I think it would be good if we sat down and had a serious discussion of race, and developed a better understanding for what the "other side" (ignoring for a moment that there are diverse views and many sides and nuances) is saying too. All around.

But we'll still have to put up with the kind of stuff you point out. And the stuff I remarked on here, here, here, here, etc.....

There's plenty of racists out there, and race-baiters. Let's flush them out, put what they say up for examination, and see what it really means, and what they intend (to mean, and to accomplish) by it.

Cheers,
 

Well, I'm white and in all seriousness I'd like to ask you: what *is* the point? We all agree that racism is wrong. Those few that think it's OK are ostracized and they know it. This has been the situation my whole life. So why do people keep harping on it? What is there left to say on the topic that hasn't been said? What's the content of this conversation you think we should be having?
 

Larry, big man, let me guess: you live in the suburbs.

Bully. It's a nice place to delude yourself.
 

Your last paragraph, and Larry and Wcw's two comments, demonstrate why we're not going to get a national conversation on race. A conversation doesn't just require both sides being willing to engage, it also requires both sides not instantly rejecting the first thing the other has to say.

We can't have a national conversation where one side starts screaming RACIST! the instant the other side doesn't agree with something. It's not a conversation if one side gets to dictate everything that's said. What you're calling indifference is a reflexive aversion to getting slapped down the instant you open your mouth.
 

"We can't have a national conversation where one side starts screaming RACIST! the instant the other side doesn't agree with something. It's not a conversation if one side gets to dictate everything that's said. What you're calling indifference is a reflexive aversion to getting slapped down the instant you open your mouth."

Do these comments consider what has been said and done and continues to be said and done by one group BEFORE the screaming by the other group? (Could it possibly be that the conduct of former group is worse than screaming even before the conversation starts?) Truth and conciliation require putting everything on the table. The issues are not Black and White. In fact, if there were no Black, the emphasis would be on shades of White similar to the Europe of yesteryear. Perhaps the White consider a national conversation a zero sum game.
 

I wonder if we really need this conversation?

Mr. Obama was perfectly successful across racial lines early in the campaign when he ignored race and became a transracial candidate.

Mr. Obama's troubles began and race became an issue only after it became public knowledge that the candidate's spiritual advisor of 20 years was a raving racist himself.

Obama's attempt at racial dialogue actually exacerbated the problem when he argued that his racist pastor was part and parcel of the African American community and he could no more disown the pastor than he could that community.

The impulse to racism is part of the instinctual fear of "the other." It is best considered a taboo and socially shunned rather than given the Oprah treatment.

What the Right Reverend Wright did is confirm virtually every white stereotype of a black racist hustler and kicked in all the racial defensive mechanisms.

Mr. Obama should have done less talking and taken immediate action to disown Wright and his racism. Instead, he held onto Wright (albeit at a rhetorical distance) and pushed away many whites.
 

I wonder if we really need this conversation?

This is exactly the disparity between white and black attitudes which seems to have inspired Stephen's argument that many whites won't even understand enough to be willing to talk.

It's one thing to say that the ideal black candidate, one who is overwhelmingly charismatic and appears "safe" to most white voters, can succeed without race being an overt issue. It's another thing altogether to say that the lives of most black Americans aren't affected by the profound differences of race which remain in this country.

To remain with your focus on Obama, notice that you're saying Obama was safe from racism until he had the audacity to acknowledge that his former pastor's comments, which he admitted were wrong, also reflected broader attitudes common in the black community.

Most whites aren't interested in understanding the black perspective on this nation, its history or its progress. This fact, alone, should warn us that there are important aspects of race left unexplored in our society.
 

james said...

It's one thing to say that the ideal black candidate, one who is overwhelmingly charismatic and appears "safe" to most white voters, can succeed without race being an overt issue.

No. The end result that society should be seeking is where the race of the candidate is not a consideration at all.

Mr. Obama's early campaign ignoring race is evidence that most of the country very close to that end result.

To remain with your focus on Obama, notice that you're saying Obama was safe from racism until he had the audacity to acknowledge that his former pastor's comments, which he admitted were wrong, also reflected broader attitudes common in the black community.

No. Once again, racism is part of the inherent defensive fear of the other. It cannot be eradicated, only ruthlessly suppressed.

Obama justified Rev. Wrights racism by saying it had a place at the African American table. Instead, Mr. Obama should have immediately and completely disowned the racism and the racist.

Most whites aren't interested in understanding the black perspective on this nation, its history or its progress.

If you are implying that Rev. Wright's perspective is somehow legitimate, then I categorically reject that view. The KKK also has a historical perspective. That does not mean that I am interesting in understanding their evil.

No matter who is peddling it, racism is wrong - period. The only conversation we should have is to condemn it in no uncertain terms.
 

The end result that society should be seeking is where the race of the candidate is not a consideration at all.

That's right. And my point wasn't that only charismatic, safe black candidates should succeed, but that this is the only type of candidate who can> succeed. There are still deep racial prejudices among many American voters.

Mr. Obama's early campaign ignoring race is evidence that most of the country very close to that end result.

Actually, survey data strongly suggests that a significant percentage of the electorate still takes race into account when voting, and would vote against Obama because of his race.

Obama justified Rev. Wrights racism by saying it had a place at the African American table.

No, Obama repudiated Wright's controversial comments. What you're objecting to is the fact that Obama also dared to note the truth, that Wright's attitudes and language were instantly recognizable to many Americans as being common themes in the black community. Too many whites aren't familiar with the frustrations, fears, and anger that are common in the black community, don't believe there could be any basis for such feelings, and don't want to know about them.

No matter who is peddling it, racism is wrong - period. The only conversation we should have is to condemn it in no uncertain terms.

We should certainly condemn racism in any form, yes.

If you mean what you seem to be saying -- that any talk about how blacks see this society, or about the vast discrepancies in the white and black experiences today based on race, should be kept out of the national conversation -- then we certainly part company there. If you don't mean that, then I'd be interested in knowing what you meant by quoting that sentence of mine, and responding as you did.
 

No matter who is peddling it, racism is wrong - period. The only conversation we should have is to condemn it in no uncertain terms.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 8:40 AM

As someone who tried to claim that red/southern states have higher divorce rates because there are more black people living in them, and who keeps calling Wright a racist (even though you can't point to any racist comments he as made) I think it's time you looked in the mirror.
 

"Stephen's argument that many whites won't even understand enough to be willing to talk."

What we understand is that if we don't agree with blacks on every point, we'll get attacked as racist, and there's no point in having a "converstation" where one side gets to dictate that you either agree with them or shut the heck up.
 

I've seen several videos of Rev. Wright and read some transcripts of his words, and haven't noticed any proclamations of black racial superiority. It appears that what his critics, like Bart for instance, are referring to as racism is primarily his unwillingness to pretend that American history doesn't include several centuries of mistreatment of people of color.
While his views on the US government and it's role in the creation of AIDS are somewhat eccentric (similar to the equally odd ideas that 9/11 or Katrina were God's retribution for homosexuality), it's an understandable eccentricity given America's past embrace of eugenics, unethical medical experimentation on blacks, and ongoing racial disparities in health care.
The entire tempest regarding the singular and marginal figure Rev. Wright is itself an example of the racism internalized as 'business as usual' by folks like Bart, who of course long for a colorblind society. For instance, I'm not aware of any demands of Catholic politicians that they explain and apologize for the former Hitler youth and current Pope for his presumed embrace of Nazism or his aiding and abetting the systematic cover-up of the endemic pedophilia of the Church.
 

What we understand is that if we don't agree with blacks on every point, we'll get attacked as racist, and there's no point in having a "converstation" where one side gets to dictate that you either agree with them or shut the heck up.

I don't see anyone being attacked as a racist for disagreeing with others, or anyone asking for others to stop talking.

In fact, what you're responding to is simply the suggestion that you're not aware or, or acknowledging, the perspective of the other side, which is precisely the accusation you're making of others here.

What I find fascinating is the tendency, on the part of some people, to use the specter of being called racist or being shouted down to avoid engaging on the issues. It's been pointed out that there are dramatic disparities between the races in this country, such that it's impossible to argue that we can move past race simply by changing how we speak or how we treat people. And the response, too often, is simply to ignore this fact.

If there are people in your life who call you a racist for holding different views, or who want you to stop talking, then by all means, indulge their wishes on that point. Spend your time with more reasonable people.
 

wcw: I live in a suburb that's about 80% black. How do you like that?
 

I'd like to ask again: what is the *substance* of the conversation we should be having?

I see a lot of arguments that we should be having one, a lot of
meta-conversation, but no real conversation. I suspect this is because there's
no real conversation to be had; because it's all been said already.

Please, if anyone can say anything about race that we all haven't heard hundreds
of times, then say it.

It's not that whites are unwilling to have a conversation, or unwilling to
listen, or not interested in the "black perspective". It's that nobody is
saying anything new.
 

James, the closest I get to a "conversation on race" is the perpetual argument with my wife over whether our child (T minus 5 months and counting) would be better looking if she took after me, or her. Nobody in either of our families had any problems with our inter-racial marriage.

But let me express my opinions HERE, and you can be sure I'd be attacked as a racist, for my belief that most of what blacks suffer from in America is the deficiencies of their own subculture, not discrimination from whites. And that the key to solving those problems is in their hands, and nobody else's.
 

How about for something new:

1) Can we explore the extent to which racism is engrained in our society? For example, Professor Paul Finkelman came to speak here in January and detailed at great length just how much of the Constitution was about preserving slavery - far beyond the 3/5ths stuff that we all here in the usual discussions.


2) Can we ask just how thinly under the surface are racial attitudes about blacks and whites (not forgetting Asians and Hispanics and Middle Easterners in here)? For example, Governor Rendell's comment in Pennsylvania about x percentage of whites would not vote for a black candidate. This is 2008 not 1948 and the Dixiecrats and this is the North not the South - what does this say about racial progress?

3) We could compare what we do with what were the concluding observations of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination about the United States from March 2008 available at www.ushrnetwork.org.

4) What is our vision of racial discrimination and is our focus on intent too narrow from the point of view of human rights?

5) Why does it seem that when one engages in discussions of originalism on the 13th -15th amendments there seems to be this turn into a narrow path by the Supreme Court as contrasted with the breadth of the terms of the amendments? As someone might say, what's up with that? What to do, given the history, with white supremacist precedent?

6) How does someone not "do racism"?

7) Just to bring us back to a deep and old slur that apparently is very alive and well - to the point someone instantly recognizes it in a t-shirt - I am posting an article from the Atlanta Journal Constitution from Wednesday.

My question is why is ultraconservative associated with racism?

Here is a story from the Atlanta Journal Constitution that just was sent about a guy in Marietta, Georgia putting up a T-shirt with Curious George and a banana with "Obama in '08" on it.

Georgia bar's T-shirt links Obama, Curious George
By ERRIN HAINES

Associated Press Writer

MARIETTA, Ga. — The publisher of the popular children book's series "Curious George" is considering legal action against a Georgia bar owner for selling T-shirts that link Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama to the inquisitive monkey.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt is upset with Mike Norman, owner of a Marietta, Ga., bar, for selling the shirts which show Curious George peeling a banana with "Obama in '08" printed beneath the image.

"Houghton Mifflin Harcourt did not nor would we ever authorize or approve this use of the Curious George character, which we find offensive and utterly out of keeping with the values Curious George represents," said Richard Blake, the company's spokesman. "We are monitoring the situation and weighing all of our options."

Norman, who began selling the shirts in late April, has said they are not meant to be racist. He said he thinks the Illinois senator and the character "look so much alike."

Bill Nigut, southeast regional director for the Anti-Defamation League, said Norman is being disingenuous.

"He can pretend he doesn't understand what the message of that T-shirt is, but he knows full well that's an offensive and demeaning stereotype used to insult African-Americans," Nigut said. He called on citizens not to buy the T-shirts, but stopped short of calling for a boycott of Norman's business or denying him to speak out.

"His speech is protected, but that doesn't mean that it's appropriate and that doesn't mean it's not hateful," Nigut said.

On Tuesday, about a dozen people gathered outside the bar to object to the T-shirt. The protesters said the shirts are racist and they wanted Norman, to stop selling them.

Nigut said he was not surprised to hear that some in the community might have bought the shirt.

"To say that there are a few people in the community who are eager to have that ... I wouldn't deny that," Nigut said, adding that some could've purchased a shirt as a souvenir of the controversy. "But does it reflect what the vast majority of Cobb County residents believe in? I don't think that for a second."

_____

Associated Press Writer Greg Bluestein in Atlanta contributed to this report.


___

May 14, 2008 - 3:22 p.m. EDT
 

It's that nobody is saying anything new.

There's plenty to say that's new -- or, perhaps, that some of us have heard before, but others haven't.

For instance, I'm descended from the nation's leading slave-trading family. Fellow descendants and I have participated in filming a documentary about that history, and about the legacy of the slave trade in our society today.

When I present this film to preview audiences, I'm often told by whites that they had no idea how heavily the North was involved in slavery and the slave trade, or the extent to which slavery contributed to the development of the U.S. into a world economic power. Blacks, on the other hand, often tell me that they've never heard whites openly acknowledge our shared history, or talk frankly about the need to address the lingering legacy of that history today.

While these issues don't come as a revelation to everybody, they serve quite naturally as the starting point for further conversations about the racial divisions which remain in this country, and the social and economic divide which remains between the races.

Nobody in either of our families had any problems with our inter-racial marriage.

Nor with the interracial marriage in my family, Brett. It's a terrific example of how, in many ways, our nation has been moving beyond race. But often slowly, and certainly unevenly, as illustrated by the large numbers of voters who still indicate in surveys that they won't vote for a black candidate.

most of what blacks suffer from in America is the deficiencies of their own subculture, not discrimination from whites.

Let's please not forget, in addition to those two factors, the significant role played by inter-generational effects. Surely you agree that the former slaves were given next to nothing when they were freed, and until the 1960s their descendants faced blatant discrimination.

In that context, children born to families with much less wealth, income, education, lower levels of homeownership, etc., are unlikely to jump to equality with others during their lifetimes. This is true even in the absence of any discrimination or "cultural deficiencies," and explains why, for instance, at current rates blacks won't attain parity with whites in homeownership for another 1,664 years.
 

James, I'll certainly agree that subculture's deficiencies are themselves a legacy of racism, as well as the unfortunate side effects of the Great Society's "war on poverty". But, still, it's those deficiencies that need to be fixed, not the larger culture. Fixing schools doesn't do squat for people who don't value educational accomplishment, for instance, while it's darned near redundant for people who do.
 

