Deroy Murdock

I have to say something here: that as time goes by I am increasingly less impressed by stories that follow the “first person of minority group X to do Y” plot. After a while, it gets rather silly: “Who was the first transgendered black Jewish lesbian to write a journal article about the neo-dislocation of post-modernist Peruvian poets while swimming in Lake Huron?” is probably never going to be a Jeopardy question.

I am a lot more impressed by someone who became among the greatest in their fields regardless of their minority status, and I’m even more impressed when they did so while facing real, actual discrimination. Last week (and I hope they’ll run it again soon), the History Channel ran a special on biochemist George Carver. He grew up at the turn of the century living with parents who had adopted him after he was kidnapped from his original family and then dumped on the side of a road in Mississippi. He walked to another city to attend school, then went to Iowa State University and earned a degree in zoology. His talents were recognized early, and he shunned fame and fortune (including a six-figure salary offer from Henry Ford) to teach and research at Tuskeegee University in Alabama. He discovered the principles of plant nutrition and nitrogenation of the soil, and his research revolutionized agriculture in the South. He invented and held over 200 patents for plastics, dyes, lubricants, and industrial chemicals derived mostly from peanuts and soybeans. He was one of America’s most prolific inventors ever, and he more or less created the field of biochemistry.

And, oh yeah by the way, he was black. At a time when the state-sanctioned law regime still officially considered he and his like as second-class citizens. He did everything he did in the face of real discrimination, and never spent a minute moaning and griping about his lot in life. Today, students attend schools named after him, and most of them don’t even know who he was. Too bad, because if they knew, they could look up to him not just because he was a great black American, but because he was a great American, period.

This should be obvious, but needs to be restated:
the Republican party of Lincoln and the 19th century is NOTHING like the Republican party of the 20th and 21st centuries… I should add the same is true for the Democratic Party. Things get quite complicated with all the party-switching that the civil rights movement precipitated… racism knows no political boundaries and there were rabid racists in both parties opposed to the Civil Rights Movement… however, many of the Dixiecrats eventually switched to the GOP.

Regarding Senator Byrd, it’s a bit disingenuos to raise him a an example of apparent racism on the left, while failing to mention Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms on the right. National Republicans never raised a serious primary challenge to either of them. I know, I know… Republicans claim that they had a change of heart and are no longer racits. Fine. If we grant you that courtesy, don’t you owe the same to Byrd?

In any case, I’m no fan of Byrd… if I lived in W.V., I certainly would vote for ANY Democratic challenger in the primary.

Andy,

I would say BOTH parties are now supremecist-free,
at least on the national level.

Educational choice is an important issue that this excellent article touches on but doesn’t have space to go into. Blacks are more likely to be stuck in rotting inner-city schools, so are disproportionately hurt by Democratic opposition to vouchers.

Investing heavily into party politics is a waste of freedom. A person becomes so drawn into it that they find it hard, if not impossible, to consider that their party or a member of their party is wrong.

Look at the reflexive defense of Clinton. Look at the reflexive defense of G. W. Bush.

Here we go again, DS. As I’ve written many times, it’s as if you’re reading my site for the first time, oblivious to issues I’ve addressed before. But whatever.

No mention of Lincoln’s comments about wanting to send freed slaves out of the country because Blacks and whites can’t leave together. No mention of Lincoln saying that whites are superior to Blacks.

If Lincoln indeed said that, he was expressing the same sentiments many have today. Whites were superior to newly freed slaves in many ways. What’s so controversial about that? And racial tension is still high in 2005. I would say blacks and white can’t live together on many levels. Does that make me a racist?

No mention that Reagan didn’t want to sign the MLK holiday bill and only did so after pressure was applied.

Despite PC pressure to the contrary, MLK is not the hero people make him out to be, and I don’t think it’s racist in any way for a president to be reluctant to make a national, taxpayer-supported holiday out of MLK’s birthday. I don’t think you’d find anyone on this site alarmed by your statement or any of the rest.

No mention that Reagan defended the idea of racial convenents while he was gov. of California.

If this is true (you’ve offered no proof or sources), I don’t flat-out dismiss such ideas simply because they focus on blacks. For instance, is there ever reasonable justification for upholding certain racially based distinctions, as far as constitutional rights are concerned (covenant making is a property right, by the way)? Since the government discriminates against whites through “affirmative action,” may I assume these policies are equally outrageous to you?

