Dissension in the ranks!
MD Lt. Governor Michael Steele has asked the National Black Republican Association (NBRA) to remove a radio advertisement (heard in Baltimore) because it is “insulting to Marylanders,” according to WBAL. Listen to the brief spot here (MP3) or right-click and select “Save Target As” to download to hard drive.
The ad is factual: MLK was a Republican, Republicans spearheaded major civil rights legislation and the Democrats tried to block it, etc., but Steele says:
Although they may have had good intentions, there is no room for this kind of slash-and-burn partisan politics in the important conversation about how to best bring meaningful change to Washington, D-C, and get something done for Maryland.
I’m guessing, but he seems to think the appeal to race is unnecessary and divisive. Although I tend to agree, it doesn’t hurt to get the truth out there.
I’ve contacted Frances Rice (pictured with Lynn Swann), chair of the NBRA, for comment.
(Rice/Swann photo credit: NBRA)
Related posts:
Update: The story made the Washington Post (and here), so it must be big news. Or at least gathering steam.
I love controversy…
Update II (9/22): Frances Rice and the NBRA won’t be deterred by Steele. She writes:
The NBRA radio ad is intended to set the record straight. Our goal is to enlighten African Americans about their political history so that they can know that they have a choice.
This radio ad is part of our on-going nationwide educational campaign, along with our printed materials which includes our magazine, The Black Republican. We will continue our advertising campaign over the coming
weeks, including airing our radio ad in a number of states.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 60 comments }
Interesting how lately some try to suppress historical facts due to “offensiveness”. Something about this sounds familiar.
I agree 100% with Michael Steele and I’m glad he said something.
First of all, all the “whaaaat” and other slang is about as lame pandering as the jive talk exposed by the movie Hollywood Shuffle. I see enough of that junk in advertising, TV Shows and Movies pandering to Blacks.
Second, MLK Jr. said himself that he was nonpartisan. I don’t know where in the world today’s Black Republicans get the idea that MLK Jr. was a devout Republican and I’ve never seen proof of such. It was MLK’s father who was a Republican, but he endorsed JFK after Bobby Kennedy (who endorsed bugging King’s phone and never told him about it) made a call to GA and pressed law enforcement to free King from prison. The “Black vote” was pivotal in that 1960 presidential race and could have gone either way, MLK Sr. said he would back whoever got his son out of jail, so the Kennedy’s made a play for it. MLK Sr. and even MLK Jr. were hoping Nixon would be the one to make the call, but he did not. I think Nixon probably felt doing such would totally conflict with his efforts to not appear as being too Liberal, but even MLK Jr. mentions he and Nixon had a pretty good relationship before that. I think this event and MLK Sr. turning his back on Nixon is why Nixon utilized his “Southern Strategy” when he ran the 2nd time around. He got played on the racial games the first time and figured he’d run the game himself.
Everyone should read this chapter from MLK Jr’s autobiography that has all the details. Some details I also know from people who were living in Atlanta during that time.
Finally, Republicans puffing up their deeds for Blacks is almost as bad as Democrats puffing up their deeds. Both carry a “you owe us” flavor, which is basically like saying Blacks must forsake one “plantation” for the other. To me the whole thing stinks.
Steele is right. It’s about what the candidates running can do for voters TODAY.
I think Steele is way better a choice that that career politician he’s running against. But having been up to Baltimore a good bit in the past month, it seems to me Blacks will be voting for Cardin, based on the tired “Vote Democrat” junk. Nobody I’ve spoken with has given a single good reason why they won’t vote for Steele or why they will vote for his opponent, but they plan to vote “Democrat” just because. Ultimately, I don’t think the “Black vote” will decide the MD vote. If I were advising Steele I’d tell him to hit the distant rural areas and stay there. He could make a good base for himself there if he works at it.
Very true INDEPENDENT CONSERVATIVE. A candidate should fall or stand on his/her values, his/her political track record - not the values and/or track record of the political party.
You can give the people the truth all day long but (as I believe LaShawn covered this before in a different post topic) if when “people” have their minds made up - the truth becomes irrelevant.
Factual or not, it’s a cheesy, amateurish production. On top of that, the truth is that the only way the Republican Party as a whole shines is in comparison to the tarnished record of the Dems. There is a certain stink about party politics, no matter what party we’re discussing.
The Civil Rights Act was passed due to individual acts of conscience in Congress. Everett Dirksen, who happened to be a Republican, was one of the heroes, but not because he wore a little “R” after his name. And the Dems who fought against the act did so not because they were Dems, but because they were small, petty men wanting to hold onto a two-class system.
Steele is right to run on his own record and his own merits, and against his opponent’s record, rather than to rely upon this sort of commercial.
The ad is a lot of BS. The Klan was started 160 years ago by a bunch of poor Irish-Americans. I lived in the South in the late 40’s and early 50′ We learned about the “War Between the States” “Only a Niger lovin Republican called it the Civil War; I found out the hard way and about the KKK). Byrd was a proul officer in the KKK back thenBTW.
IF I were Black I would be offended. But I would also be offended by what the Dems say. It is a real shame.
I find it hilarious that people are actually arguing about the minute details of a pointless ad like this. Let’s get to the real point; why do black people vote Democrat? Honestly, neither party has really done anything to benefit black people (and who’s to say they should). But, the bottom line is whenever an incident that has even a hint of a racial element to it Republicans go running. The Bill Bennett, situation, why were conservative columnists defending him on that? The Duke rape case (one of this blog’s favorites). I don’t think the guys raped the girl either, but why was the GOP so aggresively trying to defend the guys. I didn’t see them calling Kobe Bryant’s accuser a “dirt bag.” So many instances; they cried when Trent Lott was criticized for his comments, even he apologized and said they were wrong. What about defending the Confederate Flag still flying, even Senator George Allen (quite articulately I may add) gave reason why he believed flying the flag was wrong during his Meet the Press debate. Issue after Issue, no matter how minute, the voice of the republicans (and I’m talking about radio show personalities like Laura Ingram, Shawn Hannity, Michael Savage, Bill Bennett ect.). I actually heard one of my favorite conservative radio hosts - Jay Severene (spelling probably wrong) try to defend the theory behind having a national holiday in honor of MLK’s birthday and he had to argue with conservative callers all night.
Honestly, if conservatives want black votes, it seems they’re just going to have to offend some of their “radical” right supportrs.
Seeing that Steele has said SOME of the same things that are said in the ad, and seeing that Steele has used the plantation red meat rhetoric, I wonder if Steele is objecting because he really finds it offensive or if he’s afraid it will syphon the Black votes he needs to win against Cardin.
But, on the other hand, Steele has said the GOP abandoned the Black vote and the GOP was wrong to adopt the Southern strategy to lure white votes.
Steele is behind in the local polls.
I heard the ad. I don’t like it. It smacks of “shuckin-n-jivin”, “playin’ the dozens”, “yeahh, girl” style that must be abandoned if we are to ever take ourselves seriously. It ‘cheapens’ the public discourse as to why Blacks today are almost exclusively Democrat. Ads like this must be used as an opportunity to begin relaxing the stranglehold the Democrats have on Blacks.
When Governor George C. Wallace said in his 1963 Inaugural Address “. . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever”, ads like this must be employed to define how Blacks have been pigeonholed and segregated into the Democrat Party.
Change IS coming. But not this way. In all, I think this ad was an opportunity-lost.
When you realize that the bizarre “senior” Senator from Maryland has been elected over and over, Steele has to run on his own and keep party baggage out of the way.
As a Republican, I understand fully what it means to run on the “underdog” side of political party registration. Steele can pick up a lot of white, non urban democrat votes if he doesn’t jamb the Republican affiliation down their throats.
Urban blacks are so overwhelmingly democrat that they are a nearly wasted effort. They turn to government money for nearly every answer and they are not going to get any satisfaction from the Republicans. This does not mean that Republicans should not try to convert them, but when you are married to government cheese, it is hard to get your attention.
>>…I think this ad was an opportunity-lost.>>
Hmmm. I wonder. It’s causing some controversy, and that means the MSM is reporting on it. That means it’s a topic for discussion, and I think that’s good, no matter what people decide in the end. It’s been a given for way too long that blacks will vote Democrat. If they agree with the party line, fine. But if it’s an automatice given, that’s not so good. Same thing with Jews…given the present climate, why in heck are they inclined to vote Democratic? Some things I’ll never understand, I guess.
Read comment seven if you’re wondering why blacks vote democrat.
“There is a certain stink about party politics, no matter what party we’re discussing.”
