John at Discriminations, one of my almost-daily reads, blogs about the Pontiac Fire Department’s skin color quota system. Quotas are supposed to be illegal in the U.S., but then again, so is skin color discrimination, sanctioned by the government.
In what I’d call tragic irony, the U.S. government, the same one that allows skin color discrimination in hiring and public university admissions, is suing the city of Pontiac, Michigan, for setting quotas, which is skin color discrimination.
Warning: Run-on sentence below.
Exactly how businesses and governments are supposed to hire lesser qualified minorities without having a “reasonable” idea of a number to aim for to satisfy the EEOC’s (a total waste of space and money) labyrinthine formula for hiring lesser qualified minorities and without being sued by the government for setting up a quota system designed to make the determination, is a dilemma, an unintended consequence of government-sanctioned race discrimination.
I’ve heard people say, in the same breath, they’re against quotas but support affirmative action, without the slightest idea that what they just said was total nonsense.
Any disparity between the number of blacks in a particular place of employment and their percentage in the general population is considered intentional discrimination. To non-bureaucrat types, especially those blessed with a rare quality, common sense, this is patently ridiculous. But fat government grants, contracts, and heavy PR causes some people to lose what little minds they had in the first place. If you think I exaggerate, read this gobbledygook and judge for yourselves.
Also see Adversity.net’s comment on the so-called Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, which are nothing more than quota guidelines obfuscated with bureaucratese. While you’re there, check out the whole site.
Related posts:
Come to think of it, the city government of Philadelphia, esp in the mayor’s office, has a greater number of blacks than the cities demographics should indicate… where’s the program to get the nearly un-represented Vietnamese and Chinese populations some gummint jobs? Actually, same applies for the Russian and Ukrainian immigrant community here. There is not a single slav on the mayor’s staff!
Racism! Discrimination!
I’d laugh, but the longer I think about it, the more absurd and the less funny these things get.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 07.29.05 @ 8:32 am
…without the slightest idea that what they just said was total nonsense. Check it out here.
Pingback by Myopic Zeal :: Quotas v. Affirmative Action :: July :: 2005 — 07.29.05 @ 8:33 am
Ever go into a BIG GOVERNMENT office like a Social Security office? The last time I was in one I noticed that a MAJORITY of the employees were black women. The ratio wasn’t even close. I saw only two men and they didn’t look like they “wore the pants” in that office. If anyone doubts my observations try it yourself before you condem me. Go into ANY federal office and count bodies. You will usually find many more women than men. You will usually find many more non-whites than their purportionate representation in the general population.
I laugh when I hear reports of “discrimination” because someone noticed that blacks don’t occupy their gauranteed 12
% of all jobs! (12% being their overall % of the general population.) Almost all cases of “discrimination” begin this way. First it’s the horror of the numbers! My God! This company has only 8% blacks in the upper level executive positions! DISCRIMINATION! They occupy 12% of the population but only get 8% of those jobs! A crime has been committed!
Yet most folks turn a blind eye to other numbers that are much more extreme. Blacks occupy about 80% of the NBA! These multi-million dollar jobs are given to a group that are only 12% of our whole. I have asked before, Where is the outrage? Why do numbers like 8% instead of 12% enrage so many but yet they are silent at the 80% instead of 12% ?
I believe the cure for most (all?) racial ills lies in this question.
Untill this question can be debated on national TV we will continue to whistle into the wind on the subject of race relations. If we continue to divide people by race, as in so much hyphenated-Americanism, we will never reach the real American Dream.
Comment by pajamazon — 07.29.05 @ 10:33 am
LaShawn, I find that it’s blacks, or other minorities, who are not (or won’t become) educated or who do not have well-paying skilled trades (which also takes training, hard work, and diligence) that are in favor of affirmative action the way it’s practiced currently.
Most people, nowdays in my experience, who KNOW they have the requirements for schools/jobs and have confidence in themselves, and their abilities, don’t ask for or expect special treatment.
Comment by Rosalind — 07.29.05 @ 12:02 pm
La Shawn wrote, “Any disparity between the number of blacks in a particular place of employment and their percentage in the general population is considered intentional discrimination. ”
In the state government here in CA, there is a disparity.
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 12:07 pm
Another come to think of it:
The U.S. Supreme Court has 9 members. I suspect that’s enough personnel to run afoul of the EEOC’s racial and gender guidelines. In a more fun world, the EEOC would sue (The office of POTUS?) for discriminatory practices.
Comment by gcotharn — 07.29.05 @ 12:21 pm
gcotharn,
Supreme Court has 11.11% “African-American” (had to use that term -
).
I think what really messes up the left is that that 11.11% isn’t liberal.
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 12:37 pm
My brother, a fiber optics specialist recently told me an interesting story about the reality of government contracts here in ‘equal opportunity America.’ He said that he kept bidding on government jobs but could not seem to get them. Finally,he called his best friend, who is black, and asked him to bid on some jobs for him. His friend did, and got every one he bid on. Now, his friend has no equipment, does not do fiber optics, but has incorporated his name. Basically, he sits in his house, at his computer, and bids on government jobs all day. He then seeks out white firms to do the work and he takes a percentage off of the top. My brother said that his friend once (for fun) bid twice as high as he did for the same job, but his friend got the contract. Ergo, our government is paying enormous amounts of money to secure contracts for work, and taxpayers are getting soaked.Fortunately for my brother, he and his best friend have worked out a pretty good deal, and my brother gets paid well.His friend bids on jobs all over the US, and my brother does the work, and they’re both happy…… His friend says that he has just found the goose that laid the golden egg. I’ll say.
My son-in-law, who is Hispanic, was saying yesterday that he feels horrible that he and his brothers get special consideration in their small business that my son won’t get, and he said that he has never seen this much emphasis on race anywhere else in the world. He maintains that ultimately, this is a divisive, destructive practice. Even though he has benefitted from it, he feels that it is very wrong.
Comment by jan brauner — 07.29.05 @ 3:52 pm
That’s institutionalized racism!
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 4:00 pm
Without Affirmative Action and the CRA, do folks really believe that attitudes would’ve changed enough to afford Blacks the opportunities they have today? True enough, there is much blame to be laid at the feet of the Black Community for their problems but, to ignore hundreds of years of oppression and exclusion is irresponsible and ignorant.
Ms. Barber, in a previous post you acknowledge that you’ve benefited from A/A but, now realize it’s unfair. Are you willing to walk backwards through all of the doors that were opened to you because of it?
The only “door” I walked through via skin color preferences that I’m certain of was getting into a school I was totally unqualified to attend. Will I give back the degree? Of course not. As to other benefits, perceived or otherwise, the tragic truth is that I’m not certain. My qualifications will always be in doubt because of paternalistic and misguided “help” from white social engineers. - Admin
Comment by Imara — 07.29.05 @ 4:39 pm
Fear not Jan. White men are not endangered just yet.
If AA sets aside 8% of the contracts for minority-owned firms, 92% of the contracts (and dollars) are still going to majority-owned firms. It seems your brother is having difficulty competing for the 92% and wants to complain about the 8%. A typical response.
Comment by brotherbrown — 07.29.05 @ 5:01 pm
Incorrect numbers brotherbrown.
Thanks for the propoganda (misinformation).
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 5:04 pm
So educate us: What are the numbers?
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 07.29.05 @ 5:11 pm
They vary Tiffany. They aren’t one set of numbers.
Different preferential treatment programs are administered different ways.
I’ll ask you this..
Can you take the time to read Ward Connerly’s book “Creating Equal”. He has examples of how difficult it was for certain groups to make it in and how easy it was for other groups. He did it factually with data. To the point that you had to have a 4.0 grade average if you were one color and a it could be a much lower gpa for another.
With respect to contracts (Prop 209 in CA banned this practice), there were points given for women owned businesses and minority owned business. I actually worked for a husband and wife business owner where her name was on the business for that reason although she was a stay at home mom.
Great way to promote honesty and civility and respect (with these kinds of additional point practices).
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 5:16 pm
Hopefully it will be at my local library as I don’t want to line his pockets with my hard earned dollars. I’ll look this weekend.
Comment by Tiffany In Mpls — 07.29.05 @ 5:26 pm
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/testing.htm
He is a good man who deserves no disdain. He even talks about his upbringing. I think you’ll find it fascinating.
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 5:27 pm
Please see this:
http://www.taemag.com/issues/articleID.17398/article_detail.asp
Written by Ward Connerly.
See the third paragraph for your answer (the one that starts with “diversity”
Also see the paragraph that starts with “In America in Black and White”
Comment by Baklava — 07.29.05 @ 6:06 pm
Bak, to tie in with your comments on contracts, I’ve seen some agencies with accross the board set-asides. To wit, they may say all contracts with a value of $100K or less must go to the disaadvantaged with little by the way of past performance experience. The other contracts, tho require a mix ie 51-49% and require extensive past performance.