I wouldn't dispute what you're saying, Brett, about the importance of such values as the need for education.

But let's also note that among those whites, for instance, who value education, it's much harder to instill the proper approach to school and homework in children if the parents aren't themselves well-educated. One study, for instance, shows that students learn more in history and politics classes if they're raised in families where talking about current events is common, while the significance of the educational background of parents for the expectations and behavior of their children is well-documented.

So, turning back to race, we know that blacks have been, on average, less well-educated than whites since slavery (and the days of segregated, inferior schools, which only began to end in the 1950s and 1960s, affecting many of today's adults). It stands to reason, therefore, that this is a disadvantage in promoting education among black children, even apart from ongoing discrimination *or* cultural values in the black community.
 

Larry D'Anna:

Well, I'm white and in all seriousness I'd like to ask you: what *is* the point? We all agree that racism is wrong.

Not quite all (believe me). But more than that, while people will "agree" that "racism is wrong", and overt racism is generally frowned upon as bad manners, that is not the same as their thinking that behaviour and thought patterns that constitute racism is wrong. There's a fair number of people that are racist in their thinking (see a couple more examples of this type of unthinking and covert racism here and here).

Let's have a real dialogue about racism, and about what kinds of thoughts are prejudiced.

We're far from the point where people are judged "on the content of their character, not on the color of their skin". How will we get there?

Certainly not by letting racist assumptions and racial classifications go unremarked. Certainly not by trying to tell blacks (and others) that no one holds them up as "different" (or worse), when that's patently not true, and the blacks that are treated thusly know this most painfully....

"Can't we just get over it" is a poor response when we haven't "gotten over it".

Cheers,
 

Brett:

What you're calling indifference is a reflexive aversion to getting slapped down the instant you open your mouth.

I haven't called you a racist ... yet. Perhaps this has happened to you before, though. Care to discuss it?

Cheers,
 

"Bart" DePalma:

Mr. Obama's troubles began and race became an issue only after it became public knowledge that the candidate's spiritual advisor of 20 years was a raving racist himself.

This is why we need that conversation. My first answer is to point out the link to "Candorville" in the "Update" here.

Darrin Bell deftly skewers a couple of implicit 'sub-arguments' in "Bart"'s erswhile 'argument'. What say you to Mr. Bell, eh, "Bart"?

Cheers,
 

What the Right Reverend Wright did is confirm virtually every white stereotype of a black racist hustler and kicked in all the racial defensive mechanisms.

Yes, it's amasing how stereotypes get "confirmed".... That's a real subject for sociologists, I'd say.

Cheers,
 

["Bart" DePalma]: Mr. Obama's early campaign ignoring race is evidence that most of the country very close to that end result.

What a load of BS. The Rethuglicans were planning from the get-go to make race an issue ... anything to gain political advantage.

"Bart"'s allusion (with no cites, I might add) to early Democratic election results in certain states in no way refutes this, nor does it refute the fact that race is most definitely a factor in Obama's campaign.

Cheers,
 

"No matter who is peddling it, racism is wrong - period. The only conversation we should have is to condemn it in no uncertain terms."

Says the guy that cited Mark Steyn approvingly as Steyn worries about those immigrant coloured outbreeding the good ol' white folks.... Says "Bart":

"In the US, this failure to reproduce is concentrated among the secular left side of our cultural divide. Given that most posters here are on that side of the cultural divide, I am amazed that this phenomenon does not even momentarily disturb them. Is this culture so fundamentally self absorbed that its members can care less if their culture and hereditary lines die out?"

Who said that racism (and prejudice and stoopidity about the "genetics" of political affiliation) is dead?

Cheers,
 

James:

In that context, children born to families with much less wealth, income, education, lower levels of homeownership, etc., are unlikely to jump to equality with others during their lifetimes. This is true even in the absence of any discrimination or "cultural deficiencies," and explains why, for instance, at current rates blacks won't attain parity with whites in homeownership for another 1,664 years.

I remember, during the time of Jensen and Herrnstein, discussion on the subject of Head Start. The "innatists" were claiming that you couldn't do much to improve the lot of blacks so why try? Studies of Head Start, though, shouwed that Head Start programs resulted in a 15 point rise in measured IQ (pretty much the difference in mean scres between blacks and whites at that time).

Amasingly, the "innatists" responded that, as soon as the Head Start intervention terminated, the scores reverted to the prior state. See! You can't fool Mother Nature ... for long.

Let's see if our esteemed 'intellectuals' on the RW side of todays's discussion here can explain what's wrong with that 'argument'....

Cheers,
 

Arne Langsetmo: Like I said, nobody has anything new to say, least of all you.

You think we haven't heard your theory that subtle, perhaps even unconscious racism permeates society? Trust me we've heard it. I haven't seen it in my experience. Nor have I seen any evidence for it. Just vague claims like yours that racism is all around us, except it's invisible and we can't see it.
 

Larry responds to Arne:

You think we haven't heard your theory that subtle, perhaps even unconscious racism permeates society? ... I haven't seen it in my experience. Nor have I seen any evidence for it. Just vague claims like yours that racism is all around us, except it's invisible and we can't see it.

Does this mean, for instance, that you aren't familiar with the survey results which appear to show that a significant fraction of the voting public still will not vote for any black candidate? Or do you disagree with the analysis of the researchers?

Or is the problem that this is still an invisible, and therefore somehow unimportant, form of racism?
 

Larry D'Anna:

I haven't seen it in my experience. Nor have I seen any evidence for it. Just vague claims like yours that racism is all around us, except it's invisible and we can't see it.

Like I said, we need to talk.

Do you really claim to be ignorant of the fact that a substantial number of people have said they wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black? Why, in my latest link, Tony Blankley even went so far as to discuss why this isn't a 'problem' (in his mind, at least)....

As I've pointed out, quite a few people have racist habits and sentiments, even though they are not aware that they have them, or that such are in fact racist. People like "Bart" decry the evils of "racism" and then come out with this shi*te about preserving our "hereditary line", a page straight off the web pages of the New™ KKK, the CCC, or straight out of the Commonwealth of Virginia's briefs in Loving.... And I guess you don't see that either. But do you think that blacks don't? Do you understand the "DWB" charge? Do you understand the anger some have at being stopped for DWB? Particularly those that are stopped while driving fancy, expensive cars, cars which they worked their butt off to buy? Or because they're in an area where they just don't see too many coloured folk around....

Cheers,
 

"Just vague claims like yours that racism is all around us, except it's invisible and we can't see it."

Our reading assignment for this weekend is Ralph Ellison's "Invisible Man."
 

Shag,

Add "Black Like Me" to that reading list!

"Just vague claims like yours that racism is all around us, except it's invisible and we can't see it." --Larry

One quick anecdote.

We put an Obama 08 bumpersticker on our car (first time we have ever had a candidate sticker on any of our cars!). Within 3 days of having it on we had a pedestrian on the sidewalk yell "You _____s!" at us.

Were they offended by my driving (slowing down to a stoplight) or my bumpersticker? I don't know, but it gave the pervasive racism thesis some credibility for me.
 

Michael:

One quick anecdote.

We put an Obama 08 bumpersticker on our car (first time we have ever had a candidate sticker on any of our cars!). Within 3 days of having it on we had a pedestrian on the sidewalk yell "You _____s!" at us.

Were they offended by my driving (slowing down to a stoplight) or my bumpersticker? I don't know, but it gave the pervasive racism thesis some credibility for me.

Maybe Clinton supporters. ;-)

But that doesn't rule out the other explanation(s) as well....

Cheers,
 

james wrote:

Does this mean, for instance, that you aren't familiar with the survey results which appear to show that a significant fraction of the voting public still will not vote for any black candidate? Or do you disagree with the analysis of the researchers?


I'm familiar with that assertion. I generally consider all statistics that I read in the mainstream media or internet to be extremely suspect. Who are these researchers? What did they publish? If you've got a link to their paper? I'll go read it. Maybe it will even convince me I'm wrong. Short of that though, your fifth-hand account of the result of a study on a controversial social topic isn't going to convince me of anything.
 

Larry, doesn't this approach -- "I generally consider all statistics that I read ... to be extremely suspect"; rejecting even published, scientific studies unless you know someone willing to provide you with a link, *and* you happened to become convinced that you're wrong and the experts have it right -- rather undercut your sweeping assertion that you know for a fact that there's no evidence whatsoever of racism in the U.S., merely a lot of vague and unsubstantiated claims?

In any event, I'll see whether I can grab you a link in a little while.
 

Bart,

Your statement

Mr. Obama's troubles began and race became an issue only after it became public knowledge that the candidate's spiritual advisor of 20 years was a raving racist himself.

demonstrates exactly what the problem is. You simply haven't bothered to listen to what Rev. Wright was saying, nor do you want to.

On the one side we Americans have African-Americans with black skin who cannot step outside their door at home without wonder why the cop down the road is watching him suspiciously. That suspicion can be statistically demonstrated by the fact that Blacks are about 48% of those in prison, yet only 12% of the population.

There may only be about 1 white in 50 who is racist, but every Black person will meet one such person about every two to three days.

Do Blacks generalize this to all whites? Of course. How can they know which is which? I've found that my friends in grad school who were African (Nigerian and Central African Republic) greeted me with smiles and openness, while the American raised black skinned individuals normally have a noncommittal look, rarely smiling unless I knew them well enough for them to feel they could trust me.

On the White side, you clearly don't want to know what they are trying to say. You simply don't beleive that there is a crime of "Driving While Black." Every intelligent African-American knows there is. They also know that you don't want to hear it, because you don't believe it.

Rev. Wright understands that you and those like you aren't going to listen. He wants to build a socially valid separate society because you don't listen and won't dialog.

Your sneers at what Rev. Wright says don't help in creating a dialog. But Bart, Blacks don't need you and they damned sure don't trust you. You not only don't listen, you aren't educable. You are just part of the problem and not to be trusted by Blacks. And as a result, you simply don't understand what is going on when Rev. Wright was speaking, and it is clear that you don't want to know. Most White Americans fit into that category.
 

james said...

BD: The end result that society should be seeking is where the race of the candidate is not a consideration at all.

That's right. And my point wasn't that only charismatic, safe black candidates should succeed, but that this is the only type of candidate who can> succeed. There are still deep racial prejudices among many American voters.

Charismatic safe candidates are the only candidates of any race which can succeed. Pat Robertson was no more successful than Jesse Jackson. Choosing charismatic safe candidates is common sense, not racial prejudice.

BD: Mr. Obama's early campaign ignoring race is evidence that most of the country very close to that end result.

Actually, survey data strongly suggests that a significant percentage of the electorate still takes race into account when voting, and would vote against Obama because of his race.

Nearly all African Americans vote for Obama and a majority of whites vote for Clinton. Is this voting for the person of their own race or voting against the person of the opposite race?

Obama justified Rev. Wrights racism by saying it had a place at the African American table.

No, Obama repudiated Wright's controversial comments.

Read the speech again. I would have been extremely offended if I were an African American. It was as if John McCain said white supremacy has a place at the white table.

Too many whites aren't familiar with the frustrations, fears, and anger that are common in the black community, don't believe there could be any basis for such feelings, and don't want to know about them.

Sell the racial guilt trip some place else. The vast majority of African American churches and no church I have ever attended runs a hate fest like Wright and Obama;'s church. I would never legitimize Wright's racism by claiming that it was a just part of the African American community.
 

richard said...

You simply haven't bothered to listen to what Rev. Wright was saying, nor do you want to.

I heard exactly what this hate monger was selling. America is run by rich white KKK members who operate the largest terrorist organization on Earth and poison blacks with AIDS and drugs. Moreover, the loon thinks that white and black kids use different sides of their brains and think differently.

There is simply no excuse for this from anyone of any race. You do not have a discussion about this kind of hatred, you condemn it.
 

would never legitimize Wright's racism

Legitimize it? You have yet to point out a single racist comment by Wright. Not one. That is quite telling.
 

Moreover, the loon thinks that white and black kids use different sides of their brains and think differently.

As opposed to you thinking that southern states have higher divorce rates because they have a higher black population?
 

Bart,

When you write Sell the racial guilt trip some place else. The vast majority of African American churches and no church I have ever attended runs a hate fest like Wright and Obama;'s church. I would never legitimize Wright's racism by claiming that it was a just part of the African American community.

You are saying that you have a whole series of excuses for totally ignoring anything controversial or that you personally dislike that someone who is a black leader might say. You refuse to listen, and in addition claim that Rev. Wright is racist, but it is your refusal to treat Rev. Wright and Blacks as intelligent people with whom you disagree but to whom you will listen that is the racism.

Your flat refusal to listen, treat seriously, or investigate what Rev. Wright means when he speaks to HIS audience is simply racist behavior on your part.

And don't try to explain that you are not personally racist. I never said you were. But you have clearly demonstrated racist behavior in what you wrote.
 

Some people are slow on the uptake:

[James]: Actually, survey data strongly suggests that a significant percentage of the electorate still takes race into account when voting, and would vote against Obama because of his race.

["Bart"]: Nearly all African Americans vote for Obama and a majority of whites vote for Clinton. Is this voting for the person of their own race or voting against the person of the opposite race?

"Bart", aren't you trying to refute James's claim? If so why do you bring this up?

Cheers,
 

Well, James' thesis would appear to be that white racism is the problem here, and Bart appears to be pointing out evidence that blacks are, if anything, quite a bit MORE racist than whites.
 

Choosing charismatic safe candidates is common sense, not racial prejudice.

I wasn't clear. I wasn't speaking of candidates who simply have moderate views, or are known quantities. I was referring to black candidates succeeding only when they are seen as "safe" by white voters, rather than as being "too black."

Nearly all African Americans vote for Obama and a majority of whites vote for Clinton. Is this voting for the person of their own race or voting against the person of the opposite race?

This isn't good evidence for voters choosing candidates based on racial prejudice, since both the black and white voters could articulate plausible reasons for preferring their chosen candidates. This evidence is even less useful for judging the specific point we were talking about, which was whether a significant number of white voters would refuse to vote for a black candidate (for example, a Democratic voter choosing a white Republican candidate, rather than cast a ballot for a black Democrat).

There are much more subtle tests to determine whether a much smaller, but still significant, percentage of voters will cast votes based on race. For a solid, popular introduction to some of the literature, I would recommend this article: http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=76d4881e-d014-4dd6-b732-8adef23f68f4&p=1. I don't agree with the hypotheses and measures used by some of the researchers mentioned, but other studies are reliable indicators of the rough dimensions of the problem.

It was as if John McCain said white supremacy has a place at the white table.