Amen to that. It’s pitiful (If not downright vomit-making) the way politicians discuss the ‘black vote’ or the ‘jew vote’ as if we aren’t talking about individual humans with individual principles, but rather demographic mass-minds ripe for swaying by cheap political propaganda.
Attempting to posthumously appropriate the mind and heart of Martin Luther King to latter-day partisan politics is wrong. Wholly wrong. Anyone with a passing interest in history and politics (non-partisan agenda) would see through this cheap and low ruse immediately? Wouldn’t they?
For example, please can someone explain the ‘Republican’ viewpoint inherent in MLK’s statement ?
“There is something strangely inconsistent about a nation and a press that would praise you when you say, “Be nonviolent toward Jim Clark,” but will curse and damn you when you say, “Be nonviolent toward little brown Vietnamese children.” There is something wrong with that press.”
#3 “Finally, Republicans puffing up their deeds for Blacks is almost as bad as Democrats puffing up their deeds. Both carry a “you owe us†flavor, which is basically like saying Blacks must forsake one “plantation†for the other. To me the whole thing stinks.”
Amen again. Although I don’t get the ‘almost as bad’. It all stinks pretty much the same.
Reminds me of the blabbering and desperate politicians in “O Brother Where Art Thou?”, all careering around the bloated cigar-puffing character played by Charles Durning desperate to ‘court the electorate’ with ‘minority interest’.
******************
Junior O’Daniel: We could hire our own midget, even shorter than his.
Pappy O’Daniel: Wouldn’t we look like a bunch of Johnny-come-latelies, bragging on our own midget, doesn’t matter how stumpy.
******************
Isn’t this all very disrespectful of the late Martin Luther King Jr? A man who said we should come together as brothers?
Regards,
John
Very good Independent voice. You make great sense. I have said for a long time that there is one general reason why so many blacks don’t vote Republican, and that reason simply is that black folks believe that Republicans don’t like black people. One can go on and on about the racism of low expectations, etc. etc., but people are naturally more affected by what is blatantly thrown at them. Thus when Ann Coulter and others make various negative remarks about blacks, they do no more than run blacks further and further away from the Republican party. Pride generally motivates people to fight back when they feel attacked.
People don’t understand that 15 million blacks voted last presidential election. This is LESS than half. It is quite reasonable to conclude that this group is mostly composed of those very blacks who are most economically independent. The 25% of blacks who fall below the poverty level are most likely mostly among the 60% who didn’t vote. Thus, black voters are not voting for their own dependence on government since most black voters are middle class or above. They are voting against a political party that they perceive as being made up of people who hate them.
Some of the most conservative minded black people vote straight Democratic ticket. Many are not voting based on policies, but rather on strong perceptions. Like you said, conservative bloggers came out in force to defend Duke players against a black accuser when we all know that had the accuser been white, their defense would not hardly have existed. Conservative commenters cite negative black statistics for no other reason but to show how messed up black people are (I call it racial score keeping). Black people see this and strike out the conservative party despite them sharing most of their views.
“…black folks believe that Republicans don’t like black people.”
[sigh]
Shade has an interesting concept: “conservative bloggers came out in force to defend Duke players against a black accuser when we all know that had the accuser been white, their defense would not hardly have existed.”
Shade says that everyone knows that if a low-life, trashy pair of white strippers had accused the Duke players, “their defense would not hardly have existed.”
I admit that I can not quite figure out what “their defense would not hardly have existed” means.
The issue appears to be that a white, low-life, trashy pair of strippers would have been believed. But since the low-life, trashy pair of strippers were black, the system is automatically stacked against them.
My curiosity is why anyone would attach himself to a low-life, trashy pair of strippers for no other reason than having the same skin color.
Call me quaint and stupid, but if those two, low-life, trashy strippers had pulled the same stunt on the black players of the Duke basketball team, the current drama would be no different.
Wow Independent Voice and Shade are totally 100% correct. My uncle is the prototypical Virginian born far right wing religious zealot, but he votes democratic 90% of the time. All of his core values are entrenched with Republican values, but if you ask him why he votes democratic he’ll tell you it has to do with race! He does not give the democratic party a pass on race, but he feels they’re the lessors of two evils when it comes to race. I’ve often argued with him, but usually find nothing to argue with him about with the exception of giving the Republicans his vote. I’m extremely conservative, but cannot help overlook the fact, that conservative rely if ever say anything positive about the black community. My friends are predominately white, conservative, and upper class and rarely come into contact with lower middle class or poor blacks or whites for that matter, but constantly argue with me on what’s wrong with the black community and how they’re miserably failing. To which i always point out there’s only 25% of the black population that fits the totally broke stereotype and i always point out that’s 25% percent of less than 35 million people. I agree there is a lot wrong, but at the sametime we are arguing the same point, but we seem to be wanting totally different outcomes. I’ll argue to remove affirmative action, because i think it affects upper class or academically strong blacks and undermines their own academic success. However, my white conservative friends always argue that we are all somehow not qualified. Most of the time I’ve done far better than many of them academically, but to them I don’t count, because I’m not what is considered to be the “typical young black male.” It is very offensive, but my white Democratic friends are even more offensive. I’m slowly moving toward becoming a conservative independent. Anyway, great points made in a lot of these comments.
Heliotrope - that comment was based on my comment #7. The stippers were lying, that’s conceded, no one is focusing on that. The point is why did all the conservative radio personalities feel so obligated to trash the stippers and spend endless hours on the case, when in an instance like Kobe Bryant where we had another obvious liar. Why did the conservatives release their attack dogs on her. I really don’t even want to focus on that; if you read #7 there are a multitude of instances where conservatives go out of their way to cause racial dissention when there really is no need to. Even when Republican leadership disagrees (Bush condemning the Trent Lott comments, arguing with Bill O’Reilly when he was critical of the all-white prom in the south)conservatives still feel the need to attack. The question is why?
RedBeard,
I don’t know why you are sighing as I feel the exact same way as Shade. Again, it’s a matter of perception and a general perception is that the Republican party is generally hostile to blacks.
But then I’d say that about some liberals too.
I think this bears repeating:
Some of the most conservative minded black people vote straight Democratic ticket. Many are not voting based on policies, but rather on strong perceptions. - comment by Shade
I’d count my parents in that group. Very old school in thought, pro marriage, anti-abortion. Yet George Bush turns their stomach.
Shade”conservative bloggers came out in force to defend Duke players against a black accuser when we all know that had the accuser been white, their defense would not hardly have existed”
Sounds like you’re the one with the prejudice against conservatives shade. The duke case to me and other conservative bloggers is about the FACT of what happened. Hate to burst your bubble, but most conservatives are viewing this case the same way. Liberals such as you are the ones looking at this case through race colored glasses. I also was on the side of Kobe Bryant when he was accused of rape. The facts supported his claim.
Shade†Thus when Ann Coulter and others make various negative remarks about blacks, they do no more than run blacks further and further away from the Republican Party”
Your logic is confusing. How can the blacks you mentioned run away from a party they never were apart of according to you? Also your statement is beyond false. Most black republicans were at one time democrats. So the question should be is why did we convert? I was in the same boat. How come I didn’t “run further and further away”? As for Ann Coulter making “negative remarks†about blacks. I don’t recall these remarks. What did she say exactly? If Ann Coulter was black, would it have made a difference? Also, was the statement true? Bill Cosby is black, and he has made negative remarks about blacks. Do you put him in the same category as Ann Coulter? Black Republicans are verbally attacked all the time by White Democrats, I’m sure you will speak out on this outrage in your response.
“Shade”They are voting against a political party that they perceive as being made up of people who hate them”.
I’m sure the democrat party is going to say glowing words about it’s political opposition lol. Perception and facts are two totally different things. If blacks are basing their loyalty based on “perception” only, they have been truly fooled. I’m not a republican just because of a feeling. I’m a republican based on facts and my core beliefs.
Shade”People don’t understand that 15 million blacks voted last presidential election. This is LESS than half. It is quite reasonable to conclude that this group is mostly composed of those very blacks who are most economically independent”
It is quite reasonable to conclude you opinion based on what facts to back your claim up shade? That is an incredibly lame and sloppy comment. Also you to said “thats LESS then half”. Thats less then half OF WHAT exactly? The black population is only around 35 million to begin with. So if 15 million blacks voted and that is”less then half”, then that would mean that most of the black population in America is over 18 and able to vote. You might want to check the U.S Census, and then correct that statement.