Sounds ok until you see the annual budgeting (in the billions) and see that 65% of all the money went to contracts that were $100K or less. So in effect, 65% of all contracts were awarded to minorities.
In this scenario, it’s practically catch-22 for white-male owned small businesses. You can’t compete toe to toe with the big boys because of experience, yet you can’t compete on the small contracts cause you’re a whitey.
The only way whitey can get a break is to team with a minority company or use his wife to front the company. That’s the way it is played and if you don’t do it on principle, you’ll starve — that simple.
There is/was a logic to this madness, but like unions, has pretty much outlived its usefulness.
The question tho, with odds like this, why aren’t there a whole lot more successful blacks? For one, you can be sure that the black owners aren’t going to be overly generous with their windfall. Secondly because most blacks would rather work for someone else instead of themselves or they couldn’t run a business to save their lives due to mal-education.
Comment by Andy — 07.29.05 @ 6:30 pm
I mangled this part “Sounds ok until you see the annual budgeting (in the billions) and see that 65% of all the money went to contracts that were $100K or less. So in effect, 65% of all contracts were awarded to minorities.”
I meant to say that it’s hard to know exactly how it breaks down on the individual level, what with all the cross-teaming. But it’d be safe to say that over 65% of the contract monies passed thru minority-owned companies, regardless of how much they retained for services/goods rendered, with a burden-rate anywhere from 4 to 10% being sloughed off for profit, G&A, overhead etc.
Comment by Andy — 07.29.05 @ 6:41 pm
Brotherbrown;
Who said my brother was complaining?????????? I believe I said that he and his friend were both quite happy. So, before you denigrate my comments as ‘typical’, get them straight. It makes for better dialogue.
Secondly, I would think that it is an acceptable thing for me to relay a family experience on this blog if it is related to the subject at hand. If you find my experience objectionable,that doesn’t change the reality of the experience. My experiences do not have to conform to your acceptable norms.
Third, the type of fiber optics jobs my brother was bidding on are incredibly limited in number in the US. Often, there is only one job available that is a fit for his tiny firm. When there is only one job available, the government cannot split it 92/8. By the way, it is far more than a 92/8, because there are preferences for women, and many other groups. And, if the overrepresentation in government jobs in the EEOC and education is so skewed, it is possible that there is more imbalance elsewhere than is widely known.
Fourth, I was trying to illustrate a point about how problematic it becomes when our government awards contracts strictly based on race or gender, without even a regard for who is doing the work. You glossed over that aspect of it. Those jobs become expensive if contracts are awarded without going to the lowest bidder.After watching my children working seven days a week to pay their taxes and living expenses, I have become very sensitive to where the money goes. Also, learning how to become competitive is better for everyone. Set asides often stifle that. And,when my brother’s friend bids on jobs, he does not hire minority individuals to do the work, as he said that they are more expensive for him, have other jobs, or have less competitive experience. That means that a government program, intended to foster work for minorities is helping one individual only, and others are not even getting work experience. Further, a system like this fosters resentment, which is ultimately bad for the unity of society. Today, my dentist’s receptionist said that her husband is considering suing the government, because he recently went for an interview for his dream job. The interviewer told him that he was the most well qualified candidate,and had an awesome interview, but they were looking for a minority female. Because Asian students are overrepresented in top tier colleges because of their extraordinarly level of achievement, they are starting to be denied positions at those colleges. My oldest brother received a 1600 on his SATs and was extraordinarily talented in several areas. He is now a neurologist, but he was denied a spot at Harvard. An admissions counselor told my parents that they were using all of their scholarships for affirmative action students. When someone’s dream is sacrificed to someone else’s quota, to make up for the sins of other people, one can’t hardly expect the person sacrificing their dream to be happy about it. In addition, inevitably, when work is awarded on the basis of race or gender, rather than competitiveness, excellence is compromised. And, preferences, whether fairly or unfairly, cast aspersions on the achievements of everyone, because, as LaShawn said, there is often no way to know if one made it strictly on merit. Ergo, other people wonder about it, too. I would hate that.
My last thought is that I simply don’t think that minorities need special help. It is my belief that there are enough talented, competent minority individuals around that they can get jobs/admissions on their own merit. Saying anything else is an insult.
Comment by jan brauner — 07.29.05 @ 7:03 pm
LaShawn writes:
>>>”My qualifications will always be in doubt because of paternalistic and misguided “help†from white social engineers.”
I agree that many whites, particularly in America view blacks with a paternalistic attitude,
but this attitude pre-dated Affirmative Action by CENTURIES.
Let’s take a look at some of the thoughts about African Americans from the graven images on Mt. Rushmore:
GEORGE WASHINGTON: Slave owner
>>>After the Boston Massacre, African-Americans became an active part of the American cause, fighting at Concord, Lexington, and Bunker Hill; in all these engagements, black Americans were prominent in the fighting. Despite this, when George Washington assumed command of the Continental Army in July, 1775, he permanently barred the enlistment of blacks. By November, Washington had thrown all African-Americans out of the army. It wasn’t until Valley Forge and the large scale desertion of the Continental Army that Washington was forced by circumstances to re-think his views and take African-Americans into his army.
The British, meanwhile, filled the vacuum that Washington had created by promising emancipation for all slaves who fought for England. Washington’s position towards blacks had made it clear that the individuals running the revolution were not interested in black freedom, so the British offer literally produced a flood of African-American volunteers in the British Army. The escaped slaves were not merely good soldiers, they were passionate soldiers who saw the British cause as a way to rebel against their American masters. It is, of course, a great irony in history that one group of Americans, through the blind racism of men like George Washington, would see in the British cause their own chance for revolution against oppressive masters.”
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:7cmWFn_cucQJ:www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/DIASPORA/REV.HTM+George+Washington+on+blacks&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
THOMAS JEFFERSON: Slave owner
>>>To our reproach it must be said, that though for a century and a half we have had under our eyes the races of black and of red men, they have never yet been viewed by us as subjects of natural history. I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different Species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them? This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people.”
http://afroamhistory.about.com/library/bljefferson_slavery.htm
THEODORE ROOSEVELT
>>>
As a “bully” activist, Roosevelt took on hundreds of issues, asserting his strong opinions in areas as diverse as morals, literature, art, marriage, divorce, birth control, and football. He believed in equal education for women, although he never championed equal rights. He did not believe, however, that African Americans, Native Americans, or Asians were equal to whites, ignoring the courageous role that black troops played at the Battle of San Juan Hill. Roosevelt subscribed to the racist and imperialistic view that people of color were a “burden” that the white man must carry as part of his Christian duty.”
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
>>>”I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races–that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together in terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
…notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence–the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color–perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns [the Republican version of what the other rights amount to?], he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas and the equal of every other man.”
(v. 3, pp. 247-8. Sixth Debate with Steven A. Douglas at Quincy, Ill., Oct. 13, 1858)
http://sztybel.tripod.com/lincoln.html
So basically, LaShawn, America has never thought much about the qualifications of African Americans.
I support Affirmative Action because I believe those racist notions are still coursing through the veins of America, as it did through the veins of white American “heroes” that the nation still reveres to this day.
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 07.29.05 @ 11:04 pm
I still say the Sudan has at least a million people who would LOVE to trade places with us and deal with our “racism”…
anyone want to trade??
Comment by Renee — 07.29.05 @ 11:15 pm
Renee,
Is that the same Sudan the Bush Administration is considering LIFTING sanctions on?
>>>Sudan’s Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has agreed to consider the possibility of lifting sanctions imposed on the northeast African state.
Speaking after talks with the top US diplomat, he said “most of the problems” that used to hinder normal relations between the two countries had been removed and that he urged Rice to lift the trade and economic sanctions.
“Secretary Rice told me, she promised me, that she is going to start looking at it,” Ismail told reporters at the State Department.
He claimed that the condition imposed on Khartoum for lifting sanctions was ending violence in Sudan’s western Darfur region and two decades of south-north conflict as well as cooperation with Washington on combating terrorism.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20050624/pl_afp/ussudansanctions_050624234202
Well, I guess if Condi and Bush think Sudan is a nice enough place that it no longer needs sanctions, why do you seem to have a problem with it? And obviously, there are some folks we’ve named towns and schools after in hommage that wouldn’t have a problem at all with the slave state of Sudan.
Again, why should I as a conscious African American show the slightest discomfort from receiving Affirmative Action in a nation that celebrates Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln? Heck, I’d call it poetic justice.
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 07.29.05 @ 11:43 pm
So Cobra, as a Christian, I take it that you’ve forgiven those long gone and unable defend themselves to you for their antiquated conventional wisdom of the day? If so, why take certain passages out of context from the body of recorded history about what each has said and done with regards to slavery?
Likewise, I take it that you’ve forgiven and thanked those tribal enemies who captured and sold your ancestors off into slavery so that you could have a better life today than your cousins left behind over yonder? Where even today, real slavery is going on unabated between black on black and arab on black.