Not at all. Obama wasn't endorsing Wright's views. What he said, which seems to have offended you, was that there are feelings of anger, frustration, and resentment among some in the black community which have legitimacy, just as there are racially-tinged feelings of anger and resentment among some whites which also have legitimacy. He wasn't endorsing these feelings, but saying that they arise honestly out of how people have experienced the world, and need to be a part of our national conversation.

Sell the racial guilt trip some place else.

Why must you claim that guilt is involved, when no one is speaking of guilt? And why do you respond to the invocation of such feelings as the ones I mentioned in my last paragraph, by citing Wright's hateful talk and noting that *it* is illegitimate? He doesn't speak for black America, and feelings of frustration or anger aren't the equivalent of his hate speech.
 

Early this morning I caught the first half of the re-run of Bill Moyers' PBS program of yesterday evening. Moyers was interviewing the Edelys, a black couple, the wife supporting Clinton and the husband Obama, with a discussion of race and its impact upon the elections. Moyers pointed to the differences between blacks and hispanics historically in America as well as of poor whites, "competing" at the low end of the economic totum pole, and how they might vote against their economic interests. Mixing race, ethnicity and poverty can play out, in the minds of these groups, as a zero sum game.

I plan to watch Moyers' program in its entirety tomorrow when it is re-run again. I hope some of the commenters do, also.
 

richard said...


BD: When you write Sell the racial guilt trip some place else. The vast majority of African American churches and no church I have ever attended runs a hate fest like Wright and Obama;'s church. I would never legitimize Wright's racism by claiming that it was a just part of the African American community.

You are saying that you have a whole series of excuses for totally ignoring anything controversial or that you personally dislike that someone who is a black leader might say.

Controversial? My heavens! This bile is unadulterated paranoid hatred and slander. Would you excuse the same words as "controversial" if given by a white supremacist against African Americans?

You refuse to listen, and in addition claim that Rev. Wright is racist, but it is your refusal to treat Rev. Wright and Blacks as intelligent people with whom you disagree but to whom you will listen that is the racism.

Your flat refusal to listen, treat seriously, or investigate what Rev. Wright means when he speaks to HIS audience is simply racist behavior on your part.

Unbelievable!

You are accusing someone of being a racist because they have a zero tolerance for racism.

I would suggest instead that those who defend racist speech and the racists who spew it may need to think twice about casting the racist stone in their own glass houses.

My morals are not situational depending upon the color of the speaker. Evil is evil - period.

I cannot believe we are even discussing excusing this kind of racist hate to any degree at this period of history.
 

brett said...

Well, James' thesis would appear to be that white racism is the problem here, and Bart appears to be pointing out evidence that blacks are, if anything, quite a bit MORE racist than whites.

Absolutely NOT!

I will post this for the third or fourth time on this thread in the hope that it may stick.

ALL human beings are racist. We are ALL hardwired with a preservation instinct which includes an instinctive fear of "the other." People who look different than we do are more easily seen as the other. Those who think that they cannot be racist are lying to themselves.

This is similar to the fact that all human beings are killers. Those who think that they cannot be killers are lying to themselves.

Culture is all about suppressing and regulating our more undesirable animal instincts so we can live together peacefully and productively. As most cultures make murder absolutely taboo, so should they make racism absolutely taboo.

My repeated point is that we need to have a zero tolerance of racism and shun those who practice it. I do not want to have a conversation with racists except to condemn their racism and accept their repentance if they wish to change their ways.
 

james said...

BD: Choosing charismatic safe candidates is common sense, not racial prejudice.

I wasn't clear. I wasn't speaking of candidates who simply have moderate views, or are known quantities. I was referring to black candidates succeeding only when they are seen as "safe" by white voters, rather than as being "too black."

Correct me if I am wrong, but by "too black," I suspect that you mean politically to the left of most of the population like all previous African Americans running for the Dem nomination such as Jackson and Sharpton.

I have always suspected that the first black President would be a center right candidate who would play against the leftist stereotype like a Colin Powell. Such a candidate would have very little problem getting center right white voters. Hell, I find Obama personally compelling. If he were a conservative, I would unabashedly support him over someone like McCain.

However, it is hard enough to sell leftist political views in a center right country without also feeding into stereotypes about leftist black politicians.

BD: It was as if John McCain said white supremacy has a place at the white table.

Not at all. Obama wasn't endorsing Wright's views.

Please, that argument does not pass the laugh test.

Obama attended Wright's church for 20 years and stated repeatedly that Wright was his inspiration.

Obama tried to hide Wright from his campaign kickoff because his sermons "were kind of rough."

Obama has admitted on and off that he did hear Wright's "controversial" speeches.

In his first opportunity to repudiate Wright, Obama held onto his mentor (albeit from a rhetorical distance) by claiming that Wright was a legitimate part of the African American community which he could not disown.

Obama damn well knew Wright and his views intimately.

There are two possibilities here:

Obama cynically attended this church and tolerated sermons with which he and any normal human being would take great offense for the sole purpose of gaining street credibility for his budding political career.

OR

Obama really believes some or all of this paranoid racist bile.

I would like to think that the former possibility is the case, but neither possibility reflects well upon his character.
 

Correct me if I am wrong, but by "too black," I suspect that you mean politically to the left of most of the population

I'm afraid you're wrong, Bart. I was *not* referring to the position of candidates on the American political spectrum. I was referring to candidates whose appearance, dress, speech, mannerisms, and so forth are not distinctively "black," or not particularly so.

Such a candidate would have very little problem getting center right white voters.

Not if survey data about those voters is being interpreted correctly. A surprising number of voters in that part of the political spectrum either say that they would not vote for a black candidate, or say that the race of a candidate would be an important factor in their vote (whatever that means).

stereotypes about leftist black politicians.

Those stereotypes, which you say are often hard to avoid and, presumably, would impact candidate results, *would* be an example of racial prejudice, wouldn't they?

that argument does not pass the laugh test.

Okay, I'll call your bluff. You were quoting a statement about Obama's speech. Please point to the line(s) in which Obama endorsed Wright's views.

If the argument against this view doesn't even pass the laugh test, it shouldn't be too hard for you to do, without resorting to irrelevant arguments, like the idea that outside of the speech, Obama might believe in Wright's views. Did he, or didn't he, endorse those views in his speech, so clearly that it's laughable to argue otherwise?
 

Credit should be given when due, so let me say I find this point true enough:

Culture is all about suppressing and regulating our more undesirable animal instincts so we can live together peacefully and productively. As most cultures make murder absolutely taboo, so should they make racism absolutely taboo.

The idea, voiced by some, that disadvantaged groups (or some better term) cannot be prejudiced or whatever because they are disadvantaged is deluded.

I agree also that we are hotwired to fear the "other." As with our ability to fly in planes, one purpose of society and our thinking brains is to get past such things as best as we can.

But, the darker parts of our beings underlines we still are "animals." As to Bill Moyers, I saw that listed, but wasn't aware exactly what it is about. Thanks for the heads up.

I appreciated the views in this thread overall. Thanks.
 

My repeated point is that we need to have a zero tolerance of racism and shun those who practice it.

Bart, I confess you're starting to look a bit more human to me. At the same time, you are obviously in a rush to judgement concerning Obama & Wright. You say "there are two possibilities here." That's nonsense. Why don't you let go of your insistence that you have complete understanding on the basis of extremely partial and incomplete information?

Why do you think you understand Wright? How much of Wright's ministry are you familiar with? Do you have any friends with a couple of wacky beliefs? Are all of your friends free of defective thinking? Aren't you holding Wright to a ridiculous standard? (Not to mention Obama?) Some of Wright's stated beliefs sound nutty to me. That doesn't mean I think he ought to be "shunned."

Your "zero tolerance" is extremely suspect. First, from the point of view of simply trying to understand and have compassion for flawed fellow humans, well, "let him without sin cast the first stone."

How do you know when your "verdict" on someone else's character is sound enough to proceed with the sentence of "shunning?" I don't deny that there are whackjobs in this world worthy of shunning. But you are judging Wright on the basis of a few egregious cherries picked by Wright's enemies. You feel confident that your knowledge is sufficient?

No. I see you as I believe Richard sees you: uninterested in finding out more about those you have made a premature judgement about.

"Zero tolerance" is another word for a failure to value or desire knowledge of human nature.
 

"Bart" the Ph.D. sociologist:

ALL human beings are racist.

Makes you feel a bit better when you're a demonstrated xenophobic racist azo, eh? "Tu quoque" is such a useful logical fallacy, particularly when untrue.

And then there's this statement:

"No matter how learned my correspondent, I do not accept bare assertions as undisputed fact."

Who said that, "Bart"? Do you remember?

Cheers,
 

james said:

Larry, doesn't this approach ... rejecting even published, scientific studies unless you know someone willing to provide you with a link, *and* you happened to become convinced that you're wrong and the experts have it right -- rather undercut your sweeping assertion that you know for a fact that there's no evidence whatsoever of racism in the U.S....

I didn't assert that I know no evidence exists. I said I haven't seen it. I suspect it doesn't, but I don't know for an absolute fact and I didn't say I did. Like I said before, If you've got some evidence, then lets see it.

I don't know there's a scientific study that proves what you say it does. All I really know is that you say there is one. At best you read about the study in a newspaper. More likely you got it from a blog or a TV show or just some guy you know. You aren't just asking me to believe that these experts are competent, your asking me to believe that the story hasn't been exaggerated or corrupted or misinterpreted by you, the newspaper, and the tv show. If the topic were totally uncontroversial I still wouldn't bet even money you had it right. Have you every noticed that every side of debates like this has plenty of studies written by experts that prove them right? They can't all be right though can they?

So you got that paper or what?
 

Larry, are you really still here? As a denizen, you really should know that the suburbs are the suburbs, ethnic composition be damned. I grew up in the suburbs, friends have moved to the suburbs, there's nothing evil about them, but I smelled suburb on you the second you commented, and -- shocking, huh? -- I was not wrong.

From the suburbs, where at age twelve I had much the same opinions as you, I moved to a mildly urban environment and quickly learned that black folks (minorities generally, but in the end, it's worst for people who look vaguely african) really do have a different row to hoe. You don't have to be black to see this.

Or, dare I mention, read the literature. "They can't all be right" is a tune sung by an illiterate. Take stats 101 at your local community college and start reading.

Or open your eyes. They're right there in the middle of your face.

As for Brett, sorry, but there's no alternative to rejecting unadulterated error. Anyone who can look at a deeply racist society and natter about 'harping' needs to be smacked down rhetorically with malice aforethought.

C'est pire qu'un crime; c'est une faute.
 

I didn't assert that I know no evidence exists. I said I haven't seen it.

Larry, you rejected all claims posted here, saying repeatedly that "nobody has anything new to say." You also dismissed any "theories" on the subject as merely being "vague claims." "Trust me," you said, "we've heard it."

If you've got some evidence, then lets see it. ... I don't know there's a scientific study that proves what you say it does. All I really know is that you say there is one.

I posted a link last night, to a readable article which references and discusses a host of published, peer-reviewed studies by experts in the field. Most scholarly journal articles are gated for those with institutional or individual subscriptions, so if you want to read the scholarly papers discussing the research, just let me know what access you have so I'll know what journal articles you can read.

At best you read about the study in a newspaper. More likely you got it from a blog or a TV show or just some guy you know.

Larry, you obviously *don't* know how I know what I know. I could simply be widely read. I could be a professional who keeps up with the scholarly literature in this area, or even a credentialed scholar myself.

Dismissing research and ideas on the grounds that someone you know might originally have read about it in the popular press is the worst form of ad hominem argument.

Have you every noticed that every side of debates like this has plenty of studies written by experts that prove them right?

As wcw noted, not every side of every issue can be supported by competing evidence. It just seems that way sometimes. If you're aware of any research to support the other side in this debate, then please let us know.
 

To all those who ask: "What's the point?" I respond: Why are you avoiding the issue?

Brett expresses the racist's paradigm:

"Your last paragraph, and Larry and Wcw's two comments, demonstrate why we're not going to get a national conversation on race. A conversation doesn't just require both sides being willing to engage, it also requires both sides not instantly rejecting the first thing the other has to say."

As in: "What's the point?"? Which is, of course, what Brett is also saying -- viz:

"We can't have a national conversation where one side starts screaming RACIST! the instant the other side doesn't agree with something. It's not a conversation if one side gets to dictate everything that's said. What you're calling indifference is a reflexive aversion to getting slapped down the instant you open your mouth."

Let's get down to the basics, okay, Brett -- and all those others who determinedly avoid the issue?

1. Every culture on the planet is racist.

2. Everyone born into any of those cultures is inculcated with racism before s/he knows it is wrong.

3. It's a given that everyone is racist. The stumbling block, the obstacle, is the "Not ME! I ain't racist!"

Denial obviously only perpetuates it. The constructive question is less, "Am I racist?" than admitting to it and asking: "What do I do about it?"

And I mean "I" because it isn't only up to "them" or "everyone else" to begin the effort, or to make all the adjustments. It starts with oneself. As Ghandi said: [You] be the change you would see in the world.

On Glenn Greenwald's blog there has been discussion of a recent overtly-racist op-ed in the Washington Post. One of the most telling points made was derived from its emphasis on who are "real Americans" and who not, and the 200 hundred years of "tradition" that makes "real Americans" be "real Americans".

The racist who wrote the article, and those who hold the smae view, claim a longer lineage/"tradition" as "real Americans than, as example, recent immigrants. There ancesters, they boast, fought and died for this country -- for "freedom," etc., etc. --implying that only their's did so.

On the other hand is the tradition which is part and parcel of that tradtion, which they omit: their ancesters who, as example, owned slaves.

The point being that they want it both ways: they claim virtues inherited from an ancestral tradition that extends back at least to the "revolution". But when confronted with the elements of that tradition they omit, they claim, "I wasn't alive then; I'm not responsible for what my ancesters did. Let's live in the present -- slavery no longer exists -- get over it."

Easy for the to "get over it": they weren't the slaves, and they aren't the ones still confronted by the wall of racism sustained and perpetuated by exactly such racists and racism.

As for how much progress this country has made on the matter; whether the number of racists of good faith outnumber those of bad faith: I think the coming election battle will give a clear picture.

So, Brett: are you going to continue to deny the given? or are you going to confront your own racism, and struggle with how to deal with it, instead of avoiding the issue based upon what "they" allegedly do and will do and therefore "What's the point?"

Or will you at least begin asking the question "What's the point?" in good faith -- i.e., not to dismiss the matter out of hand and then move on, but to actually anticipate an answer which begins the discussion?

If not, why not? If not now, when?
 