No mention that Reagan defended the racial discrimination practice of Bob Jones University.

In the same manner, I’d defend a private university’s right to prohibit interracial dating. Public? No way. The government is not supposed to discriminate and categorize its citizens by race but does so every, single day. Why are you focused on a private college’s defunct policy and not on public colleges’ continued racially based discrimination still going on?

Students, black and white, who sought admission under BJU’s FORMER policy were well aware of the policy but chose to attend anyway. I think THAT is the more interesting discussion.

No mention of Dixiecrats who left the Democratic party and joined the Republican party.

Again with the Dixiecrats. Strom Thurmond left his ranting racist ways behind when he joined the Republican party, as I’ve written about on this blog many, many times. And the unsubstantiated “Dixiecrats fled to the Republican party” (paraphrased, of course) is kind of old, especially when Thurmond is the ONLY name people ever come up with. Who are the others? Give me a list of this horde of Dixie-racists who joined the Republicans en masse. I’m dying to know.

For purely research purposes I’ve visited some white supremacist sites in the past. I think it’s amazing at how removed and apolitical these groups actually are. Perhaps they’re upset at the lack of national politicians willing to sign-on to their (crazy, BS, racist, Godless) agenda.

But, I always wonder. If forced to answer the question: Who would you have voted for, John Kerry or George Bush…I wonder how the supremacists would answer. Purely hypothetical, I know…but I would certainly be interested in the results.

“Why are you focused on a private college’s defunct policy and not on public colleges continued racially based discrimination still going on?”

Reagans defence there was with respect to a public benefit the college was receiving.

Actus, glad that you brought that little thing about public benefits. The tradition of public benefits for private non-profit institutions is about as old as SS. SS is sacred to some, yet we should be ok to reform non-profits to a more secular state of being

The part of the public that approves of institution X is probably porportional to other part of the public that approves of institution Y. IOW, I’ll pretend that I confer my public contribution to institution X while you pretend to confer it on Y.

That is only fair if there is going to be any benefit. The alternative is to strip the public benefit from ALL non-profits. That includes charities, schools, ACLU, Move-On, Salvation Army &among other social works — everyone w/no exception gets a public benefit.

First they came for white supremacist non-profits, now they’re coming for the NAACP, next they’ll come for the Klanned Parenthood health clinic or whatever. Fair’s fair.

After all, I resent the notion that I am indirectly subsidizing something tatally loathesome to me and I am just as intolerant of anyone forcing me to do so, while they get to shut down what they don’t tolerate.

Is that what you want? Then argue that, instead of arbiting who gets it and who doesn’t deserve to get it.

Mike M. that’s the flip side of what your compadres, not you — fail to realize. What goes around comes around; fundamental fascism from a republican takeover notwithstanding.

Tolerance means you get to do what I don’t approve of, as long as I get to do what you don’t approve of and we leave it at that, agreeing to disagree. Of course there will be exceptions for intolerance of despicable things such as NAMBLA etc.

If the history of the Republican party is so strong on civil rights, which it is, they why the need to hide the parts of it that aren’t pretty?

From Tony Snow:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/tonysnow/ts200082.shtml

In other words, they have repudiated Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy,” which wrote off black voters in a quest to turn the Solid South into a Republican redoubt. While that strategy worked for Nixon, it cost the GOP dearly in the long run. Racial separatism may have enjoyed a quiet vogue as recently as the ’70s, but no more — and Powell was on the mark when he warned that Republicans have a long way to go before they assemble a credible and durable Rainbow Coalition of their own.

Tell the whole story. What’s there to be afraid of?

People want to tell “the whole story” of MLK, Jr. (But they seem to forget the wiretaps and other nastiness done by the FBI). Why not all of it for the Republican party?

“SS is sacred to some, yet we should be ok to reform non-profits to a more secular state of being”

The benefits in question with BJU weren’t about religion. They were about racial discrimination. About a tired and rejected and dixiecrat view of racism that we have left behind.

Actus, either you don’t see the big picture or you’re misleading.

Discriminate on is part and parcel of groupings. To wit, stamp clubs exist to bring collectors together. If a card collector joins and hijacks sessions to talk about cards, they would have every right to ask him to leave. If that’s lame, how about a straight student hijacking a GLBT group?