In any case, as far as we Americans are concerned, it’s all water under the bridge. Because basically, even while slavery was going on, America was heavily thinking and debating about the qualifications of blacks and their right to be masters of themselves.
And I’m against AA because I also believe there are racist notions coursing thru the veins of modern Americana as exhibited by Liberals who think that minorities are somehow deficient in intellectual and moral endowments and are in need of benevolent Massas to bring thim in out of the fields into the plantation house. As it did through the veins of black American “heroes” like Jesse, Al, Cynthia, Julian, Queasy Peewee, Byrd, Teddy & Conyers among others that the MSM/DNC still reveres to this day.
But in spite of the Dems & the KKK, we can all thank God for conservative fundamentalists who undertook the abolition banner, like Harriet Beecher Stowe, to free the slaves in the end.
And we can thank God for conservatives who are working today to free the mental slaves from emotional dependence on their economic Massas.
I hope one day you will be free of your mental bondage and come out of that viper pit.
Comment by Andy — 07.29.05 @ 11:47 pm
Renee, I think Cobra would be too delicate to trade places. The notions of victimhood runs too strongly in his veins making him effeminately weak.
Comment by Andy — 07.29.05 @ 11:51 pm
Cobra wrote, ” I support Affirmative Action because I believe those racist notions are still coursing through the veins of America,”
You meant to write, “I support racism because I believe racist notions are still coursing through the veins of America.
Comment by Baklava — 07.30.05 @ 3:12 am
Cobra, you make this way too easy.
“So basically, LaShawn, America has never thought much about the qualifications of African Americans.”
Could the above statement be any more blatantly and ridiculously generalized?
“I support Affirmative Action because I believe those racist notions are still coursing through the veins of America, as it did through the veins of white American “heroes†that the nation still reveres to this day.”
Good grief. Putting the word heroes in quotation marks makes you look extremely foolish, Cobra. Those awful white men were responsible for starting the system of government we have today which guarantees rights to every person, including angry, myopic malcontents like you.
Of course they weren’t perfect men. Do you know any perfect people? Taking historical figures completely out of context is a cheap trick employed by the screaming left, but it won’t fly, except in the world of professional victims.
Here’s just one example for you, Cobra. George Washington, flying in the face of centuries of precedent, freed the slaves of Mt. Vernon. He even provided in his will that they all should receive education and training, so that they could function well as free people. He recognized the evils of slavery early on (as did the other white men you have denigrated), and did something about it. As he said to a friend, “There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery.”
So you can have your petty, selective revisionist history. I’ll take the real thing, including the ugly, the bad and the good.
Comment by RedBeard — 07.30.05 @ 8:13 am
Basically, from the gist of the statements in response to my post, the consensus among the posters here is that blacks should quiely suffer ANY and all indignities for the perpetuation and continued dominance of the Eurocentric culture in place.
I wish you all would just be honest and admit it, instead of attacking me for posting the FACTS about the white men idolized on currency.
George Washington CHOSE to own slaves and make the decisions he did on RACE. So did Thomas Jefferson. Abraham Lincoln’s words were DIRECT QUOTES from the most famous debate in the history of America. Roosevelt was on the record about his belief in white supremacy. These aren’t things I’ve made up out of thin air.
I don’t expect most white conservatives to see my point of view. My beliefs don’t work in their best interests. But if you’re going to sit here and tell me that African Americans were treated FAIRLY for the 4 centuries they’ve been on this continent, you’re insane.
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 07.30.05 @ 8:38 am
Cobra, please point to any comment here that says that blacks should quiely suffer any and all indignities for anything. You can’t, because it has never been said here.
I wish YOU could be honest, and stop postying SELECTIVE facts and ignoring others that fail to fit your victimization rants.
You don’t expect ANY conservatives, black or white, to see your skewed point of view, do you?
And lastly, point to the text posted here by anyone which indicates that African Americans were treated FAIRLY for the 4 centuries they’ve been on this continent. You can’t because no one has said it.
And no one here is insane, despite your comment.
Comment by RedBeard — 07.30.05 @ 10:36 am
La Shawn, I may have stepped over the line with my angry tone in the above post. If so, please feel free to delete it. I need to learn to shrug some things off, instead of getting all worked up.
Comment by RedBeard — 07.30.05 @ 11:08 am
Cobra, the racism coursing thru your veins are as vile as it is misplaced. As others have pointed out you selectively take words of our — and your — forefathers out of context. To wit, the notion of 3/5ths person was a compromise between those who would give the slaves no relief from their bondage and those who thot it atrocious.
If, as you claim, “America” was lockstep in racism, then there would have been no debate whatsoever! The hopes of those that would see slavery banished had to be tempered by facing certain political realities. Foremost was standing up a unified country — united we stand, divided…
The question of slavery, by necessity was lower on the totem pole of priorities. Unsavorable, but necessary for the times. Nevertheless, we find from the writings that it was their hope that in due time, slave-owners would see that slavery was at odds with the notion of liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness for ALL men who are created equal before God.
Granted, it took another 80 years to build enough sentiment against slavery to reach critical mass, but it did. Had our forefathers not addressed this at all — or as you FALSELY state in #21: “America has never thought much about the qualifications of African Americans” — the institution of slavery would have lasted much, much longer.
The problem with you is that all of your notions about justices are premised on self-deluding lies. And in the following comment, I’m going to give you some object lessons on the context by focusing on Abe Lincoln to refute your FOOLISH assertions.
Comment by Andy — 07.30.05 @ 11:58 am
Cobra;
Exactly what is it that you have endured today, and in your life, because of slavery, that has made you so bitter? Can you please be specific? I truly want to know what you think is so awful. Maybe it will help me understand where you are coming from. Many of us don’t have the scapegoat of slavery to blame for the suffering of our childhoods, but I would contend that our suffering was just as real. My husband’s grandfather was a German immigrant, who worked in a granite factory sixteen hours a day, hammering pylons into granite. He died very young,from overwork, poor nutrition, and breathing in granite dust, but he saved enough to send his son to school. My grandparents were Irish immigrants, and they were considered on a par with dogs in America when they first came. They did not make great decisions, and a number of them were alcoholics. Ergo, they were poor also. Slavery was a horrible horrible part of our American history, but it is not the explanation for all of the suffering in America. When I look at the suffering in my childhood, I know that it was a combination of being the child of immigrants, poor decisions, having lots of children, lack of education, and so on. As each generation came along, things got better and better. Cobra,do you ever look outside of yourself and see that lots of people in America suffer and that lots of your people have beautiful beautiful lives? Do you ever think that conservatives are searching for other reasons for poverty than slavery, because ultimately ’slavery as a sole explanation’ doesn’t help people out of their situation? It’s not that people are so diabolical, and want to blame the ‘victim’, but rather, that they want to come at the problem from a more effective angle than the ones that have been tried and failed. Also, there is simply too much empirical evidence to support slavery as being the root cause of all of the problems of the black community. It is far far too easy to simply dismiss all white and black conservatives as having malevolent intentions simply because you don’t like their ideas. When I think of the conservative approach to the black situation, such as that of Star Parker, all I see is compassion, not blame. You said that white conservatives won’t accept your ideas because they are not in their best interests. The reality is that white liberals make their living off of black poverty. There is an entire industry built up around keeping blacks poor,(and others), and in need of a hand-out. Where the heck is the dignity in that, and why would you want to wish that on anyone? It is totally in the best interests of the white and black liberals in this country to uphold a welfare/big government system based on paternalism. Conservatives have traditionally been about individual achievement, though they have succumbed far too much to the big government syndrome. So, truth is a demanding taskmaster, and, as redbeard said so beautifully, it comes with some good, some bad, and some ugly. It allows you a certain amount of righteous anger, but it also requires an acknowledgement of the part your own people played in slavery, including freed black men who owned slaves, and those in Africa who sold them. I had a child brutally raped by an illegal immigrant. She suffered horrendous consequences, physical and otherwise. He was screaming racial epithets at her as he raped her. Now, to me, it would be a strange thing indeed, if I took that rape and blamed the entire race for the sin of that demented man, even though his community refused to identify him. That would be the easy way out, because then I would not have to deal with forgiveness and my own feelings. And, my daughter, who had a rough couple of years, could use that to screw up the entire rest of her life. She had a choice to make, and she decided to get on with the business of living. I think we all need to just get on with the business of living.
Comment by jan brauner — 07.30.05 @ 12:32 pm
You pointed to something Lincoln said in his 6th debate with Steven A. Douglas at Quincy, Ill., Oct. 13, 1858.