Larry D'Anna --

"Well, I'm white and in all seriousness I'd like to ask you: what *is* the point? We all agree that racism is wrong. Those few that think it's OK are ostracized and they know it. This has been the situation my whole life. So why do people keep harping on it? What is there left to say on the topic that hasn't been said? What's the content of this conversation you think we should be having?"

It's always "a few" "they"s ain't it? Never anything to do with "us," and our summary rejection of the discussion.

What do you fear? that engaging in the discussion might turn out to include you as part of the problem -- to whatever degree, even if only one who rejects even the discussion?

A problem cannot be resolved if either we pretend it doesn't exist, or we pretend it cannot be resolved, therefore make no effort whatsoever to acknowledge the actual extent of the problem.

It isn't only a "few" of "them"; it is ALL of us.
 

Joe --

"The idea, voiced by some, that disadvantaged groups (or some better term) cannot be prejudiced or whatever because they are disadvantaged is deluded."

I agree that we are hotwired to fear the "other.""

"We" being white folk, in whom it's excusable, even when it results in "prejudice".

But it's condemnable when a non-white minority operates according to the same "instinct".

One of the most despicable means of avoiding the issue is to revert to "We/I haven't any choice, and have no control over myself, because we/I are all, after all animals."

So let's not do anything we can do to alter the situation, because the idea of actually doing so makes me -- instead of "they" -- uncomfortable.

"I appreciated the views in this thread overall. Thanks."

But let's continue to avoid specifics.
 

Well, James' thesis would appear to be that white racism is the problem here, and Bart appears to be pointing out evidence that blacks are, if anything, quite a bit MORE racist than whites.

# posted by Brett

"quite a bit MORE racist"?

Suppose every black racist is 100 per cent racist.

And suppose every white racist is 100 per cent racist.

Add up the total number of each and what do you get?

Though each member of each race is equally racist, the minority of racists is overwhelmed by the majority of racists.

Try again, Brett -- but cease the diarhetic dribbles by which means you continue the effort to say "What's the point?" and thus throw your ffull weight into PREVENTING the discussion by slinging every RACIST justification you can lay your mouth to.

Torture: it isn't about "them," it's about US.

Racism: It isn't about US, it's about "them".
 

Well, I'm white and in all seriousness I'd like to ask you: what *is* the point? We all agree that racism is wrong. Those few that think it's OK are ostracized and they know it. This has been the situation my whole life. So why do people keep harping on it? What is there left to say on the topic that hasn't been said? What's the content of this conversation you think we should be having?

# posted by Larry D'Anna

Ostracized to such nether regions as the Washington Post op-ed page.

And FOX.

And MSNBC.

And CNN.
 

JN, everybody may indeed be racist to some extent or other, but that doesn't settle anything in this 'conversation' we're not having, since it has essentially no implications.
 

Joe --

"The idea, voiced by some, that disadvantaged groups (or some better term) cannot be prejudiced or whatever because they are disadvantaged is deluded."

Mmm. Whites are expert in discerning delusion -- in others.

"I agree also that we are hotwired to fear the "other." . . .

"But, the darker parts of our beings underlines we still are "animals." . . .

Who lynched whom?

And on what basis? On the basis that the lynchee, unlike the civilized lyncher, is an uncivilized animal.

So when that excuse is exposed for the "delusion" it is, revert, then, to, "Ah, well, we're ALL animals ["them" too!], and we just can't help ourselves. It's a dog-eat-dog world, a jungle, nothin' we can do about it"

-- especially if we interminably make excuses against doing anything, and for affirmatively perpetuating the status quo.

Torture: It isn't about "them," it's about US.

Racism: It isn't about US, it's about "them".
 

Brett --

"James, I'll certainly agree that subculture's deficiencies are themselves a legacy of racism [but not of SLAVERY?], as well as the unfortunate side effects of the Great Society's "war on poverty".

You mean, like, opening a few gates to allow out a few of the inmates warehoused in the economic concentration camps euphemistally called "ghettos"?

"But, still, it's those deficiencies that need to be fixed, not the larger culture."

Right: slavery and its consequences are entirely the fault of the ex-slave (who might have escaped the slaver if they could only run faster). White folks have no responsibility for any of that, so there's nothing to "fix" in the white culture.

White folks should get reparations because the gum'mint took their property -- slaves -- without "just compensation," in violation of the "takings" clause in the Constitution.

But the only reparations for blacks: "get over it".

"Fixing schools doesn't do squat for people who don't value educational accomplishment, for instance, while it's darned near redundant for people who do."

You are overtly one of those who not only lacks, but also "don't value educational accomplishment". Read this fascinating summary history of "separate but equal" and then lecture us about "don't value educational accomplishment" and how that isn't a racist assertion:

May 17 1954: Supreme Court Strikes Down “Separate but Equal”

...in 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the doctrine of separate but equal. "Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race . . . deprives the children of a minority group of equal educational opportunities," the justices ruled in Brown v. Board of Education. In 1848 Boston's black community had turned to the courts to integrate the city's public schools. In ruling against them, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court asserted that separate was equal. The cause was won only when the fight moved from the courts to the state legislature, which voted to outlaw segregated public schools in 1855. A century later, attorneys in Brown v. Board used some of the same arguments lawyers had made in the Boston case.

Shortly after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 1783 that slavery was incompatible with the new state's constitution, African Americans began seeking equal access to public schooling. They understood that education was critical to economic, social, and political equality.

No Massachusetts statute called for segregated schools, and at first black children attended school with white children. There they experienced the same harassment and hostility that their parents encountered in everyday life. Misbehaving white children were sent to what was commonly called the "nigger seat" or told they were "worse than . . . little nigger[s]." As a result, first in 1787 and then again in 1800, Boston's black community petitioned the School Committee for a separate school. The petitions were denied.

In 1798 the city's African-American leaders organized and funded their own school — the African School. Classes were held first in a private home and later in the basement of the new African Meeting House. A few years later, Abiel Smith, a white merchant, left a bequest to the city of Boston for the education of black students. Renamed the Smith School in honor of its benefactor, the school was incorporated into the Boston school system. Twenty years later a new Abiel Smith School was built on Joy Street (where it stands today). It was the first public school building in the country erected for the education of black children.

It soon became apparent that the School Committee had no intention of providing the Smith School with resources equal to those given the city's white schools. At one point, while most white schools had several hundred books in their libraries, the Smith School had one. It received half the funding of white schools. Most of the faculty was white, and many of the teachers were poorly prepared. In addition, parents charged that the white man who served as headmaster from 1833 to 1844 held "opinions of the intellectual character of the colored race of people that disqualify him to be a teacher of colored children."

In 1844, under the leadership of activist William Cooper Nell, black Bostonians began a campaign for integrated schools. Nell was a staunch integrationist who was active in a wide range of causes on behalf of African Americans, locally and nationally. His name, more than any other, is associated with the long struggle to integrate Boston schools. His own experiences caused him to make a vow that, "God helping me, I would do my best to hasten the day when the color of my skin would be no barrier to equal school rights."

Although a small minority of black Bostonians favored a separate school, where their children would be protected from abuse, the drive for integration gained momentum. Activists sent petitions to the legislature and to the School Committee stating that separate schools were "contrary to the laws of the Commonwealth." The committee responded that separate schools were legal and right and, most importantly, "best adapted to promote the education of [the black] class of our population."

African-American parents vehemently disagreed. In 1844 they began an 11-year boycott, setting up classes for their children in a black church; attendance at the Smith School dropped from 263 in 1840 to 51 in 1849.

In 1848 Benjamin Roberts, a black printer and community activist, decided to sue the Boston School Committee. He hired Robert Morris, one of the first black lawyers in the country and only the second African American admitted to the Massachusetts bar, to represent him.

In Roberts v. The City of Boston, Morris argued that Benjamin Roberts's five-year-old daughter Sarah walked past five segregated white schools en route to the Smith School — a violation, he charged, of an 1845 statute making it unlawful for a child to be "excluded from public schools in the Commonwealth." Morris also demonstrated that the black school was inferior. In ruling against him, the court noted that Sarah Roberts did have a school to attend even though it was further away from her home.

Benjamin Roberts, Robert Morris, and William Cooper Nell decided to appeal the decision to the Supreme Judicial Court and asked the white lawyer, reformer, and future United States Senator Charles Sumner to help. This time their brief also addressed the issue of social and racial caste. Sumner presented his case with his characteristic eloquence, pointing out that white children were also "injured by the separation," because they are "taught to regard a portion of the human family . . . as a separate and degraded class." He asserted that "a school exclusively devoted to one class must differ essentially in spirit and character" from a school which all children attend. "It is a mockery to call it equivalent," he concluded.

In March 1850 the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that segregated schools did not "deepen and perpetuate" racial caste and discrimination. Racial prejudice, wrote Chief Justice Lemuel Shaw, "is not created by law, and probably cannot be changed by law." He conceded that all citizens should have "equality before the law," as Sumner had argued, but this did not mean that there could not be separate schools for black children.

In 1850 Boston's public schools were the only ones in Massachusetts that were still segregated. For black Bostonians, the fight was not over. Nell, Morris, and others turned to the legislature; in 1855 they won passage of a law that forbid public schools from making distinction "on account of race, color, or religious opinions" when a student sought admission. The black community celebrated.

But Lemuel Shaw's ruling had dealt a serious blow to African Americans by setting forth the "separate but equal" doctrine. In the late nineteenth century, many state courts would refer to the decision in denying black children access to white schools. In the landmark Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896, the Supreme Court used Shaw's decision as a precedent when it established the "separate but equal" doctrine that would be the law of the land for another 58 years.

After 1855, all public schools in Massachusetts were integrated, at least by law. However, the gains won in the legislature proved difficult to sustain. The Commonwealth has continued to struggle with de facto school segregation until the present day.

Full text of decision in Roberts case. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/rbaapc:@field(DOCID+@lit(rbaapc28400))

Boston African American National Historic Site http://www.nps.gov/boaf/

“Long Road to Justice” online exhibit. http://www.masshist.org/longroad/ozeducation/roberts.htm

The former Abiel Smith School is part of the Black Heritage Trail http://www.nps.gov/boaf.

-------

Sources

Black Bostonians: Family Life and Community Struggle in the Antebellum North, by James Oliver Horton and Lois Horton (Holmes and Meir, 1979).

Sarah's Long Walk: The Free Blacks of Boston and How Their Struggle for Equality Changed America, by Stephen Kendrick and Paul Kendrick (Beacon Press, 2005).

Website http://www.nps.gov/boaf/ of the Boston African American National Historic Site.

Supreme Judicial Court Historical Society website http://www.sjchs-history.org/roberts.html.
--------

Online at: http://www.massmoments.org/moment.cfm?mid=146

©2008 Massachusetts Foundation for the Humanities. All rights reserved.
________________

In short Brett, your assertion is a slander, a libel, against history, fact, and those who continue to be confronted by the dilemma, as detailed in the foregoing, imposed by the majority white racist culture onto the African-American minority.

And it isn't the responsibility of the victim of that racism, at least not alone, to fix that glaring "flaw" in the majority white culture. Until you get an EDUCATION in the actual history and realities, you will continue to assert this, HYPOCRITE:

Torture: it isn't about "them," it's aout US.

Racism: it isn't about US, it's about "them".
 

Bart blathers --

"No. The end result that society should be seeking is where the race of the candidate is not a consideration at all."

It should just go away, because de white folk de jes' don' wan talk 'bout they's sins in de mattuh.

"Mr. Obama's early campaign ignoring race is evidence that most of the country [is] very close to that end result.

Yes: pretending that racism -- white racism -- doesn't exist, and thus perpetuating the unacceptable status quo.
 

Brett --

"JN, everybody may indeed be racist to some extent or other, . . . ."

It is racsim that's wrong, not the degree of it.

It is the racist who will guibble about "degree" in effort to weasel his way around the issue, as if "a little racism never hurt anybody".

". . . but that doesn't settle anything in this 'conversation' we're not having, since it has essentially no implications."

It has every "implication": That everyone is racist starts us all on even footing -- and most important stops the accusations about "everyone else is racist, but I'm not, so it's okay for me to point the finger away from myself."

It strips us all, if you will, of the hoods and sheets behind which we deny we are racist, and point away from ourselves at the victims and blame them for the problem.

Exactly as you smeared the black culture for elements in it which are resultant of slavery, while at the same time claiming the race/culture that owned the slaves has no responsibility for any of that.

Sorta like lynching someone, then saying, "It's his own fault for having a neck."

Torture: it isn't about "them," it's about US.

Racism: it isn't about US, it's about "them".
 

As Martin Luther King, Jr., said, we're all in the same boat.

But as many others make clear, some of us are [still] in the back of the boat.
 

Arne --

"As I've pointed out, quite a few people have racist habits and sentiments, even though they are not aware that they have them, or that such are in fact racist. People like "Bart" decry the evils of "racism" and then come out with this shi*te about preserving our "hereditary line", a page straight off the web pages of the New™ KKK, the CCC, or straight out of the Commonwealth of Virginia's briefs in Loving...."

"The KKK is out of style, because they don't wear colored sheets." -- Dick Gregory.
 

It's kind of funny watching a racist piece of shit like Bart "condemn" racism.
 

wcw: I know what's in a stats 101 course. I don't know your background, but I very much doubt you know more math than I do. It's not that I distrust statistics in general, its that I distrust James and whoever gives James his information to do statistics properly.

also to wcw: Would you *ever* on your worst day speak to someone to their face the way you have written at me here? You have got to be one of the most rude, arrogant, obnoxtious people I've ever encountered. Why don't you try and make your "points" in a more civil tone.

JNagarya: I'm here discussing aren't I. I'm obviously not afraid of the discussion.

James: I missed your link, haven't read it yet, but to respond to some of your other comments:

Yes I maintain that the people like me who don't think racism remains a major problem in America have heard your arguments and rejected them. Repeating the same lines over and over again and telling people they are racists when they know damn well they aren't isn't going to convince anyone. It just pisses people off.

Yes, I obviously don't know where you get your information. But I can make a reasonable guess. Was I wrong? In any case, not knowing who informs you makes me *lower* my probability that you're right, not raise it.

Ad Hominem? I think you are confused. I've said nothing disparaging about your character. (wcw's character is another matter)

My argument is that when people quote "research" and "experts" in debates like this there is an unusually high probability that they are misinformed, exaggerating, lying, or unwittingly repeating lies. I don't trust Bill O'Reilly's "experts" when they say video games make kids commit crimes, or when they say bacterial flagellums could not possibly have evolved naturally. It is for the same reason that I don't trust your "experts".

You are certainly correct that not every side of every issue can be supported by competing evidence. Did I ever say otherwise?
 