In case you don’t get the meaning of discrimination, here’s a quick primer
========================
Discriminate \Dis*crim”i*nate\
To set apart as being different; to mark as different; to separate from another by discerning differences; to distinguish

Examples:
Psa 4:3 But know that the LORD hath set apart him that is godly for himself: the LORD will hear when I call unto him

Pro 7:7 And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding,

Eze 44:23 And they shall teach my people the difference between the holy and profane, and cause them to discern between the unclean and the clean.

1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Heb 5:14 But strong meat, belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil.
==============================
IOW to restate your statementt

“The benefits in question with Private Bible School weren’t about religion. They were about sexual discrimination. About a tired and rejected and fundamental view of sex/gender/orientation that we have left behind.”

OR

“The benefits in question with Canisius weren’t about cHillary. They were about religious discrimination. About a tired and rejected and Catholic view of anti-child killing that we have left behind.”

Alternatively, when people of your ilk establish new found precedents, what’s to stop us from serving up an equal does of your fairness when it’s “our turn”?

“The benefits in question with ACLU weren’t about religion. They were about secular discrimination. About a tired and rejected and leftist view of forcing secularism on everyone that we have left behind.”

Either all non-profits benefit or none benefit. You are NOT the arbiter of who qualifies based on their charter, nor I.

“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

President ABRAHAM LINCOLN, second inaugural address, March 4, 1865

La Shawn, could any member of the “Party of Lincoln” that you met in your recent Conservative conference, actually say that their comments and conduct in the political arena are up to this standard?

“DS – Under property law, the grantor of real property may create restrictive covenants in the deed. Your beef on that one is not with me or Ronald Reagan, but 200+ years of jurisprudence.”

Property law is enforced by the state. Ie, the governor reagan. In many places. I think just about all, racially restrictive covenants are not enforced. We don’t want state resources enforcing the rejected hate and bias of those who own property.

Poor babies! So threatened by the Blue People like me!

Well, if you are going to invoke the actions of the party of Lincoln, as both LaShawn and Deroy do, its very likely that someone will hold you to the standards of Lincoln.

Now if someone asked me whether I had “nothing to fear but fear itself”, I’m pretty confident I could answer yes, particularly about the so-called Social Security “crisis”.

LaShawn,
Abraham Lincoln had only a year’s education. Lincoln spoke to Frederick Douglass in the White House about what to do with freed slaves. Douglass replied something to the effect that we have been taking care of ourselves and white people for hundreds of years. Has any group lived up to Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address? The event took place in March 1865, and Lincoln knew that Grant would win! He was killed in April 1865 and his vice-president Andrew Johnson became the President. Andrew Johnson was a democrat who hated the white plantation owners but did not care for the former slaves. He used phrase “Emancipation” rather then “Abolition” because the Quakers had given him hard times
until he was killed. In 1863, it was for states in rebellion to the union, and later, in 1865 became total. Lincoln considered slavery immoral, but he knew it was not illegal when he took the office. That was Lincoln’s religious feelings, thank God!
JMB

‘The charitable thing to do would have been to let BJU sink or swim in the marketplace of competing doctrine/ideas. Likewise, if a community wants to finance a natvity scene, let ‘em.’

This isn’t about nativity scenes. This is about invidious racial discrimination. It doesn’t ‘cut both ways’ about ‘pet discriminations.’ We have decided that racial discrimination is a particular evil that other discriminations are not.

“Actus, who is “we”. You refuse to acknowledge that we have decided that racial discrimination doesn’t get special status. All or none is our stance. ”

We as in our society. In the constitutional amendments it has passed, and in other laws our democracy has created.

Who says “all or none”? not the 14th amendment.

“All or none has nothing to do with the 14th and everything to do with a congressional LBJ who couldn’t stand the heat of moralists in his day. ”

Can you please tell me what you’re talking about?

“You’re a lawyer, I’m not, go figure out why LBJ created a rule to ban non-profits from getting into “discussions/rants about specific politicians” back in the 50s. ”

Ya, because we want tax free treatment to go for charity use, not lobbying.

“So you DO agree that the NAACP should lose their tax-exempt status. Good on ya! ”

At least for that event.