Shade”The 25% of blacks who fall below the poverty level are most likely mostly among the 60% who didn’t vote”. There you go again with the “most likely” statement lol. When you use most likely, you come across like your guessing. I would love to see where you coming up with your numbers lol. Enron would have loved you.
Shade “black folks believe that Republicans don’t like black people”.
So what exactly are black folks that are republicans shade? Will god come from heaven to revoke our black cards?
This “belief” is based on what factual evidence? I’ve debated many other black democrats, and I still have them tripping on their words. The reason why they can’t back up their “belief” is simple; their belief is based on a foundation of lies and half-truths. I also was taught to believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy at one time in my life as well.
Shade”Conservative commentators cite negative black statistics for no other reason but to show how messed up black people are (I call it racial score keeping). Black people see this and strike out the conservative party despite them sharing most of their views.”
This may come as an insane notion shade, but some people believe that in order to fix a problem, the problem must first be exposed. Do you have a problem when black preachers talk about young black males filling up prisons, out of wedlock sex, black on black murder, black drug addiction etc? Does that offend you when a black preacher or citizen discusses the same issues as a conservative talk show host? Maybe you suffer from a case of “selective outrage”. So what is your solution shade? Swipe the problem under the rug and whistle a tune? All the issues I mentioned should be front and center in the black community, but they aren’t. Why aren’t they shade? Get back to me if you figure it out.
Readbeard, sometimes you just can’t reason with some people. Its like a woodpecker trying to peck through a steel telephone pole. The only thing that is going to be accomphished is that the woodpecker is going to have a massive headache trying to do it. Heres some asprin lol.
BCEagle, interesting comments.
“They are voting against a political party that they perceive as being made up of people who hate them.”
There must be academic surveys of black opinions of whites. “Hate” seems far to strong a word or the wrong word.
If middle class blacks really think Republicans “hate” them, there is another problem.
White Republicans may not like it that blacks talk too loud, or be afraid of black youths late at night, or not like blacks begging on the street, but it’s not hate.
Most likely, (voting) blacks, not matter how you spin it, have income below (voting) whites in income - and rationally vote for the party most aligned with their economic interest, in addition to any racial, social interests.
Somebody, Some people must have written Ph.D. dissertations on this.
#19 Independent voice asks: “The point is why did all the conservative radio personalities feel so obligated to trash the strippers and spend endless hours on the case(?)”
1. Nifong pulled the race card in a bid for reelection. 2. The coach was immediately fired. 3. The team/season was suspended and threated with being disbanded. 4. Lacrosse was painted as the sport of spoiled white boys. 5. Juicy Jackson and his rent-a-mob showed up and were apoplectic that a player had been caught drunk and urinating in the front yard. 6. Three players had their pictures and personal lives splashed across the news. 7. The ladies of the night were totally protected until they got busted on the web.
Which part(s) of the foregoing is conservative, hate blacks, Republican rubbish?
As for Kobe Bryant: He is rich. Rich, I tell you, rich! One of the first things rich, rich, rich athlete and mega-stars learn is that there is a world of leeches out their trying to angle a way to get a chunk of their money. Kobe did a really stupid, stupid, stupid thing. And then he tried to buy off his trophy wife with a huge rock. I am breathless to have the parallel between the Duke situation and the Kobe fiasco explained to me.
Or is everything stuck on race.
Oh, yeah, the conservative radio people feeling obligated…… How many major university teams have had #1-8 (above) leveled against them? Are you unable to see anything whatsoever besides “race” in this whole thing? Wow!
Tiffany, I’m saddened by the generalization posted by Shade, a generalization that is so negatively simplistic that it must be discarded if we’re to have any sort of rational understanding.
Those black folks (more and more every election) who think Republicans might not be evil are left out of the generalization, and those who do think that Republicans don’t like black people are operating on an unfair perception.
What’s at work within that generalization is the drawing of false conclusions. If a Republican doesn’t believe that affirmative action or racial set-asides are good things, he is falsely branded as being anti-black. If a Republican adopts a strong law-and-order position, he is falsely brand as anti-black. If a Republican thinks that tax cuts are good for everyone, Charlie Rangel falsely says that such a position is the same as belonging to the KKK. It’s all just plain wrong. No one should be judged by generalization.
Tiffany, I’ll base my opinion of you on your personal qualities (I like you even while disagreeing with you), not on the political party to which you belong, nor on your race. All I ask is the same in return.
Tyrone, thanks for the aspirin. I may need two more later.
First of all as a Black (conservative) dem in northern PG county, I really admire Steele and he will most likely get my vote come primary election time.
I feel two ways about the promo. Firstly, Its provacative, its even slightly desperate and offensive (with some of the yes girls and whats? and the shuckin and jivin tone characterized by a previous poster).
But I think the offensiveness could have been something to stir Black people who vote a strictly liberal party line, along with fictionalized uncle Tom sterotypes of what it means to be a Republican or to break party ranks to vote Republican in elections.
When I say I am conservative I find myself constantly having to explain myself to other Black people. The historical facts of the party concerning jim crow, civil rights onward are what they are. Solid facts. The delivery could have been softened with the same effectiveness.
To me the ulimate message for Black people is to have the courage to think outside of the political affliation ideology box that other Black people, groups, and orgs tell you to think/vote in.
To me the ulimate message for Black people is to have the courage to think outside of the political affliation ideology box that other Black people, groups, and orgs tell you to think/vote in.
This is why I am “non-aligned” in the eyes of Maryland. The most interesting fact is, I get NO flack for not aligning with Democrats. I get NO flack when I state the Democrats have race issues, themselves.
When I catch flack, it is for positions: I support vouchers and charter schools. I support the idea of low taxes. I don’t like shopping at Wal Mart, but I support Wal Mart against the union efforts of Giant Food to get that “Wal Mart” bill passed in Maryland.
Tiffany’s generalization is accurate concerning perception. That is for Republicans to deal with and, specifically, it should be up to white Republicans not Black Republicans to address. Black Republicans didn’t create the mess.
Those Republicans who are falling over themselves for Michael Steele, seem to ignore when he says it was the Republican Party who left Blacks and the Republican Party was wrong for implementing the Southern Strategy.
If a Republican doesn’t believe that affirmative action or racial set-asides are good things, he is falsely branded as being anti-black.
As J.C. Watts said, the problem with Republicans is, it’s clear what they are against when it comes to “Black issues,” but they don’t state what they are for.
Example: When Repubs took control of The House, Gingrich stated early on that he wanted to really cut funding for the EEOC and ban “racial testing” that the EEOC was doing. By “racial testing” I mean sending out whites and Blacks and other minorities to apply for the same jobs and note the results.
If a Republican adopts a strong law-and-order position, he is falsely brand as anti-black.
That is not true. Most Blacks support strong law-and-order positions, it’s allowing police to trample civil rights that come with it.
Question: where were the Republicans when the fiasco of the bad drug arrests in Tulia, TX came to light? Where were the conservatives? Only Greg Kane addressed the issue.
Greg Kane is conservative and Black:
http://www.blackamericaweb.com/site.aspx/sayitloud/gkane525
So here is the common thread offered by several commenters:
“…black folks believe that Republicans don’t like black people.â€
Just how should the Republicans “fix” their situation? What should Republicans do to “win” the votes of blacks?
Here are the main areas where “black folks” seem to need the most attention: education, crime and imprisonment, births to single mother teens, early death rate, disproportionate poverty, a sense of victimization due to racial discrimination and more.
What have the Republicans done to keep “black folks” from improving or getting ahead in each of the areas above? What should the Republicans do in addressing each of the areas above? What have the Democrats done? What would the Democrats do if they were returned to power in the executive and legislative branches?
Is it possible that “…black folks believe that Republicans don’t like black people†and that it just the way it is? Is it possible that “black folks” are so dependent on a government solution that they can not find their own solutions?
I’d like to put the Duke rape case issue to rest, because it was just one of a laundry list of instances Heliotropbe. Addressing your post line-for-line is a waste of time because you claim Kobe Bryant did a really really bad thing by cheating on his wife but a bunch of underage Duke lacrosse players having a party involving strippers, drugs, alcohol, and possibly sex in one players home is completely acceptable. (Morally I don’t even care anyway, once again not the issue). The issue is you feel obligated to defend these players. Those issues you lined up, do you REALLY care about them. Does anyone really care about the coach, who I’m sure no one ever heard on before this rape case. Why do you care about a district attorney in North Carolina?? Do you care about the District Attorney in Philadelphia where I live?? No. Speaking of Philadelphia, last year two La Salle basketball players were accused of raping a girl, subsequently kicked off the team and the coach fired. Judgement in the case - not guilty, but I don’t recall a singal conservative bring that up. Oh it was two black guys. But of course that doesn’t matter, the reputation of lacrosse is more important, right??