Well, here what Abe ahd to say on 26 Jun 1857 regarding Dred Scott and wouldn’t you know it? It has plenty of relevancy to Bush’s strategy on SCOTUS. (My bold)
“FELLOW CITIZENS:—I am here to-night, partly by the invitation of some of you, and partly by my own inclination. Two weeks ago Judge Douglas spoke here on the several subjects of Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, and Utah. I listened to the speech at the time, and have read the report of it since. It was intended to controvert opinions which I think just, and to assail (politically, not personally,) those men who, in common with me, entertain those opinions. For this reason I wished then, and still wish, to make some answer to it, which I now take the opportunity of doing.
I begin with Utah. If it prove to be true, as is probable, that the people of Utah are in open rebellion to the United States, then Judge Douglas is in favor of repealing their territorial organization, and attaching them to the adjoining States for judicial purposes. I say, too, if they are in rebellion, they ought to be somehow coerced to obedience; and I am not now prepared to admit or deny that the Judge’s mode of coercing them is not as good as any. The Republicans can fall in with it without taking back anything they have ever said. To be sure, it would be a considerable backing down by Judge Douglas from his much vaunted doctrine of self-government for the territories; but this is only additional proof of what was very plain from the beginning, that that doctrine was a mere deceitful pretense for the benefit of slavery. Those who could not see that much in the Nebraska act itself, which forced Governors, and Secretaries, and Judges on the people of the territories, without their choice or consent, could not be made to see, though one should rise from the dead to testify.
But in all this, it is very plain the Judge evades the only question the Republicans have ever pressed upon the Democracy in regard to Utah. That question the Judge well knows to be this: “If the people of Utah shall peacefully form a State Constitution tolerating polygamy, will the Democracy admit them into the Union?” There is nothing in the United States Constitution or law against polygamy; and why is it not a part of the Judge’s “sacred right of self-government” for that people to have it, or rather to keep it, if they choose? These questions, so far as I know, the Judge never answers. It might involve the Democracy to answer them either way, and they go unanswered.
As to Kansas. The substance of the Judge’s speech on Kansas is an effort to put the free State men in the wrong for not voting at the election of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. He says: “There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly interpreted and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise.”
It appears extraordinary that Judge Douglas should make such a statement. He knows that, by the law, no one can vote who has not been registered; and he knows that the free State men place their refusal to vote on the ground that but few of them have been registered. It is possible this is not true, but Judge Douglas knows it is asserted to be true in letters, newspapers and public speeches, and borne by every mail [if today, by email & blogging??
], and blown by every breeze to the eyes and ears of the world. He knows it is boldly declared that the people of many whole counties, and many whole neighborhoods in others, are left unregistered; yet, he does not venture to contradict the declaration, nor to point out how they can vote without being registered; but he just slips along, not seeming to know there is any such question of fact, and complacently declares: “There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairly and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fide inhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise.”
I readily agree that if all had a chance to vote, they ought to have voted. If, on the contrary, as they allege, and Judge Douglas ventures not to particularly contradict, few only of the free State men had a chance to vote, they were perfectly right in staying from the polls in a body.
By the way since the Judge spoke, the Kansas election has come off. The Judge expressed his confidence that all the Democrats in Kansas would do their duty-including “free state Democrats” of course. The returns received here as yet are very incomplete; but so far as they go, they indicate that only about one sixth of the registered voters, have really voted; and this too, when not more, perhaps, than one half of the rightful voters have been registered, thus showing the thing to have been altogether the most exquisite farce ever enacted. I am watching with considerable interest, to ascertain what figure “the free state Democrats” cut in the concern. Of course they voted—all democrats do their duty—and of course they did not vote for slave-state candidates. We soon shall know how many delegates they elected, how many candidates they had, pledged for a free state; and how many votes were cast for them.
Allow me to barely whisper my suspicion that there were no such things in Kansas “as free state Democrats”—that they were altogether mythical, good only to figure in newspapers and speeches in the free states. If there should prove to be one real living free state Democrat in Kansas, I suggest that it might be well to catch him, and stuff and preserve his skin, as an interesting specimen of that soon to be extinct variety of the genus, Democrat. [Uncanny indictment, isn’t it given the near extinct role of today’s MSM/DNC. It would appear that Abe is off in his prediction by 150 years!!!]
And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares two propositions—first, that a Negro cannot sue in the U.S. Courts; and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories. It was made by a divided court—dividing differently on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision; and, in that respect, I shall follow his example, believing I could no more improve on McLean and Curtis, than he could on Taney.
He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, as offering violent resistance to it.[Sounds like Roe v Wade, no???] But who resists it? Who has, in spite of the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority of his master over him?
Judicial decisions have two uses—first, to absolutely determine the case decided, and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar cases will be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called “precedents” and “authorities.”[For Leahy & Kennedy, good when it suits them, bad when it doesn’t]
We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it.“
Comment by Andy — 07.30.05 @ 12:32 pm
Object Lesson #2 for Cobra
Due to the limitations of HTML options, the following plaintext excerpt are the words of the author & researcher and the italics are those of Abe. You can read the full analysis of at Abraham Lincoln’s Independence Day address of 1863 in Washington:
http://gurukul.american.edu/heintze/Lincoln.htm
Again, my emphasis in bold.
=========Begin Excerpt====
[SNIP]
A local newspaper described the event and the festive atmosphere:
Last evening, in response to a notice hastily given, a large assemblage of citizens gathered in front of the National Hotel, and, preceded by the band of the thirty- fourth Massachusetts Regiment, marched to the Executive Mansion, to offer their congratulations to the President upon the late successes of our Army and Navy. As the column marched up the Avenue it gained constant accessions, like a rolling snowball, and an immense crowd entered the space in front of the White House, about half past 8 o’clock.
Mr. Lincoln was at that moment absent at the War Department, but he promptly came over, and made his appearance at the window of the portico of the Executive mansion. When he stood before them, hearing the marks of the excessive labor and care that has fallen to his lot ever since he assumed the duties of his office, but wearing a smile of supreme satisfaction at the glorious events which his fellow-citizens were celebrating, vociferous cheers vent the air. The crowd cheered Abraham Lincoln, General Grant, General Meade, General Rosecrans, and President Lincoln again. (”The Rejoincings Last Night,” Daily National Republican, 8 July 1863, 2.)
Another Washington newspaper thought the crowd “numbered many thousands” (Washington Evening Star, 8 July 1863, 2). News of the event quickly spread along the Eastern seaboard. In a dispatch sent to New York, it was reported that “The news spread like wildfire through the city[Washington]. Flags were thrown from public and private buildings, and cheers given to all extent and with an enthusiam such as have rearely been paralleled here. The fact that the capture was made on the Fourth of July gave an added zest to the general satisfaction (New York Times, 8 July 1863, 1.) Even in the Confederate South, in Charleston, S.C., the “tremendous rejoicing all over the North” was reported. However, Lincoln’s address was referred to there as a “foolish speech” (Charleston Daily Courier, 13 July 1863, 1).
Lincoln’s July 7 speech was made available and was printed in newspapers across the country. A comparison of some of these reprintings of the speech reveals that the texts do not exactly match. Apparently, editors of these newspapers recopied the text and in so doing changed and deleted words which resulted likely in detracting from Lincoln’s intentions. Among the variant versions of the speech, I have selected that printed in the Washington Evening Star,8 July 1863, 2, because first, its a version closer to home, likely not having passed through as many hands, and second, its text displays more elegance than the others I have examined; it just seems more Lincolnesque:
Fellow-citizens: I am very glad to see you to-night. But yet I will not say I thank you for this call. But I do most sincerely thank Almighty God for the occasion on which you have called. [Cheers.] How long ago is it? Eighty odd years since, upon the Fourth day of July, for the first time in the world, a union body of representatives was assembled to declare as a self-evident truth that all men were created equal. [Cheers.]
That was the birthday of the United States of America. Since then the fourth day of July has had several very peculiar recognitions. The two most distinguished men who framed and supported that paper, including the particular declaration I have mentioned, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, the one having framed it, and the other sustained it most ably in debate, the only two of the fifty-five or fifty-six who signed it, I believe, who were ever President of the United States, precisely fifty years after they put their hands to that paper it pleased the Almighty God to take away from this stage of action on the Fourth of July. This extraordinary coincidence we can understand to be a dispensation of the Almighty Ruler of Events.
Another of our Presidents, five years afterwards, was called from this stage of existence on the same day of the month, and now on this Fourth of July just past, when a gigantic rebellion has risen in the land, precisely at the bottom of which is an effort to overthrow that principle “that all men are created equal,” we have a surrender of one of their most powerful positions and powerful armies forced upon them on that very day. [Cheers.] And I see in the succession of battles in Pennsylvania, which continued three days, so rapidly following each other as to be justly called one great battle, fought on the first, second and third of July; on the fourth the enemies of the declaration that all men are created equal had to turn tail and run. [Laughter and applause.]