I distrust James and whoever gives James his information to do statistics properly.

That's your privilege, Larry. You'll find that the sources I pointed to are published in respected, peer-reviewed journals.

I assume you mean that you distrust anyone, not specifically me, or else that you're simply deeply skeptical, based on your experiences, of the particular results we've been discussing.

James ... telling people they are racists when they know damn well they aren't isn't going to convince anyone. It just pisses people off.

I assume you didn't mean to invoke this as a response to me, Larry, since I would never do any such thing.

Whatever the truth about lingering racism in the U.S., and about structural barriers which exist even when people are no prejudiced, I agree that kind of name-calling isn't appropriate, much less the assumptions about the inner nature of other people.

I obviously don't know where you get your information. But I can make a reasonable guess. Was I wrong?

Yes, entirely wrong, as I think I've mentioned.

Ad Hominem? I think you are confused. I've said nothing disparaging about your character.

You seem to be confused about what constitutes an ad hominem argument, Larry.

It's not necessarily an attack on a person's character. It's any argument which dismisses evidence or logic based on an appeal to alleged facts about the person offering them. The basis for this fallacy is that logically these appeals are irrelevant.

when people quote "research" and "experts" in debates like this there is an unusually high probability that they are misinformed, exaggerating, lying, or unwittingly repeating lies.

That may well be, Larry. It's not generally my experience, but that may simply reflect who I tend to discuss these matters with.

In any event, I certainly don't expect you to take my word for anything, or to trust my sources on my say-so. I do, however, expect you not to make any assumptions about my statements or sources in the other direction, either, but simply to acknowledge that you don't know either way.
 

Larry, if you watched video of people saying "I wouldn't vote for Obama because he is black", would you consider that sufficient evidence of racism?
 

Larry D'Anna --

"wcw: I know what's in a stats 101 course. I don't know your background, but I very much doubt you know more math than I do. It's not that I distrust statistics in general, its that I distrust James and whoever gives James his information to do statistics properly."

Mmmm. Statistics and math.

"also to wcw: Would you *ever* on your worst day speak to someone to their face the way you have written at me here? You have got to be one of the most rude, arrogant, obnoxtious people I've ever encountered. Why don't you try and make your "points" in a more civil tone."

If you react that way to his points, I can imagine how you'll react to mine: I've been a civil rights advocate for over 50 years, and the one thing I don't do is mince bullshit. Which is to say: as racism is rude, and worse, I am not polite to racism.

"JNagarya: I'm here discussing aren't I. I'm obviously not afraid of the discussion."

Mmmm. Of statistics and math.

"James: I missed your link, haven't read it yet, but to respond to some of your other comments:

"Yes I maintain that the people like me who don't think racism remains a major problem in America have heard your arguments and rejected them. Repeating the same lines over and over again and telling people they are racists when they know damn well they aren't isn't going to convince anyone. It just pisses people off."

Mmm. Pisses them off, so they reject what is said, because they aren't part of the problem. Not being black, they are experts at recognizing racism -- especially in themsleves. Oops -- I mean in others.

Or, even better, denying it exists to any significant degree. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated because he wanted his birthday to be a national holiday.

"Yes, I obviously don't know where you get your information. But I can make a reasonable guess. Was I wrong? In any case, not knowing who informs you makes me *lower* my probability that you're right, not raise it."

When you have the opportunity to know but avoid that in order to "guess," you are being unreasonable.

Otherwise, your "probability" as to whether someone else is right.

So far you've "discussed" -- and rejected:

Statistics and math.

wcw's rudeness.

Assured me you're "discussing," but didn't explicitly inform me of the topic you're discussing.

Statistics and math.

Denied being racist with an absolute certainty, regardless the fact that you aren't exactly recognizng the racism right in front of your face, even though someone else's.

Moving on, you switch to personalization:

"Ad Hominem? I think you are confused. I've said nothing disparaging about your character. (wcw's character is another matter)"

So far, no discussion of racism, not even such basics as,

"What does racism look like? How does one recognize it -- even if only in others?"

"My argument is that when people quote "research" and "experts" in debates like this there is an unusually high probability that they are misinformed, exaggerating, lying, or unwittingly repeating lies. I

Right. And you've shown that, abundantly. Actually, you haven't: you've simply asserted, which we're apparently to confuse with that thing called proof.

Meanwhile, we are going on at length demonstrating how easy it is to avoid discussing the actual issue: racism.

"don't trust Bill O'Reilly's "experts" when they say video games make kids commit crimes, or when they say bacterial flagellums could not possibly have evolved naturally. It is for the same reason that I don't trust your "experts"."

I have no idea how one follows the other. Neither is about racism, though.

"You are certainly correct that not every side of every issue can be supported by competing evidence. Did I ever say otherwise?"

You lost me. What is the topic -- iisue -- you are "discussing"?
 

James: your link is just a magazine article, and only the first page is readable.


You'll find that the sources I pointed to are published in respected, peer-reviewed journals.


Sorry but I'm just too skeptical of social science in general, and social-science-applied-to-current-controversies for that to impress me at all. I need to see it for myself.


I assume you mean that you distrust anyone, not specifically me


exactly.


I assume you didn't mean to invoke this as a response to me, Larry, since I would never do any such thing.


I'm glad to hear that, but your "side" of the debate does do such things. Constantly. See wcw. See JNagarya. That's a big part of the reason people don't like to have this discussion. Because anyone who argues that racism is over is immediately branded a filthy racist.


It's not necessarily an attack on a person's character. It's any argument which dismisses evidence or logic based on an appeal to alleged facts about the person offering them. The basis for this fallacy is that logically these appeals are irrelevant.


I'm not appealing to alleged facts about you. You tried to make an argument-from-authority, and i refuted it.
 

bartbuster: No I'm sure there is such a video. It's a big country. I don't think there's enough anti-black racism left for it to matter much. I don't think that there's no racism left at all.
 

If you react that way to his points, I can imagine how you'll react to mine: I've been a civil rights advocate for over 50 years, and the one thing I don't do is mince bullshit. Which is to say: as racism is rude, and worse, I am not polite to racism.


I disagree with you, therefore I must be a racist, therefore it's OK to treat me like one.

And you wonder why nobody wants to have this "conversation"?

The conversation you want is for everyone to agree with you, or for you to scream at them and call them names until they do.

Try using some logic, evidence and a civil tone and you might actually get somewhere.
 

bartbuster: No I'm sure there is such a video. It's a big country. I don't think there's enough anti-black racism left for it to matter much. I don't think that there's no racism left at all.

# posted by Larry D'Anna : 1:49 PM

I see. So you don't believe the statistics that show that racism is still a problem, and you don't think video of racists is sufficient evidence that it is a problem. What exactly would it take to convince you that racism is still a problem in this country?
 

James: your link is just a magazine article, and only the first page is readable.

Larry, I said that I was posting "a solid, popular introduction to some of the literature." The article directly references and discusses a host of scholarly articles in the field.

If you want to read the articles themselves, you'll need to go to a library, or have institutional or individual access to the journals online. I can provide you direct links, if you'll tell me which collections you have access to.

As for the readability issue, are you saying that your browser can't access the other pages? (Mine can; just click on "next page.") Or are you saying you find the writing unreadable?

I'm just too skeptical of social science in general, and social-science-applied-to-current-controversies for that to impress me at all.

Fine, Larry. I've provided you with references to, and summaries of, a number of the best scholarly works on the issue. If you're "just too skeptical" of social science to pay attention to what the experts have to say on this issue, then I'm not sure we have much more to discuss.

your "side" of the debate does do such things.

I don't have a "side" in this debate, Larry, and I'm not interested in enduring personal attacks that you justified by saying that others deserved them.

I'm not appealing to alleged facts about you. You tried to make an argument-from-authority, and i refuted it.

I did nothing of the kind, Larry. I didn't appeal to my own authority, nor to anyone else's.

You asked me for evidence of survey data to show lingering racial bias among voters, and I referred you to expert studies on the topic, after you said that you knew of no evidence of racial basis in voter choice.

You could only view this as argument-from-authority because you declined to look at what you'd specifically asked to see, and attempted to refute my statements as if they stood on their own. No discussion is possible if you aren't familiar with the evidence; once you are, you can either accept it or question it on specific grounds, rather than vaguely asserting that you aren't aware of any evidence, as if this proves anything.
 

what exactly would it take to convince you that racism is still a problem in this country?


The statistics would have to be verified by myself or someone I trust.

And yes, I know this is an unreasonably high standard that probably can't be met in the form of a blog comment. But I can't help that. What it means is that I'm less confident that I'm correct than you seem to be, but I'm less likely to be proved wrong about something I thought I was certain of.
 

On the issue of the ad hominem fallacy versus argument-from-authority, Larry, let me just remind you what you had written.

Others can judge the validity of your argument, which you made after I posted a source with specific citations, demonstrating that I wasn't asking you to take my word for anything, and before you bothered to look at any of it:

likely you got it from a blog or a TV show or just some guy you know. You aren't just asking me to believe that these experts are competent, your asking me to believe that the story hasn't been exaggerated or corrupted or misinterpreted by you, the newspaper, and the tv show.
 

but I'm less likely to be proved wrong about something I thought I was certain of.

# posted by Larry D'Anna : 2:10 PM

Less likely is a pretty significant understatement. Your standards are impossible to meet.

Basically, you don't have any evidence to support your view, and you won't accept any evidence that refutes it. I can't imagine why anyone should take you seriously.
 

Lemuel Shaw served for 30 years as CJ of the MA SJC (1830-1860), writing many, many decisions. Shaw abhored slavery but clearly took the position that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (as well as its predecessor) was constitutionally binding in MA. But to his credit, Shaw wrote a critical decision that a non-fugitive slave present in MA had the choice of determining whether or not to be free. His opinion in Commonwealth v. Aves, 35 Mass. 193 (1836) is most interesting.
 

I don't have a "side" in this debate, Larry, and I'm not interested in enduring personal attacks that you justified by saying that others deserved them.


Well that's why I put "side" in quotes. But i think you know what I mean by it. There's a large cluster of people who think that racism is pretty much over, that affirmative action is just racial discrimination, that we should all just get over this whole issue of race and not pay attention to it anymore, etc. I'm in that cluster. There's another cluster that thinks there's still plenty of racists around, that it's still a relevant issue, that affirmative action is required to counteract widespread discrimination, etc. You seem to be there. That's all I mean by "side". But the fact is that people on your "side" have a tendency to treat people on my "side" like we're all in the KKK, and it really, really pisses us off.

I don't think I made any personal attacks against you. If I did, I apologise. But you can't just pretend like the name calling and anger and bitterness and accusations and paranoia coming out of your "side" doesn't matter. I was born in 1981. I had fuck-all to do with segregation. I'm not a racist. None of my friends are racists. And I'm sick and tired of being treated like one. That's the perspective of the "what's the point" crowd.


On the issue of the ad hominem fallacy versus argument-from-authority, Larry, let me just remind you what you had written.


Well you're right. I did make an unwarranted assumption there. But it still leaves me in the same place: You're claiming there's evidence that there's significant racism in America. I can't trust that claim, my browser can't load more than the first page of the link you posted, and I don't have journal access anyways. So I think it's slightly more likely that racism is still a problem. But the scrap of evidence I have access to is just "James says it's so", and that's well outweighed by the fact the I haven't seen any of this racism and you'd think I would have by now if it were real. And unfortunately that's probably where it's going to stay, because I'm not a political psychologist and I've got other things on my mind.

What you need to understand is that this result isn't particular to me. I think a lot of people in the "what's the point" crowd are in this same situation. When you combine that with all the anger and name calling coming from people on your "side", you get the status quo.
 

Shag from Brookline --

"Lemuel Shaw served for 30 years as CJ of the MA SJC (1830-1860), writing many, many decisions. Shaw abhored slavery but clearly took the position that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (as well as its predecessor) was constitutionally binding in MA. But to his credit, Shaw wrote a critical decision that a non-fugitive slave present in MA had the choice of determining whether or not to be free. His opinion in Commonwealth v. Aves, 35 Mass. 193 (1836) is most interesting."

Thanks for that response Shag.

Yes, I know Shaw was not what he might appear to be in Roberts. I've also read (and probably have somewhere here) Aves.

It is interesting the contradiction between the two cases. The prevailing winds for each were different, for one thing.

And you probably know the more recent history of the Boston efforts: one sees in Roberts both the claims for "local control" of schools -- as is central to that decision: Sarah walked by several all-white schools close to her home in order to go to the furthest-away "coloured-only" school -- and the problem of "local control" (as argued by S. Boston) resulting in segregation.

What is compelling about Roberts, to me, is that this little one, Sarah, is caught up in the middle of a Big People/adult "squabble" that is so petty, and yet so determinative of the destiny of such as Sarah, arguably the most innocent, and yet the most harmed, of all those involved in the case.

It also reminds of that Norman Rockwell painting of the little one in Little Rock in the 1960s.

Most compelling, though, is the persisting dilemma revealed in the history: either substandard segregated schools, or substandard treatment in integrated schools.

And yet at core the issue is only about parents wanting their children adequately and sufficiently educated to be able to compete and "better" themselves along with everyone else. While -- still -- there's the smear that education isn't valued in the African-American community. What a dirty, dirty lie that is.

"I'm not black, but there's a whole lotta times I wish I could say I wasn't white." -- Frank Zappa.
 

"I'm not black, but there's a whole lotta times I wish I could say I wasn't white." -- Frank Zappa.


You call me a racist, and then say I should be ashamed for being white. I'm not going to be ashamed. Nor will I be proud. Because it doesn't matter what color I am. Or at least it shouldn't matter.
 

You seem to be there.

I'm not, Larry. That "cluster" doesn't describe me at all, which is why I haven't expressed those views.

you can't just pretend like the name calling and anger and bitterness and accusations and paranoia coming out of your "side" doesn't matter.

Do you really believe that everyone falls into one of these two camps? And that because I talked about what recent survey research says about voters, I should take some sort of responsibility for what obnoxious people on one "side" have to say?

I think it's slightly more likely that racism is still a problem.

Thank you, Larry. I find that statement quite different from your earlier comments, and whether it's defensible or not, quite reasonable.

What you need to understand is that this result isn't particular to me.

I do understand, Larry, and I appreciate that you're able to put it that way: that these are the views of quite a few people, not just you, and that those views, and where they come from, need to be understood and appreciated. This is also, however, why I pushed you not to make empirical assertions out of frustration with how you've been treated by some people in the past.

When many voters, for instance, say that the race of a candidate would influence how they vote (far more than would have determined most recent presidential elections), it's hard to argue that there aren't significant, if subtle, forms of racial prejudice still at work in American society.