Just how should the Republicans “fix†their situation? What should Republicans do to “win†the votes of blacks?
How about speaking with Black people instead of at Black people? How about showing up at events when you are invited, instead of saying you will and then backing out?
Republicans and conservaitves have complained “they” are not invited to “Black events” yet, Tavis Smiley did just that and had Black Republicans and Black conservatives say they will attend to only not show up.
On education: Republicans have talked about reforms to selected groups. They, rightly, have pushed for vouchers and charters. Yet, they say nothing about the people pushing charters who state charters are the first step towards abolishing the public school system.
How many Republicans have spoken out against the Bush administation’s cutting of college funding?
I’ve already mentioned the point about crime.
The government can do nothing about people’s “moral choices.”
Is it possible that “black folks†are so dependent on a government solution that they can not find their own solutions?
Here is a short list of Black people with their own solutions: http://blackselfhelp.info.
IMO, those who say Blacks are “so dependent on government” are willfully ignorant.
There’s the FHA loans, gov’t backed student loans, grants for “research”, farm subsidies, …
But it’s just “Black dependence on government”?
#31 Independent voice: Wrong, pal. The Duke players were stupid, just like Kobe. Don’t put words in my mouth. You say: “Morally I don’t even care anyway….” However, I do not dismiss morality lightly. Kobe was immoral. The wench he messed with was immoral. The Duke players were immoral. The “ladies” they hired were immoral. Quite a cauldron of immorality here, wouldn’t you say?
I am not defending what the players did. What, in the world is your standard? If sluts are hired to act slutty and they then make charges of rape that are patently trumped up would you just throw kerosene on the lot of them and light a match? I am sorry to tell you but sometimes courtrooms are filled with seedy characters on both sides. That does not mean that a wrong has not been committed.
I am sorry to hear that Philadelphia had that problem with the LaSalle players as you report it. In all of Philly there is no one who could have raised a case worthy of notice over the issue? I know several high powered civil rights lawyers (black) in Philly and I will be certain to ask them why they let the “brothers” down. In fact, I will be with them next week.
But lets be clear about the Lacrosse team. They were nationally portrayed as dilettante white boys playing a rich kids sport. That was the hook. The strippers were black; that was the second hook. The team had been warned to cool it; that was the third hook. The University fired the coach and suspended the team/season: fourth hook since, where there is smoke there is fire. Then Nifong started his antics.
What did the LaSalle players have going for them that would stack up to that list?
If you are bound and determined to see race, race, race and discrimination, there is nothing anyone can do for you. But you happen to be dead wrong.
The ad is cheessy, Steele gets to have it both ways by asking for it’s removal. Good idea! Race in as the hokey is always out for the brother is alive and well. Let’s see what happen to the national coverage of a Black senior midshipman’s rape of a white girl? Didn’t that on the front page of Newsweek or Time? Humm, double standard? OH, NO and I am SHOCKED to find out there is gambling going on here. Kemp
Darkstar: No one likes to be talked “at” or talked “past.” It happens. Whites do it, blacks do it, Christians do it, agnostics do it and on and on. It is a bad habit.
It is not the policy of Republicans to talk either “at” or “past” any one. Certainly, it would be hard to establish that all Republicans do it or even a small number of Republicans do it.
I take it that Mr. Smiley invited a Republican to an event and the Republican didn’t show. Does that stand as proof positive that all Republicans snub all blacks?
I don’t understand the comment about abolishing public schools. Americans are dedicated to educating the public. In some cases the best way to do this is in schools run by the government. In some cases, the best way to do this is to pay for education in schools not run by the government. I have a life long interest in educating the public. I have never heard of an effort to abolish the government run schools. Among the finest universities in the country are those funded and run by the state governments. State governments run many of the fine schools for the deaf, dumb and blind.
My reference to dependence on government is just this: the Democrats always come up with victim based handouts. It is clearly a way to buy votes. It is a message that “we” (the Democrats) will take money from “them” and give it to “you” because “you” deserve it.
Thank you for your response, but I still don’t understand why “…black folks believe that Republicans don’t like black people.â€
If a black person doesn’t believe in liberal ideology or programs, then he or she is branded as anti black or a sellout? Funny how they say conservatives don’t like “diversity”.
#35
“…black folks believe that Republicans don’t like black people.â€
I think Republican supporters of the ‘Bell Curve’ theories would be the first to say that Blacks just arent facing up to the ‘Truth’ about Blacks.
For whom the bell curve tolls?
Blacks just seem so sensitive about the Truth? And it falls on Republicans to point this out. That is because Republicans are the honest party.
It is mainly Republicans, is it not, who are brave enough to point out how Blacks love welfare, and how Blacks are more given to criminality than whites?
Yes, certain Republicans are brave, and don’t mind calling the Truth on Blacks. Not only that, but on liberals and Gays too.
Watch a gay when you call the truth on him/her not being able to have a long-term relationship, but instead an abominable, bestial facsimile of a real heterosexual relationship .
Just watch the reaction - The ‘gay’ will just think the Republican doesn’t like ‘gays’ and is ‘homophobic’. How wrong they are.
The gays miss the main point, and that is that the Republican just wants to save the gay from itself and in doing so, save society too.
Maybe such reasoning is why ‘Black folk’ think Republicans don’t like them? They don’t realise that they can save themselves.
Same goes for the Europeans as They are only critical of Republican America because They are jealous and feel inferior. Just because American Republicans have the chutzpah to state the Truth and call Them out on being Godless and socially ‘diseased’.
All non-Republican American ‘Blacks’ have to do to find their way is to *agree* with the American Republicans and stop thinking that Republicans hate them, when in fact it is just their Godless and criminal liberal ways that Republicans are opposed to.
Only then will they realise that they are masters of their own destiny and it is really insecure white liberals who are using blacks to further their socialist agendas.
Only then.
I take it that Mr. Smiley invited a Republican to an event and the Republican didn’t show. Does that stand as proof positive that all Republicans snub all blacks?
I didn’t write “all” but the fact is, it happens more so than not and GOP chair Melman has admitted such.
I don’t understand the comment about abolishing public schools.
If you look into the background SOME supporters, not all but SOME, you will find that they want to abolish government run public schools and they see vouchers as being the 1st step.
Thank you for your response, but I still don’t understand why “…black folks believe that Republicans don’t like black people.â€
You’re welcome, but maybe you don’t understand because you don’t want to understand. What I’ve written, excluding the part about vouchers and public school abolition, is also mentioned by Michael Steele. I use that to say if he sees it the same way, then there is probably something to it.
Hmmmm…. If sarcastic, JohnD nails it. If not sarcastic, Q.E.D.?
Sounds like you’re the one with the prejudice against conservatives shade.
Sounds like you don’t know what you’re talking about. Are you prejudiced against black folks because you criticize black folks (even if you are black)?
The duke case to me and other conservative bloggers is about the FACT of what happened.
There are thousands of cases that involve FACTS. The facts shape our opinions. Pounding this case into the ground and using it as an excuse to attack the general black population has nothing to do with the facts of the case.
Liberals such as you are the ones looking at this case through race colored glasses.
Look at this golden oldie. I’m a Bush supporting independent conservative who believes that the AV is lying. I just simply don’t believe that the case warrents race baiting, mega-attention from either side. Let’s stay away from the straw men. A person not agreeing 100% with you doesn’t make them liberal. Such thinking is quite narrow-minded.
How can the blacks you mentioned run away from a party they never were apart of according to you?
You are confusing “run away from” with “leave”. You can run away from something that you were never a part of. Plus, this is not a semantics debate.
I also was on the side of Kobe Bryant when he was accused of rape. The facts supported his claim.
Were conservative bloggers pounding this point out daily non-stop? Were you calling that AV names like “slut” and basically stating that she was to ugly for those guys to want to rape?
I was in the same boat. How come I didn’t “run further and further away�
Dude, we are not having a discussion about YOU. We are not having a discussion about ME. We are having a discussion about the general populace and the reasons why so many have a certain view.
I’m sure the democrat party is going to say glowing words about it’s political opposition lol. Perception and facts are two totally different things. If blacks are basing their loyalty based on “perception†only, they have been truly fooled. I’m not a republican just because of a feeling. I’m a republican based on facts and my core beliefs.