Gentlemen, this is a glorious theme and a glorious occasion for a speech, but I am not prepared to make one worthy of the theme and worthy of the occasion. [Cries of “go on,” and applause.] I would like to speak in all praise that is due to the the [sic] many brave officers and soldiers who have fought in the cause of the Union and liberties of this country from the beginning of this war, not on occasions of success, but upon the more trying occasions of the want of success. I say I would like to speak in praise of these men, particularizing their deeds, but I am unprepared. I should dislike to mention the name of a single officer, lest in doing so I wrong some other one whose name may not occur to me. [Cheers.]
Recent events bring up certain names, gallantly prominent, but I do not want to particularly name them at the expense of others, who are as justly entitled to our gratitude as they. I therefore do not upon this occasion name a single man. And now I have said about as much as I ought to say in this impromptu manner, and if you please, I’ll take the music. [Tremendous cheering, and calls for the President to reappear.]
It was reported in the Washington Evening Star that after Lincoln’s speech, there was music by the band and the crowd then went to the War Department to hear speeches by Secretary Stanton and others.
Comment by Andy — 07.30.05 @ 12:50 pm
Redbeard someimes we have to concede when we are talking to walls and when we are not. Some people will spend all their time worrying about what someone is doing, has done and will do to them and very little time on what they are doing themselves and for themselves. This will be an ever repetative circle as long as sin (in all its forms) is alive and well. Just keep spreading the word because their are many out there who are listening
Andy thanks for the history lesson
Comment by Renee — 07.30.05 @ 12:50 pm
Object Lesson #3, 4 & 5 for Cobra
Rather than overstay my welcome with regards to La Shawn’s bandwidth, you can go read them. The point is that your contention that America did not think of the black and that racism courses thru her veins is a totally malicious fabrication of your twisted mind. Get on up outta that low-lying fevered swampland!!!
Lesson #3:Lincoln and Civil Rights for Blacks
By Mary Frances Berry
“Politicians in their speeches, writings, and actions must, as Kansas Senator Nancy Kassebaum recently stated, “strike the proper balance between a naive idealism and a craven pragmatism.”1 Abraham Lincoln was a politician who understood that political action is compromise. But the highest calling of the expert—successful—politician is making compromise creative and not corruptive. It is proper that successful politicians have always wanted to be both popular and political. Being popular is easier; it is accomplished by telling audiences what they want to hear—something that touches a responsive chord because it is consonant with their own personal experiences and beliefs. Being political is more difficult. It requires telling people what the politician wants them to hear in a way that they will be inspired to think differently and more sensitively about things. As we consider Lincoln, the successful leader and politician, dealing with the civil rights of Negroes, let us ask two questions. How much did he tell people what they wanted to hear, and how much did he give them a new sense of direction? Did he strike a proper balance between idealism and pragmatism? I believe he did. …”
WebSource: http://jala.press.uiuc.edu/2/berry.html
Lesson #4: Lincoln’s First Debate with Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, 21 Aug 1858
“In 1858, Senator Stephen A. Douglas and Abraham Lincoln faced each other in a series of seven debates in the race for Illinois senator. The central question was whether slavery should be extended to the territories: Douglas and the Democratic party believed that the territories themselves should decide whether to allow slavery, whereas Lincoln and his new Republican party believed that slavery should be banned from the territories. The Dred Scott case of 1857 said that neither Congress nor a territorial legislature could exclude slavery from a territory and that no African American, slave or free, could be a citizen of the United States. …”
WebSource: http://www.learner.org/channel/workshops/primarysources/emancipation/docs/firstdebate.html
Lesson #5: Debating Douglas on the National Stage, 1857-1858
By R.D. Monroe, Ph.D.
“The Kansas-Nebraska Act reignited sectional tensions by opening free territory to slavery. The free-soil North and the proslavery South competed for dominance of the new Kansas territory, a competition that turned violent. When Democratic President James Buchanan accepted the proslavery Lecompton constitution for Kansas in order to placate an increasingly strident South, Stephen Douglas broke ranks with him and the Democratic party. The people of Kansas had rejected the Lecompton constitution and slavery in a referendum, and Douglas declared that to accept it in spite of that negative verdict would be a violation of popular sovereignty. He helped defeat the Lecompton constitution in Congress. Douglas had thus traveled a strange path from opening territory to the slaveholding South in 1854, to standing against slavery’s expansion into that same territory. His stand effectively split the Democratic Party. …”
WebSource: http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/biography7text.html
Comment by Andy — 07.30.05 @ 1:07 pm
Renee & Redbeard, spot on!!!
I’m thru bruising this snake’s head for today.
Comment by Andy — 07.30.05 @ 1:09 pm
Contrary to Cobra and others insisting that this nation is secular, the truth is that our forefathers primary concern was ensuring the govt does not interfer with religion, while permitting Christianity to wholly guide and stamp its imprint & tenets on our govt.
We are indeed founded and supposed to be a Christian nation, all the while allowing people to believe otherwise, if they so chose in “sound” mind and clear conscience.
Secularism is what justifies slavery, abortion, AA and practically every other progressive nanny statism horror — for we have become gods unto ourselves and morality is whatever we think it to be.
Check out by Nathan Tabor’s America is “Grateful to Almighty God” blog post:
“Lately I have been doing some research onto the historical roots of American liberty, and what I have found concerning our nation’s Christian history has been particularly enlightening.
For example, taking a look at the constitutions of all 50 states, I found that about 40 of them started out with an acknowledgment that the people of those states were “grateful to Almighty God,” or words to that effect.
What were those folks grateful for in their states’ founding documents? Well, most were consciously grateful for the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty that we too often simply take for granted today.
One of the best examples is the state of Pennsylvania, where both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution were created and signed. The Preamble to the state constitution of Pennsylvania (1776), declares that “We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance,” thereby established their government.
The language varies slightly from state to state, but the fundamental idea is the same. The people of each state, in setting up their new state governments, acknowledged both their gratitude to God as the source of their liberties, and their dependence upon His future guidance. …
Read the rest and be thankfull for our founding principles that directly made us the greatest nation in history:
http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=7167
American exceptionalsim? You betcha!!!
Comment by Andy — 07.30.05 @ 1:44 pm
Cobra;
Do you have any response whatsoever to my comment #32? Or anyone else? Am I off base? By the way, I so so appreciate the attitude that so many of you have on this blog. You are simply engaged in the process of just ‘getting on with life’, while realizing that not all of it is perfect….and that some of it is the pits. Y’all go!
Comment by jan brauner — 07.30.05 @ 4:27 pm
RedBeard #29, You are a rhetorical powerhouse.
And might I say, “WOW Andy!”
Cobra, one small point. The amount of wealth held by blacks in this country dwarf the wealth of blacks in ANY OTHER country.
Sure the percentage of GDP attributed to blacks is not at 12% yet but it’s getting there and is much closer than ever before.
The object for some is not, “how do we get even for 4 centuries of mistreatment” because to do that would cause war and divisiveness.
The object for that some is, “how can we heal the wounds and eliminate any threads of lingering racism? Is it by preferential treatment based on race or elimination of preferential treatment and discrimination based on race.
As Ward Connerly prescribes, we can have outreach programs but not based on race but based on all who are economically and socially disadvantaged. Because to outreach to only poor blacks and ignore poor hispanics, asians and caucausians is simply racist Cobra. Is it not?
Comment by Baklava — 07.30.05 @ 4:42 pm
Redbeard,
I don’t have to take time to malign George Washington. His OWN WORDS do so far better than I could.
From an extant letter in 1766:
>>>
“Sir: With this letter comes a Negro (Tom) which I beg the favour of you to sell, in any of the Islands you may go to, for whatever he will fetch, and bring me in return for him: one hhd of best molasses, one of best Rum, one barrel of Lymes if good and cheap, … and the residue, much or little in good ole spirits…That this Fellow is both a rogue and a Runaway…I shall not pretend to deny. But . . . he is exceedingly healthy, strong and good at the Hoe… which gives me reason to hope he may, with your good management sell well (if kept clean and trim’d up a little when offered for sale… [I] must beg the favor of you (lest he should attempt his escape) to keep him hand-cuffed till you get to Sea.”
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm
What was life like as a slave (one not traded away as livestock like Tom) at Washington’s Mt. Vernon residence?
>>>
There is some dispute about the living conditions of the slaves at Mount Vernon as the evidence and testimony are in conflict. Certainly, they did not live well. One visitor to Mount Vernon [a Polish nobleman] was shocked by the living quarters of Washington’s slaves referring to them as “huts,” adding “for one can not call them by the name of houses. They are more miserable than the most miserable of the cottages of our peasants. The husband and wife sleep on a mean pallet, the children on the ground; a very bad fireplace, some utensils for cooking.” GW himself seemed to acknowledge their very rudimentary condition, for when he later sought Europeans to work Mount Vernon’s fields, he admitted that the slave quarters at MV “might not be thought good enough for the workmen or day laborers” of England. Clothing and blankets were carefully rationed. A woman would receive an extra blanket if she had a child, but if the child died, the woman would not get a new blanket for herself but was to use the one given to her child. On clothing for the children, another French nobleman declared, the Negro quarters “swarm with pickaninnies in rags that our beggars would scorn to wear.” [This might be from 19th century] The slaves’ rations, consisting chiefly of maize, herring, and occasionally salt meat, must have been at least on occasion rather meager, for GW’s slaves at least once took the extraordinary step of petitioning their master, claiming they received an inadequate supply of food.”