These prejudices, as well as structural barriers to achieving equality once the "playing field" is leveled, may be invisible to many of us in our everyday lives. But they may still be real, and should not be dismissed just because some people you've encountered have exaggerated reality or misused the facts to tar innocent people.
 

Because it doesn't matter what color I am. Or at least it shouldn't matter.

# posted by Larry D'Anna : 3:19 PM

How fortunate for your argument that you're only willing to accept evidence that it doesn't matter.
 

". . . . There's a large cluster of people who think that racism is pretty much over, that affirmative action is just racial discrimination, that we should all just get over this whole issue of race and not pay attention to it anymore, etc. I'm in that cluster."

That's obvious. It's also obvious you want to remain oblivious to the reality that racism is alive and well. And ifnoring evidence entirely not only because you presume it doesn't meet your high standards, but also because you presume that it is -- sight-unseen -- not creidible is not merely bias but bigotry against proofs about which you know nothing, and which you refuse to look at, because you dscredit them -- in your own head -- in advance.

You were born in 1981? In what year was the black man dragged to death -- lynched -- in Texas?

On the other hand, it's good to know that such white supremacists as the KKK, the W/CCC, the Neo-Nazis, the Christian Reconstructionists, et al., no longer exist. So I guess we don't need affirmative action anymore because racism is wrong, as far as white folks are concerned -- except that to which you are determined to be oblivious: that against African-Americans and other people of color.

Here's a proposal: how about leaving affirmative action alone for, say, as long as slavery existed? Just in case you're wrong?

"There's another cluster that thinks there's still plenty of racists around, that it's still a relevant issue, that affirmative action is required to counteract widespread discrimination, etc. You seem to be there."

It's interesting that that "cluster" consists largely of those born before 1981; who actually know what racism looks like, so can't pretend it coesn't exist.

". . . . But the fact is that people on your "side" have a tendency to treat people on my "side" like we're all in the KKK, and it really, really pisses us off."

When you call blacks "paranoid" as concerns racism, you are being an ass, big time. History -- and current events -- show they have every reason to exercise a healthy "paranoia". You are dismissing their experience not as not existing but as irrelevant. And behind that is -- yes -- racism: you don't reject, with equal ferocity and deceit, the uninformed and unfounded concern of white folk over affirmative action.

The bottom line is that, at best, you don't "get it," and you don't give a damn that you don't get, and you don't ever intend to "get it". And your excuse is the claim that racism essentially doesn't exist -- except, of course, that fallsely alleged to be symbolized by affirmative action.

Torture: It isn't about "them," it's about US.

Racism: It isn't about US, it's about "them".

It's oh so easy -- it takes no real effort -- to blame the victim, and to also dismiss any of their claims or objections to being victimized as mere "paranoia" while making every active effort to avoid learning the history that justifies that "paranoia".
 

That's obvious. It's also obvious you want to remain oblivious to the reality that racism is alive and well.


If I were capable of wanting to be oblivious then I already wouldn't be oblivious would I? You seem to be unable to conceive of the notion that someone could honestly disagree with you. It couldn't be that I just find your arguments unconvincing. Obviously I'm a willfully self-deceiving racist.


You were born in 1981? In what year was the black man dragged to death -- lynched -- in Texas?


It's a big country, like I said. Dramatic examples don't prove a trend.



Here's a proposal: how about leaving affirmative action alone for, say, as long as slavery existed? Just in case you're wrong?


Because it's racial discrimination and racial discrimination is wrong. Period.


It's interesting that that "cluster" consists largely of those born before 1981;


God I hope so. If that's true then this issue can die with the generations that are still obsessed with it.


When you call blacks "paranoid" as concerns racism, you are being an ass, big time.


I didn't call blacks paranoid, I called your rhetorical camp paranoid. There are plenty of whites that agree with you.


The bottom line is that, at best, you don't "get it,"


Save your cliches for someone who hasn't heard them. Oh wait. Everyone has heard them.
 

Because it's racial discrimination and racial discrimination is wrong. Period.

What racial discrimination are you talking about? Do you have any evidence that affirmative action is discrimination?

Keep in mind that I'm not going to believe any evidence you tbink you might have.
 

Larry D'Anna --

"I'm not black, but there's a whole lotta times I wish I could say I wasn't white." -- Frank Zappa.

"You call me a racist, and then say I should be ashamed for being white."

Asshole: yes, you are a racist. And the bigger problem about that is that you don't care that you are. You simply don't give a fuck about anyone but yourself.

Nor, asshole, did I say anything about being ashamed of being white. What you should be ashamed of, first, is your intellectual laziness; your anti-intellectualism; your drive to stick your head in the sand, and then use that as the excuse for, "I don't see anything."

Thus, you should be ashamed of your racism.

Perhaps someday you'll actually achieve your chronological age by actually learning to recognize racism, instead of insisting that your blindness is instead a function of objective reality.

"I'm not going to be ashamed. Nor will I be proud."

But you are proud: sufficiently proud to slam affirmative action, about which you actually know nothing not got from TeeVee and nosepapers and non-expert friends who are in mutual agreement with you, as being "racist," while doing all you can to avoid learning why it remains a necessity.

"Because it doesn't matter what color I am. Or at least it shouldn't matter."

Denying that color matters as a means to deny there is racism is yet another form of racism; and it is based in, "Fuck everybody else. All that mateters is me."

Get an education outside your closed comfort zone of denial of realities which exist, but which you adamantly refuse to learn exist. Reread the pardigmatic history I posted re. African-American efforts to get a decent education, against majority opposition, obstruction, and subversion. Then look around you and you'll begin to see that the same reality persists.

And THAT is why there is affirmative action: not because it is racist, but because it is necessary to kick down the racist doors in order that those outside that door be allowed into full citizenship in this country.

Racism didn't end in the 1960s -- it only became more prominent as being the reality. Ever since Reagan -- the beginning of the backlash against the civil rights movement, and the advances in civil rights law -- there has been a persistent and increasing attack against civil rights laws. LOOK at the actions of such as van Spakowski of the Bushit gang. LOOK at how the purpose of the DOJ's Civil Rights division has been reversed in order to re-establish white dominance, and increasingly expunge non-whites from lily-white society, and especially governance.

And voting: LOOK at the efforts in numerous states to disenfranchise people of color. THOSE ARE RACISM -- except they can't be -- correct? -- so long as you gain by them/and or others than you lose by them.

READ the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- which was necesssary then, and remains necessary -- then look around you at the efforts to undermine and negate that.

Racism isn't only acting on racist views; it is being passive -- doing nothing -- against such actions. And those actions are going on right under your nose, and they have intensified, exponentially, since Reagan. That you intentionally avoid the issue, and remain incapable of seeing it, does not mean racism doesn't exist.
It's as alive and well as all the race-based disenfranchisement efforts going on right now across the country.

Racism: it isn't about US, it's about "them".
 

JNagarya: you think that sort of bile is going to change anyone's mind? What do you want, to convince people or throw a childish tantrum?
 

Larry, how is your search for evidence that "affirmative action is discrimination" coming along?
 

bartbuster:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Aaffirmative+action&btnG=Search
 

Larry, I'm not going to do your work for you, and then ignore it. I want to ignore the evidence you find.

You don't expect me to change my own mind for you, do you?
 

For craps sake bartbuster I think you've made your point. You think I'm unreasonable not weigh Jame's claim-of-evidence as if it were direct evidence. Fine. But tell me, how do you distinguish between experts you can trust and experts you can't? Are you really claiming this isn't a real issue?
 

You think I'm unreasonable not weigh Jame's claim-of-evidence as if it were direct evidence.

# posted by Larry D'Anna : 4:35 PM

It isn't just James' "claim-of-evidence", you appear to believe there isn't ANY evidence of racial discrimination.

In fact, there appears to be a lot of evidence of racial discrimination. If you want do dispute that evidence, you should probably have some evidence that supports your view.
 

In fact, there appears to be a lot of evidence of racial discrimination. If you want do dispute that evidence, you should probably have some evidence that supports your view.


I'm less concerned with convincing you, as with explaining why you haven't convinced me. I think I'm fairly representative of the "what's the point" attitude that the original post referred to. Frankly I think we're in the majority and it's you that needs to convince us.


We hear the same tired arguments that have failed to convince us in the past repeated as if they were great rhetorical triumphs. And when we remain unconvinced we are subjected to vile temper tantrums like JNagarya's comment, or like the Rev. Wright speech that's now so famous. I just want to convince you that we aren't racists, we aren't willfully deceiving ourselves, we aren't anti-intellectual, etc. We simply disagree with you about the facts. If I could even get that far maybe I'd try to argue that racism is largely over.
 

I'm less concerned with convincing you, as with explaining why you haven't convinced me. I think I'm fairly representative of the "what's the point" attitude that the original post referred to. Frankly I think we're in the majority and it's you that needs to convince us.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I'm just pointing out that when you get into an argument about race, and the other person points out some evidence that supports their position, you might want to have some evidence that supports your position. If you don't have any evidence, and your only resonse is to say that "I'm not going to accept any evidence" which counters your view of racial equality, you should not get terribly upset when the person with all the supporting evidence calls you a racist scumbag, because that is exactly what you appear to be.

We hear the same tired arguments

As opposed to your "hear no evil, see no evil" argument?

I just want to convince you that we aren't racists

You're doing a piss poor job. Maybe if you had some evidence that I could ignore...
 

I can only dimly imagine the frustration I would feel if I thought that a conversation on race relations would make a material improvement in my life or the lives of my fellow citizens but it turned out there was no one interested in sitting down on the other side of the table.


Stepen if you've reading the comments then you should understand now why no one is interested in sitting down on the other side of the table. It's because no one appreciates being called:

racist

anti-intellectual

asshole

scumbag

willfully oblivious

"Fuck everybody else. All that mateters is me."

bully
 

Larry D'Anna --

"JNagarya: you think that sort of bile is going to change anyone's mind? What do you want, to convince people or throw a childish tantrum?"

The history of separate but equal I posted is not "bile". You reject it anyway because it DOESN'T ADVERSELY AFFECT YOU.

Otherwise, tell it to the lynchee in TX that his lynching wasn't a "trend".
 

The history of separate but equal I posted is not "bile". You reject it anyway because it DOESN'T ADVERSELY AFFECT YOU.


Obviously I was referring to the personal insults you directed towards me, not anything about history.


Otherwise, tell it to the lynchee in TX that his lynching wasn't a "trend".


nice appeal-to-emotion there.

I think I've proved my point: You can't sit down and discuss race without resorting to name-calling, insults, ad hominem, appeals-to-authority and appeals-to-emotion. You, wcw, and bartbuster are acting like spoiled children who didn't get their way and I am done speaking to you as if you were adults.
 

Larry D'Anna --

I can only dimly imagine the frustration I would feel if I thought that a conversation on race relations would make a material improvement in my life or the lives of my fellow citizens but it turned out there was no one interested in sitting down on the other side of the table.

"Stepen if you've reading the comments then you should understand now why no one is interested in sitting down on the other side of the table. It's because no one appreciates being called:

"racist"

When one walks, talks, and quacks like a racist, one is properly called racist.

"anti-intellectual"

You demand evidence that you insist doesn't exist; then when it is provided to you, you refuse to look at it because there can't be evidence for that which you insist doesn't exist.

"asshole"

Self-explanatory.

"scumbag"

Well?

"willfully oblivious"

You demand evidence for that which you insist doesn't exist; then when the evidence is provided, you refuse to look at it because it can't exist because that it proves can't exist.

"Fuck everybody else. All that matters is me."

That sure as hell is how your smug ass comes across.

"bully"

When James attempted being polite with you, you told him -- and everyone else here -- that you aren't interested in any evidence that supports his contention. You will demand it -- but then will expressly refuse to look at it.

You essentially told him to go fuck himself.

Since those are terms you understand, we speak to you in those terms.

Get it through your thick skull: the attacks on affirmative action as being "racist" were begun by RACISTS. And those attacks began BEFORE there was affirmative action.

The same racists attacked the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Why? Because more blacks might get elected, and thus finally be able to sit at their rightful place at the table, and thus particpate in setting policy.

Those same racists continue to attack the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

But none of that affects you, so it isn't happening, doesn't exist. You frankly don't give a fuck.

They haven't a legitimate argument because, just like you, they deny racism exists, and then when they are forced to admit it does, they refuse to allow anything to be done which might resolve it.

They piously agree that segregation is wrong, and strenuously deny it exists, while simultaneously doing everything they can to prevent integration.

It's as we heard it from Brett: the African-American community is at fault for the consequences, for them, of slavery. They have to "fix" it themselves because those who stuffed them into that cage aren't responsible for stuffing them into that cage.

And idjits such as you come along and whine about hearing "the same old lines" without bothering to "get it" that they aren't "lines": they are facts that persist because assholes exactly like you reject out of hand as "lines" realities which you deny exist, then demand proof that they exist, then refuse to look at the proof because racism doesn't exist therefore there can't be any proof that it does.

Intellectually dishonest.

Asshole.

Racism: It isn't about US, it's about "them".

Racism: It isn't about US, it's about affirmative action.

Why not just repeat one of Reagan's lines against affirmative action: tell blacks to pull themselves up by their own bootstrips while making it illegal for blacks to possess bootstraps.

And then nail the lid back down over the problem by accusing blacks of wasting their money instead of buying bootstraps you damned well know it is illegal for them to possess.
 

Larry D'Anna --

The history of separate but equal I posted is not "bile". You reject it anyway because it DOESN'T ADVERSELY AFFECT YOU.

"Obviously I was referring to the personal insults you directed towards me, not anything about history."

1. Until you understand it personally, you'll continue to insist it has nothing to do with you -- it's all about tiresome "lines".

2. I really enjoyed your lengthy exegesis on that article, and the central dilemma it illuminates, and which remains the reality IN THE PRESENT.

Otherwise, tell it to the lynchee in TX that his lynching wasn't a "trend".

"nice appeal-to-emotion there."

It was you who rejected the fact of that man's death-by-lynching as irrelevant because not a "trend".

Was that not an appeal-to-emotion? Or was it simply irrational-but-smug racism? "What's the point" of calling attention to it? -- it doesn't affect me. YAWN.

"I think I've proved my point: You can't sit down and discuss race without resorting to name-calling, insults, ad hominem, appeals-to-authority and appeals-to-emotion."

Calling a bigot a bigot is the most effective way to identify a bigot.

"You, wcw, and bartbuster are acting like spoiled children who didn't get their way and I am done speaking to you as if you were adults."