And that’s YOU. Unfortunately, a vast number of people who look like you don’t think like you. I am addressing what I believe to be the reason for much of the lack of support by blacks for Republicans, that reason being perception. You can criticize this, but it is what it is and if this is to change, we must address it from this standpoint. Why did you support the Democrats? Please answer this question. Were you supporting them based on facts?
There you go again with the “most likely†statement lol. When you use most likely, you come across like your guessing. I would love to see where you coming up with your numbers lol. Enron would have loved you.
It’s called reasonable speculation since it is well known that poor people vote proportionately less than the middle class and wealthy.
http://www.streetnewsservice.org/index.php?page=archive_detail&articleID=250
“According to U.S. Census data on the 2000 presidential election, voter turnout among people living below the poverty line - defined for a family of four as earning no more than $18,400 per year - was less than that of people with higher incomes.”
The reason why they can’t back up their “belief†is simple; their belief is based on a foundation of lies and half-truths. I also was taught to believe in Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy at one time in my life as well.
This sounds like the arguments atheists use agains religion.
This may come as an insane notion shade, but some people believe that in order to fix a problem, the problem must first be exposed. Do you have a problem when black preachers talk about young black males filling up prisons, out of wedlock sex, black on black murder, black drug addiction etc? Does that offend you when a black preacher or citizen discusses the same issues as a conservative talk show host? Maybe you suffer from a case of “selective outrageâ€. So what is your solution shade? Swipe the problem under the rug and whistle a tune? All the issues I mentioned should be front and center in the black community, but they aren’t. Why aren’t they shade? Get back to me if you figure it out.
Yes, those issues should be front and center. Ranting about the issues to an audience of mostly white conservatives and some black conservatives is not putting the issues front and center. You see, Cosby spoke out to an audience of blacks using tough love. That’s what those preachers do. They don’t stand over among a group of white convervatives and point fingers while sneering at black folks and declaring that “most black people are immoral”.
Pointing out these issues should include pointing out success stories as proof that black folks from certain backgrounds can succeed. The attitudes that were key to such successes should be pointed out. How conservatism can improve the condition of black Americans should be stressed along with how liberalism has hurt. Black conservatives should speak directly to black audiences as opposed to sneering and pointing fingers. Talk to black people, not about black people. Don’t just criticize, constructively criticize. If your child has a problem with a subject in school, do you sit back and call him dumb, or do you point out the problem and show him what he can do to resolve the problem?
And folks should not be hypocrites about generalizations. Generalizations come a dime a dozen in these responses.
If a black person doesn’t believe in liberal ideology or programs, then he or she is branded as anti black or a sellout? Funny how they say conservatives don’t like “diversityâ€.
Wow, what a “GENERALIZATION”!
“I take it that Mr. Smiley invited a Republican to an event and the Republican didn’t show. Does that stand as proof positive that all Republicans snub all blacks?”
He invited at least a dozen and only one showed up. He sat up there and read the list of those invited.
Darkstar, I do wish to understand. I see no reason for deep seated racism to exist in 2006 America. I lived through the heated segregation of the 50’s and 60’s. I lived in both the North and the deep South. I understand racism up close and personal.
But I see nothing today that approximates the racism toward blacks that came from Maddox, Conner, Wallace, Fulbright, Gore, Hollings, Thurmond, Byrd, Faubus, and so many other old deep South politicians.
For whatever reason, it seems many, many blacks today have a massive inferiority complex. That is a nasty way to go through life. The easiest way to deal with the situation is to have someone to blame it all on. “Black folks believe that Republicans don’t like black folks” is a perfectly usable formulation. It is the white man’s fault and the Republicans in particular. If that is the answer, then the point is made and the question is answered.
But there is the chance that blacks have no right to feel inferior. If that is the case, then blacks and whatever help they can get from others need to figure out how to get their problems behind them. That requires identifying the problems, facing the problems and doing a whole lot of heavy lifting.
The Washington, D.C. school system is a model for pouring money down a rat hole and watching things get worse. Can those children be given a quality education that will move them up and on? You bet they can! In the D.C. school system? Darn few of them. Are there other models to try? If you have the political will.
Katrina tore up New Orleans. The schools were shut forever. Oops, not the Catholic schools. They were up and running in a matter of weeks.
Katrina tore up lots of places besides New Orleans. Are those people, black and white, still waiting for the welfare bus? All around New Orleans devastated communities are rebuilding and moving on.
It would appear that many blacks are stuck on waiting for a government solution and they dislike the Republicans, because it is the party that does not enable victimization by passing out goodies.
Another post speaks of the Bell Curve. Unlike most, I have read it and independently plotted its statistics. The statistics are not really new. It is what society decides to do about the shortcomings that is important. One concept is to throw more money at the old methods. Another approach is to identify the individuals and unleash uncommon effort on helping them get a start. That effort may well come from resources that are not a part of the government bureaucracy.
I must say that I am amused by the idea that the Republicans are a bunch of Scrooges who delight in shoving a person’s short comings in his face. That is not only a stressful way to live, it is a practice that is sure to cause more stress.
As an old school teacher I can assure you that most sane people do not go to work looking for stress or a way to fail. I always took time with each student to point out areas for improvement and to give suggestions on how to improve. There were always a few who wanted me off their backs. Saying I was picking on them was the most common excuse. The easiest thing for me would have been to give them some ice cream, let them sit and mentally compost and work with happier kids. Sorry, that is why schools and government programs in general fail. The bureaucracy is entrenched and invested with keeping itself fat and happy.
In sum, if “black folks” are happier with hand outs from their politicians, then voting Democrat is probably a smart thing. If “black folks” want to stand on their own two feet and explore their possibilities, I strongly recommend the Republicans. They are competitive and respect results. You make the call.
If “black folks†want to stand on their own two feet and explore their possibilities, I strongly recommend the Republicans.
And what would recommend to the Jewish population which votes over 70% Democrat? Would you tell them that voting Republican will allow them to stand on their own two feet? Seems to me that Jewish Americans are standing on their own two feet better than most everyone else.
Who is in office has little to do with how most people live their lives. If a Democrat gets into office, I’m not going to slap myself over the head and say “dang, the Dems have won. Now I have to get on welfare.” Maybe extreme measures will can force people to be independent, but I don’t see extreme measures coming from either side.
The key is an attitude change and who one votes for MAY be affected by this attitude change. I voted for Bush personally, but my emphasis is on promoting conservative lifestyles, and if adopting a conservative lifestyle motivates one to vote for conservatives, then great. But I don’t look for government to solve my problems, so who is in office has no great effect on me, especially since there seems to be somewhat minor differences between the two parties in my opinion.
# 37 JohnD notes: I think Republican supporters of the ‘Bell Curve’ theories would be the first to say that Blacks just arent facing up to the ‘Truth’ about Blacks.
That is quite an incendiary assumption, but you are certainly welcome to it.
The Bell Curve is a mass of data that is subject to verification by all interested. It is also open to debunking by all who wish to test the statistics and how they are analyzed. I have yet to see the independent follow up study that shows that the data was manipulated or that the statistical analysis was fiddled.
Dr. Claudia Krenz distills the Bell Curve on her website in the following statement: One of the central interpretations of the book’s statistical analysis was that there exists, in the U.S., an “underclass” of disadvantaged people who are impoverished, because they are insufficiently intelligent to be anything else (the flip side of this argument is that there exists, in the U.S., an “upper class” of wealthy people whose status is based on merit, their superior intelligence).
The Bell Curve let the genie out of the box. Some people have higher intelligence than others. (Krenz tries mightily to discount the finding through the application of socialistic boiler plate.)
Using the best known methods for measuring intelligence it is possible to find whole communities of people throughout the world with low intelligence. Usually, it is discovered that inbreeding, bad nutrition, poor health habits, risky behavior during pregnancy, etc. are common features within these communities.
The Bell Curve did not say or imply that if a person is covered with black skin, that person will not be as intelligent as those people who are not covered with black skin. Therefore, there is no basis for the accusation “that Blacks just arent facing up to the ‘Truth’ about Blacks.”
What the Bell Curve does show is a strong correlation between intelligence and poverty. This is a long held belief. But the Bell Curve challenges society to examine the education pool and to determine what might be causing the problems which have negative effects on intelligence.
However, it is easy to demagogue this sort of study by saying the authors are bigots who are set on proving “that Blacks just arent facing up to the ‘Truth’ about Blacks.”
You really should adopt an open mind and read the book.
I think that JohnD was being sarcastic with that post.
#43 Shade asks: “And what would recommend to the Jewish population which votes over 70% Democrat?”