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm
I guess, by the gist of the posts of some here, those slaves should have THANKED Washington for their meager existance. I mean, if you would believe Andy, there is NO happiness to be had in this world for a black person save obediant submission to the whims of the white America, no matter what era that black person existed in. I speak about four centuries of unfair treatment regarding blacks, because it’s the elephant sitting in the middle of the room of any conversation about Affirmative Action. It’s an elephant most conservatives, including the ones in this room look past. It wasn’t necessary for you or any other poster to come out and DENY this reality, when the denial is TACIT by the absence of any reference.
Redbeard, if you want to challenge me to out MORE white elected officials, judges and political leaders on their RACISM, please, by all means…bring it on. You KNOW how many I can fill this screen with.
Speaking of Andy…
You can post as much of Lincoln’s OTHER speeches, writings and research as LaShawn will allow you to upload. It does NOT CHANGE WHAT THE MAN SAID in his OWN WORDS about blacks during the Douglas debates. Lincoln considered blacks inferior to whites. Case closed.
When you make sweeping excuses for slavery like this one…
“The question of slavery, by necessity was lower on the totem pole of priorities.”
..I simply marvel at it. Here were white men, who believed that black men were inferior, therefore not entitled to the same freedoms and liberties they saw fit to fight a bloody insurgency against the King of England for THEMSELVES. Your apologies for their white supremacist mindset ring hollow with me, no matter how many pages your responding posts are.
Jan writes:
>>>Exactly what is it that you have endured today, and in your life, because of slavery, that has made you so bitter? Can you please be specific? I truly want to know what you think is so awful. Maybe it will help me understand where you are coming from. Many of us don’t have the scapegoat of slavery to blame for the suffering of our childhoods, but I would contend that our suffering was just as real.”
The reason I posted the FACTS about the white supremacist attitudes of Washington, Jefferson, Roosevelt and Lincoln was to give irrefutable proof to the fact that the questioning of black qualification did NOT begin with Affirmative Action or Quotas. Affirmative Action has only existed since the mid to late 60’s. African Americans have been looked upon as INFERIOR since the first blacks were brought to these shores (on ships owned and operated by WHITES, Andy) in the early 17th Century.
Does the fact that these white male members of the American Pantheon thought I as a black man was inferior make me “miserable?” Nope. Those people are dead. There are enough whites today who think this way that I have to deal with. Not ALL of them, of course, but far too many for my particular tastes. That fact that they exist today is ALSO irrefutable, Jan, or do you need specific links to popular groups, politicians and movements that proudly boast of such ideology? Do you need links to specific documentation on the RE-SEGREGATION of American cities and towns? And if those links and documentations are provided, would it change your perception of the reality of racism in America one bit? Honestly?
I have friends and loved ones of all stripes….many of whom I wouldn’t hesitate to bleed for. I won’t remain silent, however, when I see a distortion of history and modern reality in regards to RACISM in America. That doesn’t make me a revisionist, or an America-basher.
You can love the sinner…yet hate the sin.
http://www.thecobraslair.com/images/WOOD-SHAMPOO-STREAM-OF.gif
Baklava writes:
>>>Cobra, one small point. The amount of wealth held by blacks in this country dwarf the wealth of blacks in ANY OTHER country.
Sure the percentage of GDP attributed to blacks is not at 12% yet but it’s getting there and is much closer than ever before.”
Who controls the VAST MAJORITY of the GDP, and why are you prompting these kinds of statistics in regards to racial justice? Is this supposed to be some quid pro quo? Is a GDP percentage some type of “hush money” or bribe for minority acceptance of a lower social hiearchy level?
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 07.30.05 @ 7:39 pm
Geesh, you are about as blind and dumb as they come. Though you claim to state the facts, you can’t even deny the truth of anything I’ve said, instead you make silly distortions as if that would make your case any stronger.
If you want to pass blame around, don’t stop at whitey, go back into the jungles where our ancestors were losers, YES LOSERS! Losers because they were captured by rival tribes and sold to arabs and or white traders.
But even in “losing” they became winners thru the relative successes of their offsprings. Economically speaking, black Americans have it made compared to Africans, such that were a Black to go to Africa, he/she will be treated as a white man! How’s that for ironic?
But you want to wallow in self-pity of “racism exists because my ancestor was a slave” nonsense, go right ahead. It is plain to all that you are the RACIST and as such, you want to project it unto everything that you “think” stands in your way.
Aside from distorting all that I said, either that or you can’t read all that well — as Bak would say comphrension. I must admit I set you up.
For starters, you claim to be “christian” when convenient, but it is plain that you’re more of the liberation theology sort — a wolf in sheep’s clothing or as we say down south “snake in the grass”.
As Christians, we are taught to shrug off the injustices and stay focused on serving God. Take the story of Joseph, the story of Daniel & his friends or for a NT perspective, Onesimus.
By your own screed, if you were to trade places, the tale of Joseph according to Cobra:
1) A resentful slave doing just enough to avoid punishment — while the real Joe rose thru the ranks to become his master’s most trusted steward.
2) If tempted by Massah’s wife, you say I’m goona get my justice on that racist — while the real Joe fled.
3) If caught by Massah, killed on the spot — the real Joe gets tossed in jail.
4) If tossed in jail, you’d pout & cry and join NAI if they were around — the real Joe humbled himself before the Lord and thus was able to interpret the dreams of two fellow prisoners.
5) If by some miracle, you were brought before Pharoah, you would have gloated over his dream — the real Joe was elevated to Pharoah’s right hand
6) If you became the right hand man, you would have extracted retribution from your brothers when they show up looking for food — the real Joe wept for joy and heaped much blessings upon them.
Thru it all God was in control and had a purpose for greater good, even tho your mind can’t grasp it and never will as long as you let Satan hiss sweet nothings in your ear. Because you are incapble of understanding our peace, you attribute it to some sort of apologia for whitey.
That’s the difference between you and most of us here. We’ve forgiven “whitey” and moved on to make our way toe to toe with society. Christians can count it all for joy to suffer trials and tribulations.
We can always look on the bright side while all is doom and gloom in your miserable lair with your racists drawings.
May God continue to torment your heart until you see the light.
Comment by Andy — 07.30.05 @ 9:23 pm
Cobra, I’m done trying to communicate with you, since doing so is proving about as effective as trying to communicate with a cast iron cook stove.
You refuse to even acknowledge anyone else’s points. Your mission in life, apparently, is to wallow in misery and negativity, feeding your hatred, cultivating it, making it grow like an out-of-control weed patch. Frankly, I can justify no more time trying to deal with such a ridiculously useless expenditure of energy as you display.
I don’t want to presume to speak for others, but it seems to me, judging by the posts, that most folks here believe in the old adage that it’s far better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. My sincere hope is that someday you might see the wisdom and the profitability of such a plan.
Comment by RedBeard — 07.30.05 @ 10:14 pm
Andy writes:
>>>If you want to pass blame around, don’t stop at whitey, go back into the jungles where our ancestors were losers, YES LOSERS! Losers because they were captured by rival tribes and sold to arabs and or white traders.”
You’re going to accuse ME of posting something insidious, yet turn around and call MILLIONS of Africans put into chattel slavery “losers?” Why? Because they were captured? Hunted down? Tricked? Deceived? Kidnapped? Does your definition of “loser” cover EVERYONE IN HISTORY to have ever been “captured”, “hunted down”, “tricked”, “deceived” or “kidnapped?”. That’s a big world history, Andy. Lots of people are “captured” by opposing forces. In fact, you quote the Bible so often…answer me this…weren’t the Jews under ROMAN OCCUPATION and RULE during the time of Christ? And if they were…how would your definition cover their status? Given your equations, you’d be on the verge of blasphemy if you follow it to the logical conclusion.
And then, back to black people.. oh…just skip a few centuries here and there and make a statement that slavery was somehow a “winning” proposition, because 400 years LATER, African Americans can make a living here…something you seem to feel IMPOSSIBLE no place else on earth, especially on the continent of Africa.
Are you kidding me? Who TAUGHT you this self-loathing? Who told you that there is no black life on earth worth living outside of these borders? You know, it’s funny…I’ve chatted with many black conservatives in my experiences, and we would amicably debate on politics, or economic strategies. I rarely ever come across a person so dismissive of his own talents, capacities and confidence that he would actually believe that he would be less than what he is without the “benefits” of the chattel slave trade.
You should take a bow, because your act is without peer, IMHO.