You have yet to deal with these issues as would an adult. You have demanded evidence, then when provided it refused to look at it, insisting it doesn't prove what the offeree says because that it would prove doesn't exist.

But, what the hell, we sure are lucky that you ain't a racist, else the TX lynchee might have been relevant even though his 100 per cent death wasn't sufficient to qualify/quantify as being a trend.

What's a few non-trend lynchings, so long as it keeps them darkies in line sufficiently that they stop repeating all their tiresome, paranoid "lines".
 

"It's as we heard it from Brett: the African-American community is at fault for the consequences, for them, of slavery. They have to "fix" it themselves because those who stuffed them into that cage aren't responsible for stuffing them into that cage."

But that's just it: They're NOT in a cage. They're in a culture. Cages are hard to escape from, cultures are hard to decide to escape from, big difference, VERY big difference. Somebody trapped in a cage might need outside help to get out, what somebody trapped in a culture needs is to realize that they should get out.

You don't help somebody trapped in a dysfunctional culture to escape it by encouraging them to blame somebody else for their woes.

And, yes, I'm aware that this dysfunctional culture is a result of past racism, (And the "Great Society", too, which urban blacks were disproportionately positioned to be damaged by.) in fact, it's a large part of how oft complained of "legacy of racism" perpetuates itself.

But if we don't recognize this, and encourage blacks to abandon rather than treasure this culture, all we're doing, no matter how benign the motive, is perpetuating and strengthening that legacy. How else do you think measures like single motherhood keep getting worse long after the civil rights movement hits it's stride? That "legacy" isn't just lingering, it's compounding!

You do blacks no favor, no favor at all, by encouraging them to look to whites for the solution to their problems, when the proximate cause of those problems, no matter what the ultimate cause might be, is to be found in their own behavior patterns and attitudes.
 

Brett --

"It's as we heard it from Brett: the African-American community is at fault for the consequences, for them, of slavery. They have to "fix" it themselves because those who stuffed them into that cage aren't responsible for stuffing them into that cage."

"But that's just it: They're NOT in a cage."

Yes, they are.

"They're in a culture. Cages are hard to escape from, cultures are hard to decide to escape from, big difference, VERY big difference."

Distinction without a difference -- especially as long as white racists insist on putting all blame, all responsibility onto the subjecgated.

"Somebody trapped in a cage might need outside help to get out, what somebody trapped in a culture needs is to realize that they should get out."

Again, a distinction without a difference. The drive to "get out" may be there, but the door through which to walk to get out is locked from the outside.

I know because I've been there.

"You don't help somebody trapped in a dysfunctional culture to escape it by encouraging them to blame somebody else for their woes."

You help others by accepting your part of the responsibility for the situation. You perpetuate by pretending that the white culture is not dysfuntional -- and thus is in a position to be lecturing the still-inferior-to-whites.

Whites creasted slavery on this continent -- not the African-Americans who were brught here involuntarily. Whites held them in slavery, made it illegal for them to learn to read -- the slaves didn't do that. Now, though, it -- yet again as always -- all their fault. Whites have no responsibility for enforcing a culture largely white-made which it than bashes as being "dysfuntional".

"And, yes, I'm aware that this dysfunctional culture is a result of past racism,"

But not past SLAVERY and CURRENT racsim?

"(And the "Great Society", too, which urban blacks were disproportionately positioned to be damaged by.)"

The "Great Society" damaged no one -- though it did allow some few to escape the econommic concentration camps euphemically called "ghettos". And that scared hell out of whitey.

"in fact, it's a large part of how oft complained of "legacy of racism" perpetuates itself."

I see: only blacks are racist, and it's wholly unjustified.

"But if we don't recognize this, and encourage blacks to abandon rather than treasure this culture, all we're doing, no matter how benign the motive, is perpetuating and strengthening that legacy."

Who the hell are you, whitey, to be prescribing for others -- especially those others are those you enslaved, upon whom imposed your decisions as to culture, such as absolute denial of education, who you then lie against about not eppreciating education!?

"How else do you think measures like single motherhood keep getting worse long after the civil rights movement hits it's stride?"

There are more unwed mothers who are white. Tend to your own dysfunction/anti-education/welfare problem, whitey.

"That "legacy" isn't just lingering, it's compounding!"

That "legacy" was generated by whitey.

"You do blacks no favor, no favor at all, by encouraging them to look to whites for the solution to their problems, when the proximate cause of those problems, no matter what the ultimate cause might be, is to be found in their own behavior patterns and attitudes."

You do blacks no favor by patronizingly lecturing them, while at the same time washing your hands of the situation you yourself created, and all along have blamed them for.

The "anti-eductaion" lie you spew, if it has any truth, is leads driectly back to the denial of education to blacks by whitey.

But I suggest you check yourself out, whitey: there are more illiterate, anti-education, dysfunctional whites, and on welfare too, than there are blacks.

The only difference between the "two" cultures is that of RACE. And that is the difference you focus on as excuse to ignore that whitey got his own exact same problem, only larger.

As the history of separate but equal I posted demonstrates, every effort by blacks to do that you lecture them that they must do has been opposed, obstructed, and subverted all along -- and continues to be. Especially by do-gooder whiteys who say, "You're culture is fucked up. We have a share of the responsibility for that -- but tough shit: you're on your own. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps -- but don't you dare let me catch you in possession of bootstraps."
 

When someone brags that he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps, I immediately check his face, particularly his nose, to focus upon the obvious damage that would have resulted if he had actually done so. Many if not most of us have been subsidized to a certain, perhaps great, extent, although we might be reluctant to admit it (and I'm not talking affirmative action).

Remember the movie "Watermelon Man" with Godfrey Cambridge? Remember Louis Armstrong's rendition of "Black and Blue"? I go back to 1930 in the Boston area where I still reside. It's not as bad as it used to be. But it's still there. Listen to what many black athletes have said about Boston. Yes, it's getting better. We've got the Red Sox, NE Patriots and the Celtics are back, all with lots of color, and the fans cheer them on when they win. But, the roots are still there. Yes, it's getting better. But there is plenty of room for improvement. If you stick your head in the sand, you won't see what's around you.
 

I think JN has amply demonstrated why the 'national conversation' doesn't happen. As I've said before, you can't have a "conversation", if it's predetermined that one side has to agree with the other, or be demonized.

It's just not worth the price to engage in the 'conversation', when it isn't OUR problems that the conversation needs to be about.
 

Brett --

"I think JN has amply demonstrated why the 'national conversation' doesn't happen."

The reverse is the fact: there is one race in this country: human.

You, and your fellow racists, insist there are two: on one hand, the saintly ex-slaver whitey, and on the other the disfunctional darky which has got to cure itself of the disfunctions of slavery imposed upon it because even though whitey imposed it, whitey didn't impose it.

"As I've said before, you can't have a "conversation", if it's predetermined that one side has to agree with the other, or be demonized."

It isn't about being "predetermined that one side has to agree with the other." It is about whitey ceasing to point its finger away from itself and blaming ITS victim.

If you can't accept your fucking role -- and therefore responsibility -- in the realities of racism, its origins and perpetuations -- then you are damned inistent upon being racist through and through and lying your teeth loose about it.

"It's just not worth the price to engage in the 'conversation', when it isn't OUR problems that the conversation needs to be about."

"OUR problems," ASS are "OURS" -- not "USn's" OR "THERE'ns"!

You insist on one hand, that we are one country, And at the same time, insist upon denying that either you are not part of the country, or "they" are not part of the country. In NO WAY are you going to accept the reality, and reaponsiblity, for picking up your end of log that is in YOUR eye.

And that, asshole, is as blatantly rasist as one can be. Everything is the ex-slaves' fault and responsibility; the ex-slaver never had and does not
now bear any responsibility for any of it.

Take a break and go starch your pope's hat. Just be certain never to wear colored sheets, because that may be mistaken for an acceptance of responsibility which belongs to YOU (also).

When education was "separate but equal," blacks had shit schools -- and that was only and entirely the fault of blacks, not only because they aren't interested in getting an education, but because it was their own damned fault for being black.

And when schools were finally integrated, blacks were treated like shit because it was their own damned fault for being black.

Whitey ain't responsible for any of it; why, all along, all he's done is mind his own business, sittin' back on his veranda sippin' mint juleps. Whitey ain't even responsibility for his own responsibilities.
 

Shag from Brookline --

"When someone brags that he pulled himself up by his own bootstraps, I immediately check his face, particularly his nose, to focus upon the obvious damage that would have resulted if he had actually done so. Many if not most of us have been subsidized to a certain, perhaps great, extent, although we might be reluctant to admit it (and I'm not talking affirmative action)."

I'm not black, so didn't have affirmative action. I only, alas, got scholarships based upon need that I didn't have to repay.

But I had to fill out the financial aid forms myself. Doesn't that qualify as pulling myself up by my own bootstraps? How about if I thorwn in that I had to set my own alarm clock, and drag myself out of bed to get to class after being up all night cramming?

No?

How about if I admit that I was so poor the bootstraps weren't actually mine but instead were borrowed from a roommate?

No?

They were stolen?

"Remember the movie "Watermelon Man" with Godfrey Cambridge? Remember Louis Armstrong's rendition of "Black and Blue"?"

Yes. And I have a half dozen Dick Gregory CDs, originally heard when first released on vinyl.

"I go back to 1930 in the Boston area where I still reside. It's not as bad as it used to be. But it's still there. Listen to what many black athletes have said about Boston. Yes, it's getting better. We've got the Red Sox, NE Patriots and the Celtics are back, all with lots of color, and the fans cheer them on when they win. But, the roots are still there. Yes, it's getting better. But there is plenty of room for improvement. If you stick your head in the sand, you won't see what's around you."

All true. In 1976 a photograph on the "Boston Globe"'s front page won a Pulitzer. The one with the racist with an American flag, on staff, using it as if a spear to jab an uncivilized integrationist.

1976 ain't that long ago.

And between then and now, a black undercover cop was shot by a fellow Boston police officer -- in the back.

But there ain't no racism. Nope. Nuh-ah. And if there is, it all comes from blacks: the white cop didn't shoot the black in the back; the black magically sucked the bullet out of the white cop's gun, then turned 'round real fast so it would hit him in the back, so he'd have an excuse to repeat a tiresome "line" about RACISM!

I's easy to "mistake" and ostrich for that it makes most prominent: an ass.
 

It's late, but I didn't check this on the weekend. This is in response to JNagarya.

First, in response to my sentiment that we are all hotwired to fear the 'other' in some fashion, JN noted:

One of the most despicable means of avoiding the issue is to revert to "We/I haven't any choice, and have no control over myself, because we/I are all, after all animals."

It would have helped some, I think, if JN also quoted my follow-up point:

"one purpose of society and our thinking brains is to get past such things as best as we can"

Since I said that EVERYONE should not get a pass, I clearly should not be thought to imply that "whites" get a pass but not blacks etc.

Furthermore, though we are still "animals" in some fashion (only underlined more these days, see support of mindless revenge), my point was that society and our rational brains must fight past such base urges.

"Get past" doesn't mean "ignore" or "justify" because we are animals. My rejection of prejudice from "disadvantaged" people underlines I don't wish to justify that from anyone.

JN quotes my thanking people here for the conversation and then suggests very nice, but we still are ignoring specifics ... I myself thanked someone for citing Moyers interview.

Did he not have any specifics? Is Obama and Wright not specific? Arne cited racist political moves. Not specific? etc.

Next post, JN is more annoyed at me.

Mmm. Whites are expert in discerning delusion -- in others.

This is in response to my argument that it is "deluded" for "disadvantaged (or some better term)" to think they cannot be prejudiced in some ways.

Some of my ancestors were in effect starved in Britian. I'm part Irish. Only blacks can be disadvantaged? What about homophobic or sexist blacks? Are they not "disadvantaged?" What about those who think all whites are "devils?" MLK rejected that path. Come on.

"Who lynched who?"

Thus, when a black man is homophobic or opposes his/her child marrying a white, since they are all devils, not prejudiced, since they were oppressed. [This is an extreme case, but less extreme cases can be imagined.]

Oppressed people oppress others all the time. Rwanda is a core example -- the massacre was in part a result of historical oppression and elitism. They still can have biases and blind spots. Oppression doesn't suddenly make people saints.

especially if we interminably make excuses against doing anything, and for affirmatively perpetuating the status quo.

Since you responded to me, this might be deemed addressed to me. It would be wrong if it was. Again, you might have quoted my comment about "thinking" as contrast to our "animal" side. It was in counterpoint and quoting or responding to half is misleading.

Torture: It isn't about "them," it's about US.

Racism: It isn't about US, it's about "them".

again, responding to me, even if making some general pt. This is a leap from my sentiment that disadvantaged people (even white males count sometimes, as shown by homosexuals or various other group, including those in poverty) can be prejudiced too.

Both are about US. I'm for equality. This includes realizing we all have imperfections. If I can't voice such a thing, I better not be on a jury or vote. After all, what do I know about the limitations of the views and actions of other races or sexes?

How dare I even mention the fact! I'm just blaming the victim. The response to my alleged whatever (racism?) doesn't seemed deserved from my comments esp. given my past comments (JN is familiar with my leanings overall ... I should be given more benefit of the doubt at best) ... and seems to underline the pt some make about the conversation.

Maybe specifics can't be handled if first principles necessary to deal with them are so hard to come by?
 

"Furthermore, though we are still 'animals' in some fashion (only underlined more these days, see support of mindless revenge), my point was that society and our rational brains must fight past such base urges."

Take a look at Mark Twain's posthumously published "Letters from the Earth" for his comparisons of man (humankind) with the rest of the animal kingdom.
 

"You, and your fellow racists, insist there are two: on one hand, the saintly ex-slaver whitey, and on the other the disfunctional darky which has got to cure itself of the disfunctions of slavery imposed upon it because even though whitey imposed it, whitey didn't impose it."

That's very revealing, JN. Apparently I get to be an "ex-slaver whitey", without having to live in a state where slavery was legal, without any of my ancestors having even lived in this country at a time when slavery was legal.

Indeed, in your eyes, I get to be an "ex-slaver" without having any connection to slavery AT ALL, save my skin color. Remind me, who's supposed to be the racist here?
 

I just printed John B. Judis' May 28, 2008, The New Republic article titled "The Big Race, Obama and the psychology of the color barrier" with references to several articles that might be of interest to commenters. Here's a tease: "If you were born before 1970 or if you read public-opinion polls, then you cannot doubt the profound transformation wrought by the civil rights era." What does this suggest as to those born after 1970?
 

You can't sit down and discuss race without resorting to name-calling, insults, ad hominem, appeals-to-authority and appeals-to-emotion. You, wcw, and bartbuster are acting like spoiled children who didn't get their way and I am done speaking to you as if you were adults.