This is a non sequitur. Some Jews live in poverty in America, but it seems that most people believe they are mega-wealthy and run all the newspapers, banks, Hollywood, etc. Not something the black population has been accused of.
For whatever reason, a majority of Jews seem to overwhelmingly favor state socialism and love liberal, expansive government. I have no explanation for it, but their kids are not disproportionately involved in teen pregnancy, crime, dropping out of school, living in poverty, facing an absence of male role models, etc.
A more apt example you might have launched would be American Indians living on reservations.
Shade, blacks are being eclipsed rapidly by Hispanics who are, for the most part, by-passing the whole state socialism concept and going straight for economic independence. What’s up with that?
“Speaking of Philadelphia, last year two La Salle basketball players were accused of raping a girl, subsequently kicked off the team and the coach fired. Judgement in the case - not guilty, but I dont recall a singal conservative bring that up. Oh it was two black guys.”
And another attempt to show that what happens at Duke happens to brothers all the time.
Except that the two (black) men admitted having sex with the AV, and the only issue was was the 19 year-old AV to drunk to consent after vomiting and 8 shots. And I think the coaches were fired for trying to talk woman out of filing charges or not reporting the crime themselves.
The jury, perhaps rightly, found the brothers not guilty in this borderline case but I think everyone agrees that it was reprehensible behavior not behavior that conservatives or liberals should defend.
And college students, the moral of the story is if you dont want to be accused of rape, dont have sex with drunken strangers.
What makes the Duke rape case so interesting is that its not the usual every day drunken sex case.
A person not agreeing 100% with you doesnt make them liberal. Such thinking is quite narrow-minded.
Gem.
But I see nothing today that approximates the racism toward blacks that came from Maddox, Conner, Wallace, Fulbright, Gore, Hollings, Thurmond, Byrd, Faubus, and so many other old deep South politicians.
True, I agree.
An open letter from a Black Republican, who used to head the Oakland NAACP: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/820110/posts
I am sick and tired of being embarrassed by elected Republican officials who have no sensitivity for issues that alienate whole segments of our population. Republican leaders who consort with the Council of Conservative Citizens, highlight stump speeches at Bob Jones University, reminisce about segregationist campaigns, and sympathize with the bigoted views - and the very real possibility that others in our party affiliate with the Free Congress Foundation and groups with similar offensive ideology - perpetuate broad public opinion that Republicans harbor racist and bigoted ideals. Bill Back’s conduct is the most current embarrassment to our party. His decision to distribute bigoted information demonstrates a lack of judgment and political acumen that’s not appropriate for someone in a leadership position, especially as vice chairman of the California Republican Party.
This embarrassment is different for a black Republican. Not only do I have to sit in rooms and behave professionally towards Republicans who share this heinous ideology, I have to go home to a hostile environment where I’m called an ”Uncle Tom” and maligned as a sell-out to my community because I’m a member of the Republican Party. When I go to the barbershop on Friday or my church on Sunday–wherever I go in the black community–I have to explain that Trent Lott’s affiliation with the Council of Conservative Citizens doesn’t represent all Republicans, that it was just an isolated incident. When they then question me about the scores of Republicans who visit Bob Jones University, I tell them that Republicans visit black universities, too. When they ask how I can serve in a party where the second in command, the man seeking our top spot distributes bigoted literature, I tell them that Bill Back doesn’t represent the grassroots of this party–he’s just one man. Black Republicans are expected to provide window dressing and cover to prove that this is not a racist party, yet our own leadership continues to act otherwise. People judge people by their experience of them, and by their actions, and when those actions do not match their words, actions become the more honest means by which to measure a person.
For whatever reason, it seems many, many blacks today have a massive inferiority complex. That is a nasty way to go through life.
You are absolutely correct. One of the indicators of this is the hyper-criticism that comes from Blacks, conservatives and liberals. Another is the absolute inability of many Blacks to see positives happening as well as negatives.
This inferiority complex is taught from within and from without. Here, to me, is a good example.
Jewish voters vote Dems 75-85% of the time. The number of articles blasting Jewish voters for voting Dem is magnitudes less than the number of articles blasting Black voters for voting Dem.
It is also taught by folks continuing to spout this distortion: It would appear that many blacks are stuck on waiting for a government
I noticed no reply to my list of gub’mint programs that white folks also use. CATO has reported, for example, how gov’t backed student loans have contributed to the out of control tuition and how FHA loans have a higher default rate than conventional loans and how FHA loans contribute to the increase in home costs.
And, of course, those familiar with U.S. history would know about the gov’t funding that helped create the suburbs.
#44. “That is quite an incendiary assumption, but you are certainly welcome to it.”
Incendiary? Maybe, but don’t blame me. I wasn’t aware of the ‘Bell Curve’ claims about genetics, ‘blacks’, and related intelligence until I read La Shawn’s, and Ann Coulter’s comments about such things.
Assumptive? Demonstrably not. See above.
There are many instances of vocal Republicans pointing the finger at ‘black folk’ for not facing the ‘truth’ of Blacks In America.
Funny isn’t it how when ‘whites’ are criminal (Mafia, Northern Ireland, Croatia, Russia, Germany) or socially low-achieving, it is never (to my knowledge) called a ‘white’ problem by anyone? But when someone ‘black’ does something wrong, it is said by pundits to be evidence of a ‘black’ problem.
Why is this?
Strange how it is never a ‘white’ problem when whites are killing, thieving and dropping fatherless kids with unfortunate regularity and lack of family structure.
Heliotrope said:
“It would appear that many blacks are stuck on waiting for a government solution and they dislike the Republicans, because it is the party that does not enable victimization by passing out goodies.”
Is it about time ‘blacks’ faced that ‘truth’ and began listening to Conservatives like Ann Coulter, Jared Taylor? Michael Savage, John Derbyshire? Pioneer Funded race studies?
Is it time that black folks started facing up to the ‘truth’ about their criminality, their reliance on welfare, their lower scoring X-factor? G-factor? Non-white factor? What was it?
Is it about time blacks started listening to those Republicans who are ‘brave’ enough to point these things out?
Heliotrope states:
“The Bell Curve did not say or imply that if a person is covered with black skin, that person will not be as intelligent as those people who are not covered with black skin.”
No, you got me there. Although I didn’t state that they did.
The authors of the Bell Curve did not say ‘covered with black skin’. Who (when talking about ‘blacks’ as a group) says ‘Africans covered with black skin’? I mean, who would?
Did you yourself type “Many Blacks covered with black skin are stuck on waiting for a government solution…”
No you didn’t, so why should the authors of The Bell Curve? They used the group title ‘blacks’.
http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html
When defending his writings regarding ‘black - white’ IQ gap (sic)(Please note that he doesn’t say “black covered in black skin’ - ‘white covered in white skin’ I Q gap) Charles Murray says:
“As that happens, it is not just that Dick (Herrnstein) and I will be proved right. We will be proved to have been — if you will pardon the expression — conservative.”
Maybe I will open my mind and realise there is a ‘black’ problem. The fact that ‘The Bell Curve’ is championed and cited so widely by white Republicans says rather more about white republicans than it does about ‘Blacks’ (covered in black skin?).
Regards,
John.
JohnD, there is NO scientific evidence of race. None. Zero. That means that the old skin color, eye shape, hair texture, cheekbone stuff is useless. However, it does not mean that the fact of racism is zero, null, void.
It does mean that characteristics ascribed to “black folks” or any other “folks” are folly.
It has been fashionable to presume that blacks in the United States are incapable of racism since they are the minority and the historic subject of the fact of white racism toward them. I find that to be idiotic. Any one, regardless of his past or status is capable of prejudice, bigotry and racism.
If blacks wish to wallow in their past victimization and are determined to find malice on the part of a white behind every set back, that is pretty good evidence of their own racism.
You run amok with my construct of talking about a person covered with black skin. You entirely miss my point. We are all brothers on the same ball spinning in space. If one person is bald and the other one is black skinned and the third is gay, it makes no difference. All are people. If the gays band together and the black skins band together and the bald heads band together it only puts strains on brotherhood and invites the effects of prejudice and bigotry.
If a town were to have a high rate of lung cancer and all its victims were Polish, it would be idiotic to assume it is a Polish problem. In the same respect, the Bell Curve did not anywhere imply that having black skin meant that you were automatically looking at low intellect.
You offer this point: Funny isn’t it how when ‘whites’ are criminal (Mafia, Northern Ireland, Croatia, Russia, Germany) or socially low-achieving, it is never (to my knowledge) called a ‘white’ problem by anyone? But when someone ‘black’ does something wrong, it is said by pundits to be evidence of a ‘black’ problem.