You’re hysterical, Cobra. Black Americans are better off than blacks anywhere on the planet. Unlike you, I have no illusions about the continent of Africa and black Africans’ place in history. One look at self-ruled African countries with their black African leaders should tell you all you need to know about what’s come out of Africa. There is nothing self-loathing about saying that blacks are better off here than anywhere else, and that black Americans are indeed fortunate NOT to live in Africa. If you don’t think so, I think you should go on an exploratory mission for six months, return to LBC, and report your findings. I’m sure your experience will be eye-opening, to say the least. And why don’t you have equally harsh words toward modern-day black African and Arab slave traders? You’re obsession with what the “white man” has done is comical. - Admin
Redbeard writes:
>>>Cobra, I’m done trying to communicate with you, since doing so is proving about as effective as trying to communicate with a cast iron cook stove.
You refuse to even acknowledge anyone else’s points.”
Your idea of “communication” seems to mean you posting, and me agreeing with your posts. That’s not MY idea of communication. If anything, I certainly acknowledge posts targetted at me. My disagreement with those posts doesn’t mean I don’t “acknowledge” them.
You can continue to defend the indefensible if you wish. That’s your perogative. I don’t have any responsibility to AGREE with you, no matter how “right” you think you are. Also, you seem to conflate my disagreeing with you, with:
>>>”Your mission in life, apparently, is to wallow in misery and negativity, feeding your hatred, cultivating it, making it grow like an out-of-control weed patch.”
Misery? Negativity? Again, because I disagree with you, and pull up HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION to support my statements, I’m “miserable and negative?” You need to see the smile on my face typing these posts in. If you’re not up to having somebody actually CHALLENGE your viewpoints, why are you posting to a blog that can be read by anybody in the world? (including black people in Africa, Andy. They actually have the internet there, too. FYI)
Unbelievable.
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 07.30.05 @ 11:11 pm
Here’s a book you need to read, Cobra:
http://tinyurl.com/btq7p
Comment by La Shawn — 07.30.05 @ 11:41 pm
Cobra, last comment and I’m done with you.
1) Everytime the Jews were in captivity, it was a result of their disobedience to God. In fact, I’ve said it before, all that ails & bedevils us is a result of sin. And where it really matters the most, we’re all losers when we stand before the judgement seat without the blood of redemption. Pull up the only Source that matters.
2) What makes you think I’m unaware of the power of the internet for change in Africa? If I were to fly there tomorrow, I’d be at home among more friends than I have here.
3) Everything else is a distortion of what I’ve said.
Bye!
Comment by Andy — 07.31.05 @ 12:37 am
What would make you happy Cobra?
Please outline it for all of us. Please include who, what, when, where, why, how. You would be happy when who did what, when and where. Then why and how.
I can only speak for myself. I’d be interested in knowing as I’ve spoken to many like you [verbally] and never thought of that question. Have you identified this? Is this a new thought process you have to go through?
One last point. If you ever have to go through marriage counseling or therapy or see a psychologist, the one thing they’ll hammer into your head is:
You can only control your own self. You are responsible for your own happiness. You alone are responsible for your actions. No matter what anyone else does it is up to you to be responsible for your actions and your feelings.
I only wish for a response to the first question. Thanks.
Comment by Baklava — 07.31.05 @ 3:32 am
La Shawn, thanks for that book link. Out of America sounds like a worthy read.
At the risk of boring everyone’s pants off, here’s a little true story:
Some time ago I was a struggling entrepreneur, cash poor, but with a good little foundation of a company. I took in a “money” partner. Worst mistake I’ve ever made. The man turned out to be a thief, a liar, and a degenerate. I should have been more careful at the start, and investigated further. He cheated on his wife, he lied to everyone (customers, family, and me), and he helped himself to small bits of company assets whenever he thought he could get away with it. When I came to full realization of what sort of a snake I had teamed with, I ended the partnership, and immediately started a new company in competition with him.
My anger toward this man and the hurt he had caused me was white hot. It was the sort of hatred that sometimes can lead to violence. I wanted revenge in the worst way. My plan was to fight him in the marketplace, targeting his customers and taking them away one by one, thereby winning the battles in this great war. Sending his company to its grave became an obsession with me. Every day was a struggle.
Luckily for me, a friend, someone who had been watching the drama, had a long talk with me one day. He advised me to stop being angry, to totally ignore my ex-partner, and to focus 100% on the positive aspect of running my own firm properly. He said that it’s easy to wallow in the negative and concentrate on all the wrongs one has suffered at the hands of others, but that it’s a dead-end path. It took some doing on my friend’s part, over a period of time, but he convinced me that hate is a truly lousy motivator.
After I “saw the light” it was absolutely amazing how my business fortunes improved. The company grew at a rapid pace, and has been a solid enterprise ever since. I haven’t seen my ex-partner in years, and don’t even think of him very often. I can’t adequately thank my friend enough for putting me on the right track.
Ok, too many words, I know.
I’ll shut up now. 
Comment by RedBeard — 07.31.05 @ 8:53 am
Cobra;
I asked you what you, yourself, have suffered,because of slavery.I didn’t ask you about what some isolated idiot might be writing or saying about blacks.And, for every hideous thing you can dig up that a white person says, I can dig up an equal amount of trash that a black man or group says. How does this help anyone? And, how does only seeing one side bring you closer to the truth? Truth has two sides and demands a lot more than petulance. And, if statistics and research are so important to you, why have you never addressed the unbelievable statistic that Larry Elder speaks of concerning violent crime between the races, and the fact that 90% of it is black on white.This is a lot more significant than someone saying something stupid. It isn’t valid research when you see a problem in a onesided fashion, and that’s what you do.
You take one small part of what someone says on this blog, then you twist it, then you argue with it, while ignoring the entire rest of their communication. No one on this blog has said that there isn’t any racism. No one on this blog has said that you should roll over and be happy about slavery or racism. No one has said that our Founding Fathers were perfect. No one has said that someone, somewhere, isn’t writing or saying something ugly. No one has said that segrgation doesn’t exist…though the reasons are far more complex than you allow. But you see everything as all bad, while failing to acknowledge half of the equation. And, you attribute far to much of society’s problem’s to racism, while totally ignoring the decisions that perpetuate poverty. I know a lot about those decisions, because, as I said, I grew up in poverty. And, you seem to think that white people don’t experience animosity because of their race. I live in a poor neighborhood and experience it every day. And, as I said, I had a child brutally raped, in by a demented individual screaming racial epithets. I never had such racialism experienced overseas, and I am really really trying to change it, but I think I need the help of like-minded people of all races who actually want to make the world better, not just rant and rave. By the way, after spending twenty-four years in the Middle East helping people from third world countries to start businesses, who had no beds, were incredibly emaciated, and who lived on fifty dollars a month or less, I can tell you that they were far more joyful than you are. In that twenty-four year period, every one of them sent their children to tiny village schools, and their children became doctors, lawyers, and engineers.They were so incredibly focused on educating their kids, that none of them ever bought themselves beds, even though we were paying them extremely well. And, their wives worked with their kids for four hours a day on average, after school. It was amazing. I never saw anything like it. The guys didn’t see their families for several years at a time. They were from Nepal, Bombay, Kerala, Sri Lanka, and the Philipines. I was very very humbled, and I learned that I had an enormous amount to learn about living.
Comment by jan brauner — 07.31.05 @ 9:17 am
Where to start here?
Let me first say that I’m amazed how simply relaying accurate history fires up so many people.
Most of your arguments aren’t against me, folks. You have a problem with American history and statistics, which is exactly what I cite here to support my posts.
You can live in denial, and not believe Presidents could be racist, or own slaves. You can live in denial and not believe that it took nearly two centuries for black people to get full civil rights on paper, and there was still serious opposition to it from white conservatives. You can live in denial about wage inequities among women and minorities in America:
>>>The Equal Pay Act was signed in 1963, making it illegal for employers to pay unequal wages to men and women who hold the same job and do the same work. At the time of the EPA’s passage, women earned just 58 cents for every dollar earned by men. By 2003, 40 years later, that rate had only increased to 76 cents, an improvement of less than half a penny a year. Minority women fare the worst. African-American women earn just 65 cents to every dollar earned by white men, and for Hispanic women that figure drops to merely 54 cents per dollar.”
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763170.html
So by the STATISTICS, (not my own evaluation), it may indeed be better to live as an African American than as a Black African for the most part, but it is undeniably better to live as a White American Male than all the other groups in question. So why attack the messenger when there is a definitive disparity, LaShawn?
It’s also interesting there are many who seem to live in denial about European colonization. America was a product of European colonization if you recall. What was the effect of that colonization on the quality of life of Native Americans and African Americans ONE CENTURY after the European nation in charge was kicked out? If your collective claims are that it was “great”, you’re living in denial. Therefore, it’s interesting to compare the quality of life of Africans, removed from colonial rule only decades ago, with the similar time frame of African Americans decades removed from the Revolution. How do the chips stack up there?
