the cries of “No blood for chocolate!”?
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.30.04 @ 9:30 am
DarkStar,
“I don’t toe the party line on issues, but don’t get called a race-traitor.”
I’m glad to hear that, but, with all due respect, you’re evading the issue.
You know which party-line I’m talking about. Close to 90% of blacks vote Democrat. Those who vote Republican are liable to be called “race traitors.”
How is that not “group-think”? How is calling black Republicans “race-traitors” not name-calling replacing argumentation?
If black conservatives are wrong, you’ve got to prove that they are with arguments, not baselessly attack their motives.
The first step towards overcoming a position you disagree with is to understand it—to understand it so well that you can give a stronger statement of it than even its proponents can. Only when you do that can you actually answer the opposing position, rather than just knock down a straw man.
Cordially,
Adrian
Comment by adrian — 11.30.04 @ 10:02 am
I had similar thoughts myself when I posted on Dr. Williams’ article on my own blog last week (http://www.digitalbrownpajamas.com/digital_brownpajamas/2004/11/blackonblack_vi.html). I USED to say that the main “racism” I’ve been a victim of came from other black people; white liberals that I know are increasingly getting closer to crossing the line.
Comment by Stephen — 11.30.04 @ 11:36 am
I think it’s sad that black issues are defined in terms of government handouts in the form of welfare and skin color-related tax breaks.
Is it equally sad when support is based on handouts because you own a farm or want to open a Hooters on a boat or advertise overseas with the government’s money or maintain tax deductions for home loans, or…
Comment by DarkStar — 11.30.04 @ 8:43 pm
That’s a nice line but how is it that some Republican politicians, Black and white, get sizable Black support in their communities? And why doesn’t the GOP “showcase” those people instead of showcase the people who want to say, “Whaaa whaa whaaa, Black people don’t support me”?
How is that not “group-think”?
If it’s group-think then start calling it group-think to attack whites by calling them guilty white liberals because they agree with Blacks.
If black conservatives are wrong, you’ve got to prove that they are with arguments, not baselessly attack their motives.
I’ve argued the same point and I’ve spent some time doing so as well as doing so when I disagree with “Black liberals.”
So, stop the patronizing.
Comment by DarkStar — 11.30.04 @ 8:47 pm
Tax reductions on home loans encourage (and facilitate) home ownership. Home ownership increases stability. And on average raises the tax base in the long run (property tax).
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 11.30.04 @ 10:24 pm
Tax reductions on home loans encourage (and facilitate) home ownership.
Helping to inflate the price of homes, helping to keep some people out of homes, especially if they live in certain areas.
Comment by DarkStar — 11.30.04 @ 10:33 pm
DarkStar,
I’m not patronizing. I’m frustrated, because you won’t answer a simple yes or no question: yes or no, is it right or wrong to call black conservatives/republicans race traitors?
Adrian
Comment by adrian — 12.01.04 @ 11:06 am
DarkStar:
Let me add for clarification that the “you” in my remarks about needing to argue wasn’t you, DarStar, but the general you—I was thinking about people who call LB, Condi, etc. race-traitors instead of showing why they are wrong (if they are). I wasn’t including you among those people, just asking your opinion about them.
A.
Comment by adrian — 12.01.04 @ 11:20 am
Darkstar,
Pray, tell us how tax reduction or income tax credit on home loans inflate the cost of homes.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.01.04 @ 11:38 am
is it right or wrong to call black conservatives/republicans race traitors?
I’ve said quite a number of times that it is wrong. Along with that, i say that it should also be considered wrong to call whites who agree with Blacks, “guilty white liberals.”
Comment by DarkStar — 12.01.04 @ 11:28 pm
Pray, tell us how tax reduction or income tax credit on home loans inflate the cost of homes.
People look at the cost of the home and then say it is too much. The real estate agent then says, “Don’t forget that you can increase the number of deductions you take because of the mortgage interest you pay and the property taxes. That increases your income and the house becomes affordable.”
If that didn’t happen, less people would be able to afford the house at the inflated price. The market would then adjust.
Comment by DarkStar — 12.01.04 @ 11:31 pm
When I was looking for my first home, the real estate agent used that logic to try to get me to buy a house 5-6 times my yearly salary. I would have qualified for the loan, but I would have been house poor.
Instead, I told her the maximum range I was willing to go. It was slightly more than 2 times my salary.
When I sold that house, the buyers brought the house at 3 times their combined salary. For grins, I checked the online tax records. The house was foreclosed.
Comment by DarkStar — 12.01.04 @ 11:34 pm
DarkStar,
Thanks for the clarification. I agree that ad hominem attacks aren’t a substitute for argument—which is something that’s in pitifully short supply these days.
Cordially,
Adrian
Comment by adrian — 12.02.04 @ 9:13 am
DarkStar: “People look at the cost of the home and then say it is too much. The real estate agent then says, “Don’t forget that you can increase the number of deductions you take because of the mortgage interest you pay and the property taxes. That increases your income and the house becomes affordable.”
The cost of anything in a free and competitive market is driven by demand. Demand is increased by affordability, ie,lower interest rates(lower monthly payment) and job security(buyers perceived health of the economy).
Don’t blame the real estate agent for trying to make a home affordable for a buyer DarkStar. If it were your home and you bought it when the market was up, now you need to sell it, trying to just break even or reduce your loss. in a down market, you and the new buyer would both be served well. When looked at in today’s up market, it looks like ‘driving up the price of a home’.
What’s more interesting about your comment is the question of whether there should be income tax deductions on home mortgages and expenses, or at least limited say to first time home buyers to give them an entry level advantage. I like that thought.
Comment by Jim R — 12.02.04 @ 11:31 am
So, a salesperson tries to get you to sepend beyond your means? That is inflation? Not.
As a consumer/buyer, it is your duty, not the salesmonkey, to know what you can afford. They are out for a commission, not for your long term well being.
So, because some consumers are, to be blunt, stupid with their money the rest of us should suffer the consequences?
The point of the tax decuctions is to make ownership more affordable, and to offset the other expenses involved in owning property. To encourage an ownership society.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.02.04 @ 11:51 am