Being English, you may not realize that the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Germans, etc. have had plenty of prejudice heaped on them as they assimilated in the United States.
We have pockets of people who do not seem to get a toe hold in “the American Dream.” It bothers us. We have Asian gangs that are very dangerous. We have Central American gangs that are very dangerous. We have a critically ill series of American Indian reservations. We have a disproportionate population of blacks who are affected by social pathologies.
We can whistle our way past the graveyard on this issue or we can take a proactive role. To do so, we must identify the problems, the problem areas and seek solutions.
The fact is…..by fact I mean scientifically proven…..the government is dominated by white people with huge amounts of tax dollar funding that is overwhelmingly raised from white people.
If white people were acting selfishly, they would spend their money on themselves.
But, in this country, we respect all of us and if part of us is not succeeding, then all of us are not succeeding.
We have to confront the fact that many blacks consider this whole effort to be “intrusion” into the private business of “black folk.”
My gripe with moderates and liberals is that they place a high value on making treaties and smoothing over obvious problems.
In the words of WC Fields: Sometimes you just have to take the bull by the tail and face the situation.
Everything in a free society has to weighed and measured by the current strictures of the moral code. We have places where women have decided to go topless on the streets of town. We have places where there are open air drug markets. We have places that are dominated by overt homosexual behavior. We have places where polygamy is practiced and ignored. It is always a challenge for a society to know when to accept a trend as status quo and when to reject it.
I do not believe that the frailties found in many in our black population should be accepted as status quo and passed over with just another government check and a pat on the head.
I will not begin to upon touch the personal problem of having to choose which “race” you are going to sign onto. It is all so hopelessly stupid and arcane.
I am sick and tired of being embarrassed by elected Republican officials who have no sensitivity for issues that alienate whole segments of our population. Republican leaders who consort with the Council of Conservative Citizens, highlight stump speeches at Bob Jones University, reminisce about segregationist campaigns, and sympathize with the bigoted views - and the very real possibility that others in our party affiliate with the Free Congress Foundation and groups with similar offensive ideology - perpetuate broad public opinion that Republicans harbor racist and bigoted ideals. Bill Back’s conduct is the most current embarrassment to our party. His decision to distribute bigoted information demonstrates a lack of judgment and political acumen that’s not appropriate for someone in a leadership position, especially as vice chairman of the California Republican Party.
This embarrassment is different for a black Republican. Not only do I have to sit in rooms and behave professionally towards Republicans who share this heinous ideology, I have to go home to a hostile environment where I’m called an ‘’Uncle Tom’’ and maligned as a sell-out to my community because I’m a member of the Republican Party. When I go to the barbershop on Friday or my church on Sunday–wherever I go in the black community–I have to explain that Trent Lott’s affiliation with the Council of Conservative Citizens doesn’t represent all Republicans, that it was just an isolated incident. When they then question me about the scores of Republicans who visit Bob Jones University, I tell them that Republicans visit black universities, too. When they ask how I can serve in a party where the second in command, the man seeking our top spot distributes bigoted literature, I tell them that Bill Back doesn’t represent the grassroots of this party–he’s just one man. Black Republicans are expected to provide window dressing and cover to prove that this is not a racist party, yet our own leadership continues to act otherwise. People judge people by their experience of them, and by their actions, and when those actions do not match their words, actions become the more honest means by which to measure a person.
That letter was a joke when you posted it on my blog Darkstar, and its still a joke on LaShawn’s blog. I can take exception with everything that Shannon Reeves said. So who would be right and who would be wrong. You say your not a democrat, but you seem to always go out of your way to attack the republican party. Action speaks louder then words Darkstar. I would give anything to debate Shannon Reeves on this topic. One thing is for certain, he doesn’t speak for all black republicans only himself.
No, but it did state explicitly that Blacks, as a group, have a lower IQ and that, on average, when you are dealing with a Black person, you are dealing with someone with an intellegence lower than that of whites.
Your use of “Black skin” I find interesting and clouding the point.
That letter was a joke when you posted it on my blog Darkstar, and its still a joke on LaShawn’s blog. I can take exception with everything that Shannon Reeves said.
Actually, it’s not a joke and wasn’t taken as a joke at the time. In fact, Bill Back lost his campaign to be a part of the California GOP leadership because of the issues raised by Shannon Reeves. If you took the time to investigate the matter instead of ignore it, you would have found this information out. You would have also found out that Shannon Reeves is on the GOP and conservative speaking circuit.
I would give anything to debate Shannon Reeves on this topic. One thing is for certain, he doesn’t speak for all black republicans only himself.
And he has support from some Republicans in California. He also had support from Michael Steele. Or, as Steele said, “Yeah, I know Shannon! We’re friends!”
You say your not a democrat, but you seem to always go out of your way to attack the republican party.
I just gave you a link earlier where I went against Dems. Did you read it?
OK, here’s is a link discussing my meeting with Gov. Erhlich’s aides on eduction:
http://darkstarspoutsoff.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/talking_educati_1.html
Follow all of the links in that post homeboy.
Then read this one I just did today:
http://darkstarspoutsoff.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/09/what_the_md_dem.html
See what happens when you make the silly assumption that just because a person disagrees with another on a topic, it brands that person as the political opposite?
I agree with Mr. Steele. Vote for the person, not their heritage.
If someone has to depend on their heritage to get them into office, then I think they are in the wrong profession.
How does the Duke farce get in this thread? A wacko hooker is not representative of any Black women I know. You all are really reaching it to bring up NiFungu’s election ploy as some racial story related to a Md. election.
Vote for the person, not their heritage.
If someone has to depend on their heritage to get them into office, then I think they are in the wrong profession.
The funny thing is, Michael Steele is using race to try to get him into office. Instead of just using his issues, he is also saying that the Dems have, yet again, taken Blacks for granted by not having Mfume as a running mate.
“How does the Duke farce get in this thread? A wacko hooker is not representative of any Black women I know. You all are really reaching it to bring up NiFungu’s election ploy as some racial story related to a Md. election. ”
Some people have a racial view of the world where race explains most everything. From #7 which I think introduced Duke to this thread:
“But, the bottom line is whenever an incident that has even a hint of a racial element to it Republicans go running. The Bill Bennett, situation, why were conservative columnists defending him on that? The Duke rape case (one of this blog’s favorites). I don’t think the guys raped the girl either, but why was the GOP so aggresively trying to defend the guys..”
—————————
Not that the GOP is involved as a party, but individuals may be trying to defend the guys because they think they are not guilty. I am open to the possibility that there might be slightly less support of if the AV was white, just as Rodney King might have been beaten slightly less if he was white.
#51.
Thanks for your considered and civil response Heliotrope.
There does seem to be some misunderstanding as your response addresses many theories/attitudes to which I do not subscribe.
Also, it does not address the fact that certain republicans court racist theories and literature, and that such courting arguably does not help their political careers with the so-called ‘black vote’. For instance, Trent Lott and the Council Of Conservative Citizen’s race-based politicking being one issue that is not ‘taken by the horns’, but either excused or mumbled away…
“JohnD, there is NO scientific evidence of race. None. Zero. That means that the old skin color, eye shape, hair texture, cheekbone stuff is useless.
I am in full agreement here. Additionally, there is no scientific evidence of a patriarchal God or pantheon of Gods & Goddesses either. However, that doesn’t stop people using religion as an excuse to generalize about groups of people because of their gender, skin colour or sexual orientation.
Neither does it stop ’scientists’ from trying to prove that the more ‘white’ a ‘black’ man has in him, the more likely he is to have a higher IQ than a ‘real’ black man.
Heliotrope said: “It has been fashionable to presume that blacks in the United States are incapable of racism since they are the minority”
And such a ‘fashion’ is also inexcusably racist according to my philosophical position. Maybe we agree on this point? I have never had the slightest doubt that pretty much anyone can be racist/bigoted, irrespective of their genetic make up.
Heliotrope “You run amok with my construct of talking about a person covered with black skin. You entirely miss my point.”
I thought your point was that The Bell Curve authors, as you stated in #44: “did not say or imply that if a person is covered with black skin, that person will not be as intelligent as those people who are not covered with black skin.”
That statement does sound like you are denying that Charles Murray and Dick Herrnstein state that there is a black-white discrepancy in IQ. Blacks being lower than whites?