***
When I called you hysterical, I didn’t mean hysterical-funny. The fact that it may be better to live as a “White American Male” than any other group is not something I spend a lot of time thinking about, and I’m frankly surprised that someone like you is so obsessed with whites, how they live and what they think. I’m grateful beyond words that I live as an American, regardless of how “better” it is to be this race or that.
Please don’t take my refusal to waste brain cells and space to address each of your hysterical statements as denial or inability to refute or deal with your points. Your comments so far on LBC have been somewhat empty, cut-and-paste routines signifying…not much. Just the same tired lines I usually hear from black liberals. I sometimes think you comment just for sport, to bait people into wasting time with non sequiturs so typical of people like yourself. What drew you to this blog, I have no idea, but this is what a blogger with public commenting has to deal with, I suppose. - Admin
***
Andy writes:
>>>1) Everytime the Jews were in captivity, it was a result of their disobedience to God. In fact, I’ve said it before, all that ails & bedevils us is a result of sin. And where it really matters the most, we’re all losers when we stand before the judgement seat without the blood of redemption. Pull up the only Source that matters.”
So, by your interpretation, the millions of Africans transported on white owned and operated slave ships were either 1) “Losers” or 2) Being punished by God for their sins.
…
Hmmm. Fascinating outlook on life, Andy. All victims of crime or war are “losers”, and ANYTHING bad that happens is punishment by God for your sins.
And people in here are insinuating that I have a complex?
Jan writes:
>>>And, if statistics and research are so important to you, why have you never addressed the unbelievable statistic that Larry Elder speaks of concerning violent crime between the races, and the fact that 90% of it is black on white.”
First of all, I’m quoting Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln. You’re quoting a radio talk show host and wannabe television star. Do you see the DIFFERENCE in gravitas? Second, your facts on violent crime are skewed. You’re not giving the entire picture.
From the BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE:
“Overall, when comparing whites, blacks, and all persons of other races, blacks had the highest violent crime victimization rates.”
“In 2003–
Per every 1,000 persons in that racial group, 29 blacks, 22 whites and 16 persons of others races sustained a violent crime.
Black and white persons experienced statistically similar rates of simple assault.
Black, white, and other races experienced similarly rates of rape/sexual assault.
According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, in 2002 about 49% of murder victims were white, 49% were black, and 3% were Asians, Pacific Islander, and Native Americans.”
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm
And what is the definition of “violent crime?”
>>>Violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. According to the Uniform Crime Reporting Program’s definition, violent crimes involve force or threat of force.”
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreported/02-nviolent02.html
In the year 2002, 446,365 people were arrested for violent crime, of which 266,681 were White.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/arrested/04-table43.html
That means 59.7% of all people arrested for violent crimes were WHITE PEOPLE.
Now Jan, are you going to believe Larry Elder, or your own lying eyes with these statistics?
Work those statistics, Jan, and you’ll see that that Elder’s interracial crime line is not as cut and dry as you would like to believe.
That’s kind of person I am. I don’t parrot pundits and talk show hosts. I research for myself, get the direct quotes, and make my own evaluations. Also, I challenge people who make statements I don’t believe are accurate.
Jan writes:
>>>They were so incredibly focused on educating their kids, that none of them ever bought themselves beds, even though we were paying them extremely well. And, their wives worked with their kids for four hours a day on average, after school. It was amazing. I never saw anything like it. The guys didn’t see their families for several years at a time. They were from Nepal, Bombay, Kerala, Sri Lanka, and the Philipines. I was very very humbled, and I learned that I had an enormous amount to learn about living.”
You realize that the lifestyle you’re depicted is collectivism with leanings toward socialism. I’m not knocking it, but that is NOT the message embraced by conservatives, who believe in individualism and for the most part, social darwinism.
Jan writes:
>>>By the way, after spending twenty-four years in the Middle East helping people from third world countries to start businesses, who had no beds, were incredibly emaciated, and who lived on fifty dollars a month or less, I can tell you that they were far more joyful than you are.”
You shouldn’t be directing that comment at ME. You should be directing it to people like Andy and LaShawn, who seem to feel, based upon their comments here, that there is NO JOY in the world possible outside of American citizenship.
Baklava writes:
>>>What would make you happy Cobra?”
…I only wish for a response to the first question. Thanks. ”
Then why did you pile on the rest of the stuff about “marriage counceling”, and psycho therapy?
I will answer you question, though. My joy is personal. It comes from the realization of my passions in life. I won’t go into detail because, like I said, it’s personal. But if you feel that one can’t be happy unless one agrees in lockstep with posters on a blog, well…
I don’t know if any of my answers will ever satisfy you.
Whew. That was easy. Don’t you just love the spirit of pleasant discourse and conversation?
–Cobra
Comment by Cobra — 07.31.05 @ 12:38 pm
Cobra;
This is my last comment to you because you have no clue how to carry on a dialogue. As I said, you respond to what is not said, and then you argue with your own imagination. The comment by Larry elder referred to violent INTERRACIAL crime, between blacks and whites, not violent crime in general. So, you call me and him a liar, though the FBI and the Justice department confirm our figures, and you are not even arguing about the same statistic that was even being discussed. Amazing! You are so blinded by your anger that you cannot even see. As to the statistic, obviously, if one considers all violent crime, one would expect whites to commit a high percetage of it, as they constitute a high percentage of the population. In fact, if your statistic is correct, then whites commit less than their percentage in the population, which squares with the FBI statistics, as well as those by the justice department. Larry Elder merely said that blacks commit 90% of the violent crimes between blacks and whites. FBI statistics confirm this, unless they are all on a conspiracy also. I merely used Larry Elder to put a face on the FBI statistics, as he has quoted them. In addition, I contacted the FBI, as well as many criminologists around the US, and have done a great deal of research on the subject.I simply did not feel that I needed to provide a dissertation on a blog. Most people reading the blog are not so arrogant as you are. However, I realize, that in your mind, you reserve the right for yourself to be the sole arbitrer of which statistics are acceptable and valid. So much of what you say would be a joke if it wasn’t so ugly and pathetic. Maybe the whole world is lying except for you, Cobra.
Incidentally, what I did with the guys from these other countries was give them a start, where there were no possibilities in their world before. They then took off, working like crazy, and made incredible successes of their businesses. This is not socialism. Their businesses were as successful as they made them. You conjecture so much from so little so that you can be so angry.
Take your patois and peddle it elsewhere. Slamming Larry Elder, and calling me a liar for something we never maintained does not speak well for your ability to form a cogent argument, or present a persuasive case. Hang it up!
Comment by jan brauner — 07.31.05 @ 6:54 pm
Go Jan !!!!
:-)
Comment by Renee — 07.31.05 @ 8:09 pm
“And I’m against AA because I also believe there are racist notions coursing thru the veins of modern Americana as exhibited by Liberals who think that minorities are somehow deficient in intellectual and moral endowments and are in need of benevolent Massas to bring thim in out of the fields into the plantation house.”
Hey Andy,
Would this be the same crowd that deems peoples of the Middle East, Africa and Southwest Asia incompatible with democracy, and therefore favor propping up dictatorships and facist regimes?
Comment by Chris Roberts — 07.31.05 @ 9:22 pm
All this moral relativist tripe to rebut Andy, Renee, Jan and others is sickening. No matter how you put it, you cannot make up for past, current or future wrongs by doing something that is just as patently, morally and unadulterated wrong. Only people who have sold out their belief in any concept of right and wrong would ever believe so. But then again, that is easy to see as moral relativists believe that nothing is absolutely right or wrong. Somehow I keep coming back to the thought that one day we’re all going to know something about absolute right or wrong.
If there are disparities between groups then the disparities need to be made up with solutions that are better and have longer lasting benefits than this sorry nonsense we see thrown out at us. Are we so stupid to think that in a nation of so much wealth, education, creativity and intellect that we can’t come up with a better solution than Affirmative Action to our ills? I suppose we are. Problem is, the status quo is just too easy and rights peoples desires to get back, to have revenge, to stick it to people that have done injustice in the past. Feel good policies get us nowhere, and to think that we aren’t smart enough, creative enough or responsible enough to do otherwise is totally insulting. I wonder why more people aren’t insulted. Probably because they’re too worried about getting theirs and sticking it to someone else.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 07.31.05 @ 9:40 pm
Dear Renee;
You have no idea how much I needed to hear that. Trying to reason with someone (Cobra) who has so much anger toward me, is so difficult. Trying to find a common ground with him, who merely considers me to be a liar and a racist is more difficult still, and it saddens me. You lift me up, just when I start to wonder if Truth is worth it, with all of its warts, wrinkles, and beauties. Thanks. I had just about decided to give up on this blog, as I have been slammed around a lot by several people. I am so unrelenting about the truth as I see it, and I am coming from such a different place that so many of you. It isn’t easy being a lone voice in the and being so ‘out there’. Your feedback is invaluable.