# posted by Larry D'Anna : 6:13 PM

Larry, you didn't come here to discuss anything. You basically said, "I don't believe this country has a problem with racism, and there is no possible way for you to convince me there is a problem".

That isn't speaking to people like an adult. The average 5 year old is more mature than that. And you got the exact reaction you were hoping you'd get.
 

Brett --

"You, and your fellow racists, insist there are two: on one hand, the saintly ex-slaver whitey, and on the other the disfunctional darky which has got to cure itself of the disfunctions of slavery imposed upon it because even though whitey imposed it, whitey didn't impose it."

"That's very revealing, JN."

As is your distortion of it:

"Apparently I get to be an "ex-slaver whitey", without having to live in a state where slavery was legal, without any of my ancestors having even lived in this country at a time when slavery was legal."

"Slavery in the South is tied to the North by a thin white thread." -- Emerson. (He was referring to the fact that Southern cotton was processed in Northern textile mills, many of which were in Massachusetts.)

I've posted not only a history of the facts of "separate but equal" in the North -- it was established as precedent in Massachusetts, even as Massachusetts prohibited slaverly in 1783, three years after ratification of its constititution, and even though -- and in response to which -- very shortly after that prohibition the African-American community began seeking access to a decent education because it knew education to be essential to the ability to compete and advance oneself.

When you assert that the "disfunction" in the black community is the result -- yes -- of racism, but omit the "slavery" part, and in addition wash your hands of any and all responsibility for that "disfunction," because it is wholly and only the responsibility of that culture to "fix" itself, because at the same time as the racism (and the omitted slavery-part) the white culture had nothing to do with it, you are making exactly the same sorts of assertions made by the ex-slavers I noted upthread:

"We inherited the virtues of our ancestors' tradition, who fought and died for this country, all the way back to the "revolution" [no mention of the fact that African-Americans also fought and died in the "revolution"]. That makes us "true [traditional] Americans".

But if you bring up the fact that those ancestors, those traditions, are inextricably entwined also with slavery, then change he story: "I wasn't alive then, so had nothing to do with it. We are in the present. Move on already."

Right: you inherited the virtues -- but not the whole of the truth -- of your ancestors' "tradition" as "true Americans".

As said: every culture is racist; everyone in every culture is encultured with racism before they know to reject it. That being a given, everyone is racist -- which eliminates the option of denying a role in it. And it is not an honest option to immediately avoid the issue by accusing whichever the oppressed minority victim/s of also being racist. Or -- despicably -- calling the complaints by minorities against the continuing racism "paranoid".

"Indeed, in your eyes, I get to be an "ex-slaver" without having any connection to slavery AT ALL, save my skin color."

See above.

And let's not forget your racist "tradition" of expressly smearing, in this thread, the black community as having no interest in education, wholly contrary to which is the long and exceedingly non-disfuntional history of that commmunity's struggle to get exactly that against all opposition from the "true American" white majority who boasts of all its inherited traditional "virtues," but falsely denies its inherited traditional sins.

"Remind me, who's supposed to be the racist here?"

I don't suppose: I see your racism. Problem is, as others than myself have also noted: if you don't know what racism is, what it looks like, then you won't recognize it as being that even when right under your nose -- even when coming coming out of the mouth that is right under your nose.

I note you've made no comment whatsoever about the actual history of the exceedingly strenuous efforts of the African-American community to get the very least of necessities -- a decent eductation -- against the heart-, mind-, and spirit-breaking dilemma of either being relegated to substandard segregated schools, or being denigrated in integrated schools.

Have you any proposed solution to that dilemma other than to avoid the issue altogether, and then substitute therefor wholesale blaming of the victim for their multifaceted entrapment by a whitey culture that both doesn't give a damn, and continues to reinforce the dilemma and "disfunction," while all along pretending -- especially to itself -- that it has no responsibility for any of that?

And then the one promising route out of that dilemma, affirmative action, is smeared as being "racist". Right: unlocking the door from your side of it so African-Americans -- who have fought and died, faithfully, and in good faith, in every American war, for freedom, justice, and the American way -- can finally get into the room and sit at their inherent-right and earned place at the table is "racist".

How stupid can you pro-education whiteys get -- or pretend to be? Your deliberate division between "you" and "them" -- your separating yourself off from "them" -- also simultaneously sets "them" off from you.

On one hand you insist there are two different cultures, one white and wholly innocent, one black, "disfunctional," and "racist". On the other, you slam Rev. Wright for stating that there are two cultures because that means he is "racist".

Anything to avoid the issue: we are all in the same boat, but you insist there are two boats, and you ain't responsible for anything concerning the other one, and that that view ain't racist, but that Rev. Right's pointing to their being two boats is "racist".

Only whitey can have it both ways.
_____

Whitey on the Moon

A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
I can't pay no doctor bill.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Ten years from now I'll be payin' still.
(while Whitey's on the moon)
The man jus' upped my rent las' night.
(cause Whitey's on the moon)
No hot water, no toilets, no lights.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
I wonder why he uppin' me?
(cause Whitey's on the moon?)
I wuz already payin' 'im fifty a week.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Taxes takin' my whole damn check,
Junkies make me a nervous wreck,
The price of food is goin' up,
An' as if all that crap wuzn't enough:
A rat done bit my sister Nell.
(with Whitey on the moon)
Her face and arms began to swell.
(but Whitey's on the moon)
Was all that money I made las' year?
(for Whitey on the moon?)
How come there ain't no money here?
(Hmm! Whitey's on the moon)
Y'know I jus' 'bout had my fill
(of Whitey on the moon)
I think I'll sen' these doctor bills
(To Whitey on the moon)
 

I am done speaking to you as if you were adults.

# posted by Larry D'Anna : 6:13 PM


Larry, at what point did you actually think you were speaking to anyone as if they were an adult? Was it when you admitted that no one could possibly meet the level of proof that you were demanding?
 

Citation:

"Whitey on the Moon," So Far, So Good (Chicago, IL: Third World Press, paper, 1990), Gil Scott-Heron, Introduction by Haki R. Madhubuti, Afterword by Dr. Joyce Joyce, at 42.

Some here may recall his "The Revolution Will Not be Televised".

Also recommended: "Middle Passage," in (among others) Collected Poems (NY: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc., Liveright Publishing Corporation, paper, 1996), Robert Hayden, Edited by Frederik Glaysher, Introduction by Arnold Rampersad, at 48.
 

Shag from Brookline --

I just printed John B. Judis' May 28, 2008, The New Republic article titled "The Big Race, Obama and the psychology of the color barrier" with references to several articles that might be of interest to commenters. Here's a tease: "If you were born before 1970 or if you read public-opinion polls, then you cannot doubt the profound transformation wrought by the civil rights era." What does this suggest as to those born after 1970?

That the author was born after 1970. The "profound transformation," beginning with the 1964 Civil Rights Act, was the slow construction, Federally, of civil rights-enforcement infrastructure, and based upon that Act, the enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and, subsequently, of several prohibitions against discrimination on other grounds, including such as disability -- in 1973 -- and sexual orientation.

At best, those had barely got off the ground, when the continuing backlash against those "gains" -- three most prominent elements being the assassinations of Medgar Evers, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Bobby Kennedy -- continued, beyond those escalations, and took power with Reagan.

Barely got off the ground:

When I was in junior high school -- in the North -- in the early 1960s, there was what was called "Special Class". It was the class in which were placed the "retarded". In that class were some 40-45 pupils, of which only some 3-4 were white.

What are the demographic chances that ratio was correct?

Ah, but thankfully, along came the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which "cured" all that. So, in 1997-98, while dealing with a separate issue, I had conversation with a cop, of my age, from that city. During the conversation he struggled to communicate the location of a particular park in the city, finally saying: "You know, near the 'black section'".

Mmm. There was a "black section" before the 1964 Civil Rights Act was enacted. And according to his statement, there still is.

Then, having to deal with an issue of discrimination with that city's gov't, I requested copies of their anti-discrimination complaint procedures -- which procedures are mandated by each of the several anti-discrimination statutes, Federal and state. The response:

"They're still under development."

After thirty years of a "profound transformation in civil rights," that city had yet to actually complete the "development," of those procedures, which of course must be accomplished before they could actually be implemented . . .

Disability discrimination enforcement, as example, with which I have long had concern (I have a brother with brain damage), and with which decades of direct hands-on experience, has never got beyond "observable physical diability," even among the professional advocates, to the issues of hidden disabilities, and -- most central -- the attitudinal, by which latter means disability is attributed, even if there is none -- that also being prohibited; and which is actually the core issue behind all (disability) discrimination.

Not to put too fine a point on it: even professional "disability rights" advocates don't comprehend that the law prohibiting disability discrimination prohibits discrimination; it does not (and obviously cannot) require that the person subjected to such discrimination be "otherwise disabled". (I.e., the law prohibiting disability discrimination is spot-on prescient: the discrimination itself is disabling -- or, as Brett might say if honest, "disfuntionalizing". To which he would attach the acusation that the victim of the discrimination is responsible for the "disfuntionalization," and thus -- by extension -- for the [non-existent] discrimination causing it.)

With Reagan -- only five years after the enactment of the prohibition against disability discrimination -- began the rapid deconstruction of the Federal civil rights enforcement infrastructure that had slowly been constructed.

That "profound transformation in civil rights" has been such that today, we learn that the DOJ's own "Voting Rights" unit, which is assigned the responsibility of enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, under Bushit has not only been taken over by racists, who have not only been subverting that statutory mandate, but also in fact reversing the "enforcement" of it by urging enactment of laws intended to disenfranchise those the Act is intended instead to protect.

And yet we're told by those who know nothing about the history that there are "only a few" racists, and that racism "is no longer" an issue. And that one of the very few remedies implemented to counter the racism and race-based exclusion, affirmative action, is "racist" -- by those who are "color blind" despite their objection to it being overtly based upon racial color.

All of that being encoded racist double-talk initiated by racists.

And besides, it is "non-racist" to be "pure" -- to oppose "ALL" "race-based" laws. Let's not notice or mention that "ALL" includes 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution; let's pretend "ALL" applies only to [absolutely all] legislation which happens to implement and enforce the 14th Amendment. That the 14th Amendment is fine with "me" -- so long as it remains a dead letter.

There are three "clusters" of people for whom racism isn't a problem because it has all "gone away": those who are racist; those who are utterly ignorant of the history, and what racism looks and sounds like; and the majority of whiteys who wash their hands of any part in either the racism or the perpetuation of it or the resolution of it by blaming all of it on the victim.

Thus when the issue arises their first response is: "What about [whimper] 'THEM'"!? And thereafter innumerable variations on that avoidance of the issue by perpetuating the blaming of the victim, and thereby maintaining the intolerant and intolerable status quo.
 

"When you assert that the "disfunction" in the black community is the result -- yes -- of racism, but omit the "slavery" part, and in addition wash your hands of any and all responsibility for that "disfunction," because it is wholly and only the responsibility of that culture to "fix" itself,"

I wash my hands of any and all responsibility for that dysfunction because,

I. Did. Not. Have. Anything. To. Do. With. It.

Got that? I've got enough sins of my own to regret, I flatly and categorically refuse to take on the sins of others. And not only reject, but despise, any suggestion that I'm responsible for the wrongs committed by somebody else's ancestors, somewhere else, just because I happen to have roughly the same complexion as they.

Hell, Obama probably has more recent slave owning relatives than I do.

The only way you can pretend to saddle the children of immigrants with the sins of long dead non-relatives is by a kind of racial collective guilt which if ever taken seriously by the general population would be utterly poisonous in it's implications for society.

Blacks must deal with the dysfunctionality of their own culture, not because they're responsible for the creation of that culture, (The culprits are, for the most part, long dead.) but because they're the only people in a position to do anything about it.

Think that's unjust? Get over it, life is often that way.
 

Is the "one drop" rule Black Letter Law? (Why not "White Letter Law"?) Is it a matter of contamination? Or should sauce for the goose be sauce for the gander? How does the Constitution come into play on this? I recall that in a South American country, one drop of "white" blood rules the person white. Now if only there were a test for determining 100% Anglo-Saxon.
 

At Mary Dudziak's Legal History Blog there is an abstract of a recent article by Darren Leonard Hutchinson titled "Racial Exhaustion" that might add to the discussion.
 

Brett engages in yet another racist dodge --

"The only way you can pretend to saddle the children of immigrants with the sins of long dead non-relatives is by a kind of racial collective guilt which if ever taken seriously by the general population would be utterly poisonous in it's implications for society."

1. There s a history of slavery and racism in this country.

2. The effects of that history and culture -- as I''ve reaptedly pointed out, and hyave documented re. "separate but equal" -- continue in the present.

You're either a hermit -- which isn't possible for any member of society -- or you are part of this countries society. You have responsiblities as a citizen in addition to the freedom to assert freedom from responsibility.

This country is one boat. You assert that there are two cultures -- but that that isn't racist, except when a black such as Rev. Wright does it.

You can't have it both ways" one culture or two, we are all in the same boat.

Except that you command the front of it, yet assert that you aren't responsible for the back of it.

"Blacks must deal with the dysfunctionality of their own culture, not because they're responsible for the creation of that culture, (The culprits are, for the most part, long dead.) but because they're the only people in a position to do anything about it."

ASS: AGAIN: the perpetuation of that "dysfuntion" is aided and abetted -- enforced, in fact -- by the larger culture of which YOU are part. If that were not the fact, ass, there wouldn't be attacks by whites on affirmative action, which is intended as a small means to bridge the gap from the "dysfuntional" -- your smear -- to the falsely-alleged non-"dysfuntional" white majority culture.

"Think that's unjust? Get over it, life is often that way."

There is a cure for the "dysfunction" that is sustained by the racism: eliminate the racism -- beginning with YOURSELF. Your "you go first -- and only" strategy is racist horseshit which expressly ignores reality, and all evidence you don't like that the majority, not the minority, sets the social agenda for all in it.
 

HD kaliteli porno izle ve boşal.
Bayan porno izleme sitesi.
Bedava ve ücretsiz porno izle size gelsin.
Liseli kızların Bedava Porno ve Türbanlı ateşli hatunların sikiş filmlerini izle.
Siyah karanlık odada porno yapan evli çift.
harika Duvar Kağıtları bunlar
tamamen ithal duvar kağıdı olanlar var
2013 Beyaz Eşya modeller
Sizlere Güvenlik Sistemleri ayarliyoruz
Arayin Hırdavat bulun
Samsung Nokia İphone Cep telefonu alin.
Super Led Tv keyfi