Let me quote again, Charles Murray (who actually co-wrote the Bell Curve)and his opinion on this fact:
“With regard to race differences, nothing has happened to change our conclusions about the cultural fairness of the tests, the equal predictive validity of the tests, or the persistence of the 15-point gap. Recent data from the NLSY indicate that in the next generation not only is the black - white gap failing to shrink, but it may be growing.”
Source: http://www.eugenics.net/papers/mssel.html
Why, Heliotrope, would you be so (apparently) coy as to claim Charles Murray and Dick Herrnstein don’t actually literally state ‘black skin’ when they say ‘black’?
When La Shawn supported her belief in the G-factor and the existence of a ‘black-white’ discrepancy, I asked the question ‘what is ‘black?’, you know, in these race-studies? No-one answered. How do they define black? From what family, from what township, from what region, country? It seems that ‘black’ is good enough for the ’scientists’.
Which brings me to your statement:
“Being English, you may not realize that the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Germans, etc. have had plenty of prejudice heaped on them as they assimilated in the United States.”
Heliotrope, I understand you may think I do not see bigotry outside of the UK, yet I do read extensively, and I have travelled, lived variously in America, Europe, and I have seen racial prejudice. What you don’t address is my point that ‘Irish’ were once considered ‘non-white’ in the UK. They were called the ‘Black irish’.
As you note, Poles experience/d prejudice in America. But ‘white’ people, to my knowledge, aren’t required to address the ‘white’ problems because of this?
I wear no ‘white shame’ because my ancestors exterminated the Tasmanian people just over a hundred years ago. I wear no ‘white’ guilt because my ancestors wore the body parts of those people as ornaments. Neither do I expect ‘black’ people to be answerable to any crime done by someone with a similar coloured skin to themselves.
As to the book, the Bell Curve, I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that one. I think, from what I have read of the book, it very plainly states that blacks (as a ‘group’) have a lower IQ than whites, furthermore, they attempt to prove that it is up to 80% genetic. In my opinion, the authors using the denomination ‘black’, and not ‘covered with black skin’ doesn’t change the fact that the book:
* was funded by the Pioneer Fund
* Has a political premise
* Offers ‘racial’ results.
In that, I concur with your earlier statements that ’social science’ is often very pseudo indeed.
One thing I cannot understand is that above, you mention ‘race’ not being scientifically proven, yet you also say that many ‘blacks’ are waiting for ‘government’ to benefit their ‘victim’ mentality.
With respect, is there not some discrepenacy in your reasoning?
Regards,
John
Erratum:
Sorry, that should have stated:
The book:
*Used research material funded by the Pioneer Fund.
One final note on the Bell Curve, then I will allow people to defend it some more:
The author of the Bell Curve, Charles Murray, cited J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen’s ‘comprehensive survey’of the Bell Curve (in the Psychology, Public Policy and Law journal) as the “strongest argument” yet made by ‘race realists.
I note that Rushton has been retailing the idea of black inferiority for decades.
Rushton claims that the study of racial intelligence is a ‘taboo’ “that has `no parallel … not the inquisition, not Stalin, not Hitler’. Rushton argues that evolution has made people of African descent less intelligent, more violent and more promiscuous than Europeans or East Asians.”
http://www.ferris.edu/ISAR/arcade/araceapart.htm
Yet, rather than suffer the gulag or gas chamber as he claims, Rushton still gets paid to disseminate his theories. This may go to demonstrate that the political pundit and the pseudo-scientist are mutually beneficial.
I have no time for either ‘low expectations’ or ‘proof of lowness’, it is a shame that people are politicking by using such random ‘racial realism’ as the ‘G-Factor’ and the ‘Bell Curve’.
I honestly question the sanity of anyone defending these books.
Likewise, the author of the controversial ‘G-factor’, Chris Brand, seems to have strange methods of communicating hi ideas, amply exhibited on his own webpage:
http://www.crispian.demon.co.uk/index4.htm
As he quite bravely declares : “Welcome to the fight against Political Correctness*, Multiculturalism** and Feminazism:
Q.E.D?
Regards,
John
John, the “Black Irish” thing is a great example of racial pigeonholing run amok. Silly. Ridiculous. Baseless.
The Black Irish are not even identifiable in a superficial way, and probably don’t even exist as any sort of subset, yet the attempt to segregate them was real. Supposedly the Spanish survivors of the Armada landed in Ireland and passed on their dark-haired genes to some of the locals. Pure speculation, myth if you will, yet the concept still exists even today.
Even if there were some way of identifying a specific group of Irish who have a tendency toward dark hair, what’s the point? Talk about a complete waste of time and energy. But yet, over the last deveral hundred years, the Irish have been segregated into a number of bizarre pigeonholes. Black Irish. Bog Irish. Shanty Irish. Scotch-Irish. Plantation Irish. Not to mention religious and geographic divisions. Good grief.
This Irish microcosm, with its silly artificial divisions, seems to me to be a prime example of why racial distinctions used in a social sense are worthless in a civilized world. We’re not talking about scientific study of origins, human migration, etc., but rather of ways we have artificially divided ourselves, pitted us against ourselves.
If I look around the room at my next family reunion, I’ll see faces from translucent library paste white to the color of walnuts. I’ll see big noses and small noses. I’ll see tall and short. All related, and nobody caring about the differences. The primary concern is whether the apple pie will last until everyone gets some.
My greatest wish is that society as a whole would stop with the ridiculous artificial divisions and just worry about the apple pie. That we can solve.
60. “My greatest wish is that society as a whole would stop with the ridiculous artificial divisions and just worry about the apple pie. That we can solve.”
That’s great, Redbeard!
But imagine where we could be if those Jews/Blacks/Gays/Whites/Rich/Poor/Disabled/Multiculturalists/Dems/Repubs/Homeless/Commies/Feminists/Europeans/Canadians/Muslims/Illegals/Conservationists/Scientists/Eco-lovers/Politicians weren’t trying to get more of their slice of the pie!!!???
I mean, my mind boggles with the wasted possibilities!
#58 JohnD: I am so worn down by your selective understanding that………
You love to talk about blacks and whites. I will play your game. I have pointed out that science can not substantiate the race classification that falls neatly into skin tones. You say you are on board with that. (Whatever! Your logic is like trying to chase Jello with a fork.)
So, I use the theme of people wearing black skin and you somehow get off on a philosophical, inter-galactic sarcasm romp with that.
Then, you leap for a non sequitur: no scientific evidence of a patriarchal God or pantheon of Gods & Goddesses either.
If you take a peep at the basic definition of “faith” you will perhaps get a small insight into why this is not germane.
If your mind is made up about the Bell Curve, then ignore me and move on. I find hitting my head on the bed post to be neither amusing nor enlightening.
You have a nice day.
Thanks again for your considered and civil response, Heliotrope.
“So, I use the theme of people wearing black skin and you somehow get off on a philosophical, inter-galactic sarcasm romp with that.”
You mean my very direct question to regarding your statement about the Bell Curve author’s ‘race’ identifier?
It’s ok, you chose not to answer it.
The Bell Curve authors either meant the black ‘race’, or they didn’t. Such a question is no ‘romp’. My sarcasm was inexcusable and for that I apologize, but in fairness it was prompted by your dismissive and misleading statement.
To suggest, as you did, that they didn’t *literally* use the identifier ‘black skin’ (they actually use ‘black’ )is not only the beginnings of a ‘romp’ but appears dishonest. You must see that? EVen if you are not letting on?
As to your assumption that I ‘like’ to talk about ‘black and white’, well, this is a primarily racial discussion board, that is by LaShawn’s choosing not mine, but I *will* address the issues raised, and I *will* try and add to the discussion with real questions and answers.
For the record, I personally find racial politics useless, mostly dishonest, and mostly frustrating, (you will find this borne out by my posts) hence my problem with politicking purveyors of dishonest works such as the Bell Curve and The G-factor’. I feel people are way too fast and loose with their colour-generalizations, hence my question to you regarding your statement about ‘blacks’ being victims waiting for welfare.
Again, you claim my questions to be like putting a fork in Jello, yet my questions were prompted by your confusing and contradictory positions. let me make it perfectly clear without the confusing sarcasm (for which I apologize):
a. You say there is scientifically no such thing as ‘race’.
b. You defend The Bell Curve by claiming they made no broad distinction of black-white IQ’s.
c. You say that their exclusion of the word ’skin’ proves this.
d. You claim that many ‘blacks’ are victims waiting for Government to help them.
I disagree with both ‘b’ and ‘c’ and the broad generalization/racial claims of ‘d’.
Regards,
John.
Comments on this entry are closed.